Cryptopolitan

A fresh 12.5% tariff threat hangs over U.S.-India trade talks as Donald Trump prepares to meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the G7 summit in France. The two leaders will discuss the deal, but Washington does not expect signatures during the gathering.
Negotiations will continue after the summit, when U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer travels to India for another session.
The summit will run from June 15 to June 17 in Evian-les-Bains. Trump will attend with leaders from major industrial economies, while India will send a high-level delegation. A U.S. official allegedly said Modi wants a larger global role for India and considers close ties with Washington part of that goal.
According to Reuters, the official said Trump will accept only terms he considers strong, adding, “We think a very good deal is possible.”
Trump and Modi review tariff demands before Greer continues talks in India
The G7 meeting will not produce any conclusive deal on trade. Trump and Modi will be able to gauge where negotiations currently stand before the delegation starts discussing issues such as tariffs and market access again. The subsequent trip of Greer in the following week will push the process towards another stage.
India wishes for reduced tariffs and favorable treatment according to the preliminary deal. According to Piyush Goyal, India’s commerce minister, the initial phase of the bilateral deal would likely be completed by mid-July. That gives both countries just a few more weeks to solve the rest of their differences.
Relations have faced pressure for two reasons. Washington imposed tariffs on Indian products, and Trump repeatedly said he helped end last year’s brief fighting between India and Pakistan. New Delhi rejects that account. The tone has become less hostile in recent weeks, allowing officials to keep negotiating.
The leaders are also expected to discuss energy security. Indian officials said possible purchases of Venezuelan oil may come up. That topic now sits beside another urgent problem involving ships, tankers, and the Strait of Hormuz.
India demanded on Thursday that the United States stop attacking commercial shipping after three tankers carrying Indian crew members were hit during the week. One strike killed three Indian sailors. They were the first reported deaths since the U.S. campaign against Iran-linked shipping began on April 13.
India presses Trump on shipping deaths as G7 leaders discuss the Iran war
Since the blockade started, U.S. forces have disabled eight vessels and forced more than 100 others to turn back. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke Friday with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar about the latest events in the Strait of Hormuz. The State Department disclosed the call Saturday.
Trump is expected to ask allies about clearing mines from the strait. Britain and France have shown interest in helping once the fighting pauses. The waterway carries a large share of global oil cargoes, so disruptions can affect fuel prices, financial markets, and crypto trading.
Trump also plans separate meetings with the leaders of Egypt, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates during the summit. Those talks will focus on efforts to end the Iran war. The U.S. official who described the plans spoke anonymously under White House briefing rules.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said an agreement to stop the conflict was closer than “ever before” and could be completed within 24 hours. Pakistan was preparing for an electronic signing, followed by technical talks next week.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote on X that an agreement “has never been closer.” Trump shared the post after saying several times that a deal was near. On Thursday, he said negotiators had made major progress only hours after threatening to take control of Iran’s oil industry.
Iranian state television separately said funeral ceremonies for former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will take place in July.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Polymarket is under fire after traders said the platform changed how a live bet would be judged after millions of dollars had already been placed.
The market asked whether Strategy (NASDAQ: MSTR) would sell any Bitcoin by May 31. Strategy later said it had sold some Bitcoin during the week before that date. Yet Polymarket ruled that the sale did not count because the company announced it on June 1.
Hunter Guo, a 20-year-old student at King’s College London, thought he had found a simple trade. The contract was still open when Strategy published the sale. Hunter bought thousands of “Yes” shares and expected to make about $35,000. He even thought about using the money to buy a Porsche. Minutes later, the value of those shares fell to almost nothing.
Polymarket adds a late deadline and wipes out thousands of winning bets
The fight began after Strategy said on June 1 that it had sold Bitcoin during the previous week. The company’s own filing showed the sale happened before May 31. That looked like enough for traders who had backed “Yes.”
However, Polymarket later published a statement providing additional details concerning the situation. As stated, “the YES outcome of the prediction will be awarded in case of public disclosure of the trade before 11:59 p.m. ET on 31 May 2022.” As such, Strategy’s trade was filed after the stipulated date, despite the early Bitcoin trading.
This development altered the outcome for Hunter and many others. According to Polymarket figures, a sum of $3.8 million was bet on Strategy Bitcoin trade via 1,838 accounts. Their contracts lost their value after the platform applied the new wording.
“I cried for two days. It’s a lot of money,” Hunter allegedly said. He is from China and studies digital media and culture in the United Kingdom.
Hunter still believes the bet was handled unfairly. He has posted dozens of times on X under #StopPolyScam. He also sent complaints to the United States regulators and law enforcement. He used AI tools to build a website where other traders from the same market could share their losses and organize their complaints.
The controversy has shed light on the clarification process used in prediction markets. In such markets, a clarification occurs whenever new text is added in cases where an actual occurrence cannot be covered by a yes or no type of contract.
Traders use price gaps across betting platforms to lock in small profits
Prediction contracts are priced like odds. A “Yes” share at 60 cents points to a 60% chance. A “No” share at 40 cents points to 40%. The winning contract pays $1.
Polymarket and Kalshi often list the same political, economic, and crypto questions. Their prices are usually close, but not always. Those gaps can create arbitrage trades.
One example appeared in March in the market for the 2028 Democratic presidential primary. Kalshi priced Gavin Newsom at 29%, while Polymarket priced him at 24%.
A trader could buy “Yes” on Polymarket for 24 cents and “No” on Kalshi for 71 cents. The full trade would cost 95 cents. If Gavin wins, Polymarket pays $1. If he loses, Kalshi pays $1. One side must win, leaving a five-cent return before fees and other costs.
Arbitrage has long been used by quantitative traders in stocks and other markets. They buy the cheaper side and sell the more expensive side at the same time. Prediction-market users now do the same across Polymarket, Kalshi, DraftKings (NASDAQ: DKNG), and FanDuel owner Flutter Entertainment (NYSE: FLUT).
Some bettors have made thousands of dollars by acting quickly when prices split. Bigger gaps can produce bigger profits. The Strategy case also shows why contract wording matters. A trade can look certain until two platforms read the same event in different ways during final market settlement.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies is attempting to include cryptocurrency in the country’s anti-fraud enforcement toolkit.
A key committee in the Chamber of Deputies has voted to let judges freeze suspects’ crypto holdings and impose prison terms of up to 10 years for electronic fraud. The bill still needs to pass through several approval stages before it can be considered law.
How does Brazil handle crypto in fraud investigations?
The official Chamber of Deputies news service announced that the Finance and Taxation Committee (CFT) has approved Bill 5819/2025, which was authored by Representative Coronel Chrisostomo and backed by committee rapporteur Kim Kataguiri.
Under the new law, both the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure will raise the sentencing range for fraud committed through social media, phone, email, or other digital channels from the current four-to-eight-year window to six to 10 years. The punishment also includes fines.
Judges are set to gain new powers enabling them to order the freezing of bank accounts and crypto wallets held by suspects as a precautionary measure. Courts will also be able to block access to real estate, prohibit contact with victims, and restrict a suspect’s use of social media and digital payment systems.
In cases where the victim’s losses exceed 100 minimum wages or where investigators can prove the perpetrator is a flight risk, the court can impose preventive detention. If the fraud involves a structured criminal organization, courts are now to add one-third to the base sentence.
Brazil refuses to be soft on crypto crime
Brazil has been attempting to curb the spread of crypto crime not just through legislation, but also through on-the-ground operations. For instance, in September 2025, the Federal Police carried out Operation Lusocoin. The target was a network accused of laundering more than 3 billion reais (roughly $540 million) through cryptocurrency, shell companies, and a proprietary token.
11 individuals were eventually arrested, and assets across 65 individuals and entities were frozen.
The enforcement streak goes way back to 2022, when Brazilian Federal Police and U.S. Homeland Security Investigations raided locations linked to Francisley Valdevino da Silva, known as the “Bitcoin Sheik.” He was accused of running a transnational cryptocurrency fraud ring that allegedly stole nearly $800 million from investors across multiple countries.
More recently, three operators of the Braiscompany Ponzi scheme received combined sentences of 170 years after defrauding some 20,000 investors of approximately 1.1 billion reais ($190 million).
Bill 5819/2025 is now headed to the Constitution, Justice, and Citizenship Committee (CCJ). If it clears that level, it must pass votes in both the full Chamber and the Senate before reaching the president’s desk for signature.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Pudgy Penguins officially announced that it has closed shop on its Pudgy Party mobile game, developed with Mythical Games, so that the project could focus only on their web-based game: Pudgy World.
The decision has generated serious resistance from Pudgy Penguin fans who feel that all the time and money they invested in the mobile game since its launch in August 2025 have been wasted.
Why did Pudgy Penguins take down Pudgy Party?
The official Pudgy Party X account @PlayPudgyParty announced the news yesterday, June 12, with a statement attached confirming that Pudgy Party is being shut down. The announcement triggered immediate reactions, as the community flooded the post with hundreds of replies and quote tweets in just a few hours.
When Pudgy Party came out in August 2025, it offered fast-paced mini-games, customizable avatars, and collectible items with support from its partners, Mythical Games. The launch was so heavily publicized that there was even a Times Square promotion in September 2025.
However, the project will now concentrate all resources on Pudgy World going forward, according to its statement.
Pudgy Penguins moves on with Pudgy World
Pudgy World launched in March 2026 as a free browser game including 12 towns, plot-based quests, and mini-games. The game was hosted on a virtual space called “The Berg”, and it was designed to feel like a regular game instead of a crypto product, which is why it kept most of its blockchain elements hidden from the everyday gamer.
The project’s co-founder, @chefgoyardi, also emphasized the game’s custom physics engine and world-building tools, which were specifically optimized to make sure even lower-end devices could perform easily.
The PENGU token rose 9% on Pudgy World’s launch day in March. As of today, PENGU is trading at $0.006793 with a market cap of approximately $427 million, according to CoinMarketCap data. Pudgy Penguins also has an NFT collection starting at 4.54 ETH on OpenSea, with 5,100 unique holders across the 8,888-piece collection.
Community backlash over Pudgy Party cancellation
A good number of the engagements on the Pudgy Party wind down post reflected the community’s dissatisfaction. The news hit like a bag of bricks because Pudgy Party had built a special niche for itself: gathering a social media following of 98,200 on X, and even being named the “Best Mobile Game for Couples”, giving it a different vibe from Pudgy World’s more casual style.
Now that Pudgy World is the sole gaming project under Pudgy Penguins, we still don’t know what happens to players who purchased in-game items or digital collectibles through Pudgy Party. The announcement did not address refunds or asset migration based on the available information.
A look at the bigger picture
Over the last year, Pudgy Penguins has been seriously expanding beyond NFTs. According to reports, the project has successfully sold over $10 million worth of physical toys through major retailers like Walmart and Target.
It has also secured high-profile partnerships with entities such as Visa and Manchester City, and is now combining all its resources to realize its new gaming vision.
This transition also arrives as Pudgy Penguins faces increasing pressure from PEI Licensing, the parent company of the “Original Penguin” apparel brand. In March 2026, PEI filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit in Florida, claiming that Pudgy Penguins’ use of penguin-themed branding and merchandise was confusing their consumers and diluting the value of its own brand, which has been in business since 1955.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Michael Saylor has put SpaceX inside Wall Street’s top technology group after the rocket company joined public markets at a value above $2 trillion. The Strategy (NASDAQ: MSTR) executive chairman posted on X after the June 12, 2026 listing and used the name “Mag8.”
Saylor wrote, “Congratulations @ElonMusk and $SPCX on a historic IPO. Thanks to you, 25% of the Mag8 now holds Bitcoin on the balance sheet.”
The SpaceX ($SPCX) offering became the largest IPO ever completed in the United States. Its opening valuation placed the company ahead of Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) and Meta Platforms (NASDAQ: META). Both were already included in the Magnificent Seven. That left investors with a simple problem. A company worth more than two members of the group was sitting outside the name. OpenAI and Anthropic are also possible IPO candidates, so the old label could become outdated quickly.
SpaceX forces Wall Street to rethink the name of its biggest stock group
Shay Boloor, chief market strategist at Futurum Equities, said Mag7 no longer gives investors the full picture. “It becomes very hard to keep using Mag 7 as the clean shorthand for market leadership because one of the most important companies in the world would immediately be outside the label,” he said.
These names are not official stock market categories. Banks, traders, investors, and financial media create them to describe companies receiving the most attention at a particular time. Wall Street has used this habit for decades. The “Nifty 50” covered popular large companies during the 1960s and 1970s. The “Four Horsemen” became a common term for major technology stocks during the late 1990s dot-com boom.
The SpaceX listing has now started another naming contest. One option spreading on X is “MANGOS.” One version includes Meta (NASDAQ: META), Anthropic, Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL), OpenAI, and SpaceX. Some investors use Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) for the letter A instead of Anthropic. Apple is currently the third-largest U.S.-listed company by market value.
Aga Kuplinska, senior vice president of product development at Tidal Financial Group, said the term is already being used inside the industry. “We are already referring to it internally and the industry is picking up on it as well,” she said. Tidal works with asset managers that want to launch exchange-traded funds.
Dan Boardman-Weston, chief executive of BRI Wealth Management, suggested another option. He called it “Magna Atoms.” His version would combine the current seven companies with SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic.
Bitcoin and AI reshape the list of companies controlling market weight
Michael Hartnett, chief investment strategist at BofA Global Research, created the Magnificent Seven name in late 2023. The group included Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA), Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN), Alphabet (NASDAQ: GOOGL), Meta (NASDAQ: META), Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA), and Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT).
Earlier versions had already changed several times. FANG included Facebook, Amazon, Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX), and Google. FAANG later added Apple. The Magnificent Seven removed Netflix and brought in Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla.
BofA expanded the idea again in a May 22 note, creating an “AI Big 10” by adding Broadcom (NASDAQ: AVGO), Micron Technology (NASDAQ: MU), and Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ: AMD) to the original seven. As of press time, LSEG data placed those ten companies at more than 40% of the S&P 500 by weight.
Saylor’s post also drew attention to the Bitcoin treasury disclosed by SpaceX in its SEC S-1 filing. The company reported 18,712 BTC worth about $1.18 billion at current prices. That total made SpaceX the eighth-largest publicly traded corporate holder of Bitcoin after its IPO.
Strategy remains the largest institutional Bitcoin holder. The company added more than 90,000 BTC during the first quarter of 2026 and passed BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (NASDAQ: IBIT). It also sold 32 BTC for about $2.5 million in late May to cover required quarterly dividends on preferred shares. That transaction was Strategy’s first Bitcoin sale since 2022.
Strategy records its Bitcoin at fair market value. That accounting method can cause major changes in reported profit and company valuation whenever Bitcoin’s market price rises or falls.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said Saturday that Washington and Iran have reached an agreement on the framework of a peace deal and that his country expects an electronic signing within 24 hours, although Iranian officials have quickly poured cold water on that timeline.
The proposed deal would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway that carried roughly 20% of global oil supply before the conflict began in late February. It would also end the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports and extend the current ceasefire by 60 days.
“We are closer to a peace deal than ever before,” Sharif wrote on X. He added that Pakistan was preparing for an electronic signing ceremony followed by technical talks next week. Trump reposted Sharif’s statement on Truth Social.
Iran pushes back on timing
Hours after Sharif’s announcement, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told state media that the signing is not expected to happen on Sunday. He, however, left the door open for the coming days but clearly cautioned against putting specific numbers to the timeline.
“Due to the other side’s inconsistency, we should remain cautious in making any statements about this process,” Baghaei said, according to Reuters.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi had struck a more optimistic tone on Friday, telling state television that a memorandum of understanding “could happen within the next one or two days.” He also declared that “Iran is the winner of the war with the U.S.,” a sentiment Washington is not privy to nor interested in endorsing.
Deal interests on both sides
Multiple sources briefed on the draft terms told Reuters that the agreement calls for the U.S. to begin unfreezing billions of dollars in Iranian assets and to also waive sanctions on Iranian oil exports. In exchange, Tehran would reopen the strait to commercial shipping of crude and other products.
According to NBC News, the strait would reopen without tolls and prewar shipping lanes would be restored within about 30 days. However, Araghchi had a different tune on Friday, saying the country intended to charge a “service fee” for ships transiting the waterway and that its “sword will remain poised over the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely.”
The most contentious issue, Iran’s nuclear program, would be deferred to a separate 60-day negotiation window. A U.S. official told Reuters the agreement would ultimately lead to dismantling Iran’s enrichment program and destroying its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Araghchi said Tehran wants to keep the uranium in a diluted form, and sources told Reuters that Iran has not accepted any form of dismantling of its nuclear programs.
Sen. Lindsey Graham warned on X that the terms described by Iranian media would be “awful” and that Trump’s position on nuclear enrichment “must hold.”
I am very glad to hear from @POTUS that Iranian media reports about the so-called deal are fake because the deal as described by Iran would be awful. President Trump and our military deserve a lot of credit for making Iran the weakest they’ve been since 1979 through a combination… pic.twitter.com/g7Ip1GQc1K
— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) June 12, 2026
More fighting amid diplomatic conversations, oil markets react
Even as both sides signaled progress in peace talks, the war continued to rage in the Middle East. The U.S. Central Command said on Friday that Iran launched several drones at commercial vessels near the Strait of Hormuz and that American forces shot them all down, according to NBC News and CNN.
The conflict, which began with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, has killed thousands of people and driven global energy prices to record highs. A ceasefire reached in mid-April effectively collapsed this week after both sides resumed targeted drone strikes.
Oil markets have reacted to all the back and forth in diplomatic conversations. U.S. crude futures for July delivery fell to $84 per barrel on Saturday, while Brent crude dropped to around $87, according to NBC News. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox News that a deal would bring lower energy costs for Americans and predicted resolution “as soon as this weekend or Monday.”
Israel stays on the sidelines
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country would not be party to the memorandum of understanding, according to Reuters. Araghchi said the deal would end the war in Lebanon, implying an Israeli withdrawal from its currently occupied areas in the region.
Israel’s defense minister has stated that no withdrawal would take place, and a senior Israeli official told Reuters that Israel expects to retain freedom to act against threats.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Taiwan has made plans to further improve its lone South American alliance with a $200 million data center in Paraguay, which aims to bring together Taipei’s semiconductor access with Paraguay’s cheap hydroelectric power.
This investment is designed to preserve the diplomatic relationship between the two countries, and the facility is targeted to deliver 10 megawatts of computing capacity by the end of 2027. The plans emerged from a memorandum signed during Paraguayan President Santiago Peña’s visit to Taipei in May, where he met Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te.
Taiwan’s International Cooperation and Development Fund has since contacted Google, Microsoft, and Amazon about investing in the project or serving as anchor customers for its compute capacity.
Taiwan invests in a rare ally
Paraguay is one of just 12 governments worldwide that maintain formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Beijing, which claims Taiwan as its territory, has systematically pulled the South Asian country’s Latin American partners over the past decade.
Panama switched ally positioning in 2017, followed by the Dominican Republic and El Salvador in 2018, Nicaragua in 2021, and Honduras in 2023.
The data center project will split ownership and financing between the two governments through a digital entity overseen by both nations. The countries will both contribute actively to the core infrastructure. Paraguay would handle the power requirements via hydroelectric power sourced from the Itaipu Dam, one of the cheapest and cleanest energy sources in Latin America, while Taiwan will obviously provide its expertise on chips and hardware, alongside connections to technology supply chains.
Government officials in Paraguay have described the first phase of development as purely focused on use by the Paraguayan government. These uses will include processing of public records, tax systems, and citizen health data.
Paraguay aims to position the facility as a national AI asset and not any other low-cost hosting site for foreign cloud and AI operators.
Officials also outlined later expansion phases that could push power usage demand up to 100 megawatts and eventually as high as 1,000 megawatts, although those targets remain out of sight currently.
Paraguay’s standing beyond infrastructure
The data center is the most visible piece of a wide and intensive effort by Peña’s government to prove the Taiwan relationship continues to deliver concrete economic value. That argument has faced ongoing domestic opposition, as Paraguayan agribusiness exporters and some political figures have pushed to switch recognition to Beijing for years.
These individuals and political officials have argued that formal ties with Taiwan hurt the country by cutting off access to China’s market for soybeans and beef, which are important products in the country’s economy.
Peña has countered these arguments by pointing to the level of technology transfer, investment, and new trade access granted, including Taiwan’s decision to open its market to Paraguayan poultry. During his Taipei visit, he defended the partnership as grounded in shared democratic values and called for the country’s participation in more international organizations. Beijing responded by urging Paraguay to “stand on the right side of history” and sever ties with Taipei.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Zcash (ZEC) received a fresh security endorsement on June 12 after Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox-O’Hearn confirmed that an AI-powered audit conducted by Anthropic’s Mythos tool uncovered no additional serious vulnerabilities in the protocol.
The clean bill of health arrives as ZEC continues clawing back losses from a 53% crash triggered by the disclosure of a critical counterfeiting bug in its Orchard shielded pool earlier this month.
Shielded Labs, an independent Zcash support organization, commissioned the audit and provided prompts developed by security firm Defuse Security, according to Jason McGee, a community figure who detailed the arrangement on X.
Wilcox-O’Hearn thanked Anthropic for the effort and said the work to harden Zcash’s security would continue.
What does the Mythos audit do for Zcash?
The Mythos audit functions as a de facto external validation at a moment when confidence in Zcash’s codebase is under intense scrutiny.
In early June, researcher Taylor Hornby discovered that the Orchard shielded pool contained a flaw allowing unlimited minting of counterfeit ZEC. The vulnerability had existed for around four years.
While there was no evidence of exploitation, the disclosure was bad news for Zcash, as ZEC fell from approximately $621 to a low of $303 on June 5.
The token made an attempt at recovery on June 8, rising to $427.67, which was a 41.5% recovery of the drop, CoinMarketCap data showed.
As of June 12, ZEC traded around $438 and later dropped to around $410. As of the time of publication, the token was trading around $415 with a market capitalization of over $6.94 billion, per CoinMarketCap.
The Zcash Open Development Lab (ZODL) reportedly patched the Orchard flaw, and by June 3, it reported that it had resolved the underlying issue. Mining pools ViaBTC and Foundry coordinated with the team on the response, per ZODL founder Josh Swihart.
What other efforts is Zcash making to strengthen security?
The Mythos result is one piece of a wider campaign to harden security by Zcash. The Zcash team published the Ironwood proposal on June 7. It contains a plan for a new shielded pool built on top of the existing Orchard architecture.
Ironwood, co-developed with Tachyon, Valar Group, the Zcash Foundation, and Shielded Labs, would require formal verification and multiple independent audits before deployment.
The Ironwood design introduces turnstile accounting that would migrate all legitimate coins out of the current Orchard pool into the new one. Even if counterfeit ZEC was created in the old pool, it could not cross into Ironwood.
This layered approach, patching the existing flaw, running an independent AI audit, and proposing architectural changes, signals that the Zcash development community is treating the Orchard incident as a catalyst for deeper protocol review rather than a one-time fix.
Market still pricing in uncertainty
BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes sold his entire ZEC position after the Orchard disclosure, and ThorChain delayed its planned ZEC integration until the protocol can confirm no significant counterfeit supply exists.
The privacy features that make Zcash valuable also make it impossible to prove with certainty that the bug was never exploited, a tension the Zcash community forum has debated extensively.
Swihart wrote on June 8 that the incident stress-tested the team’s response processes and produced a more unified builder community. The Mythos audit, coming four days later with a clean result, adds an external data point to that narrative.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

The Trump admin went back to telling Anthropic about how its products can be used after the US government, on Friday, directed the AI firm to cut off foreign nationals from its newest Claude Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models.
However, the “national security concerns” rationale did not go down well in many quarters, triggering immediate criticism from tech executives, policy analysts, and politicians outside the United States who warned that Washington is weaponizing AI access as a geopolitical tool.
Unlike earlier in the year when Anthropic resisted the government’s requests, this time around, the firm suspended access to both models for all customers while it works to comply with the directive.
According to the company’s statement, the ban covers foreign nationals inside and outside the country. Even non-US citizens working for Anthropic did not get a pass.
Why is the US government trying to meddle with Anthropic again?
The June 12 export restriction is the latest installment in a months-long series of charged public interactions between the Trump administration and Anthropic.
As Cryptopolitan reported earlier in the year, the Pentagon slapped Anthropic with a supply chain label over what the company described as resistance to greenlighting its AI tech to be used in domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons systems.
That case dragged on until March, when a California federal judge ruled that the Trump admin violated free speech protections.
Now, barely three months later, the administration has moved on to a different front: export controls on Anthropic’s AI models themselves.
‘Cartoonish’ and ‘incoherent,’ critics say
Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist, responded to the situation on X with a post criticizing regulation written by those who “never in his life built a single thing.”
Dean W. Ball, a senior fellow at the Foundation for American Innovation, questioned the “simply cartoonish” logic of an administration that has shown a willingness to hand advanced AI chips to China while throttling allied nations’ access to American AI models.
Chris McGuire, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that the Commerce Department’s export control strategy “has been completely incoherent and sabotaging.” Washington is restricting US firms from releasing models even though it has no influence over how Chinese firms use the AI chips it approves for sale to China.
Peter Girnus, a senior threat researcher at the Zero Day Initiative, drew a comparison to the 1990s encryption wars, when the US government classified cryptographic software as a munition under arms export regulations.
Girnus noted that those controls eventually collapsed. He also flagged a practical absurdity in the current order: the “deemed export” rule means Anthropic’s foreign-born employees who helped build the models are now locked out of them.
US allies and international observers wake up to AI sovereignty panic
Outside the US, the reaction was less philosophical.
Muhammad Ziauddin “Zia” Yusuf, Reform UK’s spokesperson for home affairs, wrote on X that he had “warned for months that America would soon restrict access to state of the art frontier AI models for national security reasons,” adding that Britain has “virtually zero sovereign AI” capability as a result of domestic policy failures.
Indian entrepreneur Vasant Shetty also pointed out that India is the second-largest market globally for both ChatGPT and Anthropic’s products. “If they can turn off the access at the press of a button like this, we are absolutely at the mercy of a foreign govt,” Shetty wrote.
Advocates for local and open-source AI models also revived their arguments. Alex Finn, Founder and CEO of Henry Intelligent Machines PBC, wrote on X that “no company or government will ever be able to take away your local models.”
How will Anthropic handle the ban on Fable 5?
Anthropic launched Fable 5 and Mythos 5 on June 9. The restriction landed just days later. Investors must now factor in regulatory risks around the company’s core products ahead of its reported IPO, which could value the company near $1 trillion.
Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s CEO, foresaw possible regulatory headaches in his “Policy on the AI Exponential” June 10 essay, where he conceded that AI is advancing faster than legacy policy processes can handle.
The order represents a shift in how Washington approaches AI controls. Previous US export restrictions focused on chips and hardware. This is the first time the government has moved to restrict foreign access to the AI models themselves.
Dan Shipper, the CEO of Every, predicted the restriction would be lifted within days and that the net effect would be increased demand for Fable 5. But he acknowledged the disruption inside Anthropic, comparing it to the upheaval that followed Sam Altman’s brief firing from OpenAI in 2023.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

US law enforcement authorities have heightened their awareness campaigns regarding potential cryptocurrency fraud schemes for 2026 FIFA World Cup fans. This is on top of warnings from blockchain investigators about possible evidence of front-running in token offerings associated with the event.
Specifically, the FBI released a public service announcement on May 27 highlighting more than 30 fake FIFA sites that obtain users’ data and peddle fraudulent tickets. On June 3, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department followed with another alert about ticket reselling fraud, fake merchandise sites, and pirated streaming sites. These come ahead of the kick-off scheduled on June 11.
Blockchain companies monitor active scam wallets
On June 11, blockchain intelligence company TRM Labs reported on four cryptocurrency wallets that have been used for scams and continue to be involved in fraudulent activities. These scams include two websites where tickets for the event are being sold and a scheme involving matched betting. The total amount of money accumulated from these wallets is currently under $1,700, but more scams are expected as the tournament draws larger audiences.
One Polygon wallet linked to a counterfeit ticketing operation collected roughly $1,562, with nearly all of the funds arriving on a single day in April. A second operation tied to a Bitcoin address maintains a live phishing page but has attracted no payments. A third wallet, also on Bitcoin, funneled small deposits received between January and May into a custodial exchange account after pitching supposed fixed-match results.
“The amounts involved in these cases are modest, but the movement of funds follows patterns commonly seen in consumer crypto fraud,” TRM’s report stated. Earlier, Cryptopolitan reported that the crypto industry lost $68.3M to scams in May.
Insider token manipulation raises red flags
In addition to ticketing and gambling scams, there has been speculation about potential insider manipulation involving World Cup-themed tokens. The blockchain analysis firm Bubblemaps found a token known as World Cup PvP (symbol: WCUP), in which 95% of its circulation was acquired by over 30 wallets within a minute after launch on June 10.
This World Cup PvP token was endorsed by several crypto influencers on X who did not mention being paid for their endorsements, leading the token to gain a $50 million market cap on the same day. With merely $536,000 in liquidity supporting its fully diluted valuation of $65 million, a sudden dump by early investors would see retail users footing the bill.
TRM also detected another token named $WORLDCUP, which is available for trading on LBank. Marketed as a fan-made commemorative project with no FIFA affiliation, it carries the low-liquidity risk profile common to meme coins whose issuers can exit at will.
How authorities say fans can protect themselves
The FBI warns fans not to click on any search results but rather to type fifa.com in the browser address bar. Additionally, the Bureau warns fans to ensure that any FIFA URL contains the top-level domain name .com and not .pub, .beer, or other unique top-level domain names.
Analysts mentioned scammers keep track of seasonal events just as any marketing firm would. Shalev warned fans to be wary of all cryptocurrency World Cup promotions. A report mentioned that one needs to check the registration date on a site using the ICANN lookup tool. The fact that a certain website is less than a year old already serves as a strong warning flag, especially if it pretends to be a reliable vendor.
According to FIFA and WTO estimates, the tournament will attract about 6.5 million people and make up $40.9 billion worth of the world economy.
Scammers expected to escalate through the tournament
According to TRM, new kinds of fraud would likely emerge during the ongoing World Cup, including scams relating to gambling opportunities, impersonation of FIFA authorities and players using deepfakes, phishing of fake streaming sites, and further launches of tokens. Scammers also utilize cross-chain bridges to conceal their transactions. Throughout all types of scamming recorded to date, roughly $1.9 billion was transacted using these bridges.
As regards ticket buyers, the advice coming from all involved institutions and experts is clear – purchase tickets through the FIFA website, do not engage in crypto payments on untrusted sources, and always check the platform’s authenticity before giving your personal and financial data.
TRM openly discloses four cryptocurrency addresses belonging to three ongoing scams (both involving fake ticketing and betting on rigged matches), with cumulative inflows of less than $1,700 by June of 2026. However, these wallet addresses have never been revealed to the general public for reasons best known to investigators.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

A whale controlling the vast majority of SIREN’s token supply sold roughly 17 million tokens through multiple wallets over two hours on Friday, crashing the price from $0.47 to $0.23. The sell-off follows a months-long pattern of manipulation by a single entity that on-chain analysts say controls at least 94% of all SIREN in circulation.
Concentrated supply, repeated crashes
EmberCN, an on-chain analyst, was quick to identify the dump on X, stating that a large portion, about 17 million tokens with a market value of $6.75 million, of SIREN were sold by the SIREN controller through many addresses. As a result, SIREN saw its market price drop by more than half in a few hours.
SIREN investors should be used to watching one person move the token’s market price at will. According to EmberCN, they have been tracking the activity of whales behind SIREN since March, when the token shot up 26 times from $0.08 to $2.10 within a period of six weeks. They noted that there were 48 wallets controlling 66.5% of SIREN’s total supply of 484.6 million tokens. In their latest analysis, EmberCN estimated the number of tokens controlled by the whales to be 88.5%, or 644 million SIREN, worth $1.44 billion.
好吧，$SIREN 庄家控盘的代币并不止 66.5%，而是 88.5%😰6.44 亿枚 SIREN，价值 $14.4 亿。
要是再加上他们在 CEX 里的那些，也就是说，这个币庄家唱的是 “独角戏”：控盘了几乎所有的现货从而通过合约获利，这就是 SIREN 一个半月上涨 30 倍的秘密。
在昨天晚上 SIREN 庄家密集归集了 66.5%… https://t.co/9CGR3TaL0Y pic.twitter.com/QoDjGvEeBy
— 余烬 (@EmberCN) March 23, 2026
The trend has always been similar thereafter. The whale tanked SIREN 94%, down from $2 to $0.13 in early April, reported EmberCN on X. Thereafter, a series of wallets pulled out 30.07 million SIREN off Binance Alpha wallets. Come mid-April, the very entity controlled more than 93% of the supply and pushed SIREN up 185% in one day from $0.13 to $2.18.
Siren price is down by more than 82% over the last week. It is trading at $0.136 at the press time.
A textbook pump-and-dump cycle
The initial parabolic rise of SIREN began as the result of a $31.44 million short liquidation that occurred on March 22, which was the largest short liquidation for SIREN ever recorded in its trading history. This forced liquidation led to immediate buy pressure in the derivatives market, thus resulting in an upward movement.
SIREN saw an unusual number of outflows from exchanges totaling around 69 million coins within one day. This was not taken to indicate a steady long-term buildup of the token; rather, it indicated position building in preparation for volatile activity.
Token’s structural instability can be attributed to three key elements: extreme supply concentration, aggressive selling by whales during up-moves, and widespread liquidation in both spot and derivatives trading environments. As price moves become reflexive, in such an environment, rising prices will prompt forced covering, creating higher prices, and early holders will cash out against such liquidity flow.
Prominent blockchain investigator ZachXBT has cited SIREN in broader discussions of tokens displaying a comparable behavior profile, classifying SIREN among tokens such as RAVE, RIVER, and LAB. These tokens have been associated with alleged cases of market-structure manipulation whereby a highly concentrated supply, along with a particular liquidity event, allows for an early holder exit strategy through retail-driven demand cycles.
SIREN has marketed itself as an AI-powered decentralized exchange and trading bot token. However, from the market data aggregators’ perspective, important features such as DEX and AI-based trading mechanisms have not been rolled out yet. This creates a level of speculation because the price performance is no longer connected to actual utility and is more dependent on liquidity cycles.
What to watch
ZachXBT’s on-chain continues to stress on monitoring wallet flows and exchange interactions as key indicators of distribution or accumulation phases, particularly in tokens where liquidity cycles appear concentrated around a few dominant actors.
Volatility in SIREN has repeatedly coincided with abrupt shifts in exchange liquidity, derivatives positioning, and sudden balance movements across large wallets. These dynamics make exchange inflows, funding rate spikes, and open interest changes more relevant than spot price alone when assessing near-term direction.
With a large portion of circulating supply still reportedly concentrated in a small number of holdings, traders are watching for early signs of redistribution—particularly sustained exchange deposits from large wallets, which have historically preceded major volatility expansions in similar token structures
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

A centralized AI monitoring and spending control system is under development at Meta after the company realized it was spending more internally on AI than anticipated. The decision shows that companies are thinking about whether the returns from AI justify the cost involved.
The company has sent out a memo to some 6,000 employees detailing plans for AI spending caps, budgets, and token restrictions. Under the AI Gateway, teams would have access to an overview of AI usage that would automatically send notifications if there are unusual spikes in spending. The structured token management is expected to be fully implemented by 2027.
The memo noted that Meta was seeing rapid growth in internal AI adoption and that it was likely to be spending tens of billions on employee AI usage in 2026.
The after-effect of tokenmaxxing
The shift of focus at Meta from promoting the use of AI to controlling its use shows a recurring theme within corporate America. The firm used to incentivize its employees to use AI by having them establish internal leaderboards (“Claudeonomics,” named after Anthropic’s AI system). Meta no longer runs this particular leaderboard.
The broader trend has a name: “tokenmaxxing,” which is the practice of using the maximum amount of AI tokens possible for whatever reason, whether to inflate internal adoption metrics or just to consume them. The same situation occurred at Amazon after its employees established a leaderboard to track token use, but the firm later took it down in late May over concerns it was driving wasteful spending, reports Business Insider.
Uber’s experience illustrates how quickly costs can spiral. The ride-hailing company burned through its entire planned 2026 AI coding budget by April, just four months into the year. Uber COO Andrew Macdonald told Rapid Response that the company has struggled to connect token spending with measurable output. “That link is not there yet, right?” Macdonald said. “It’s very hard to draw a line between one of those stats and, ‘Okay, now we’re actually producing 25% more useful consumer features.'”
A cost problem the industry hasn’t solved
The budgetary strain goes way beyond Silicon Valley. According to a KPMG survey first reported by The Wall Street Journal, only 26% of companies have a comprehensive view of their AI costs, while 50% have partial visibility and 22% either have no visibility or only discover spending after receiving bills. As noted by Steve Chase, global leader for AI at KPMG, the company has been reportedly helping clients who have already exhausted annual token or cloud computing budgets in a matter of months.
Microsoft recently pulled back almost all the direct licenses of Claude Code and redirected engineers to its own GitHub Copilot CLI, Fortune reported, just six months after making the Anthropic tool accessible to its employees. The move came after employee usage scaled faster than anticipated.
Economic considerations suggest that initial expectations regarding the fast profitability of AI due to labor savings were overoptimistic. NVIDIA’s vice president of applied deep learning, Bryan Catanzaro, revealed to Axios that the compute cost for his group already exceeds the cost of employing people. Goldman Sachs believes that agentic AI might lead to a 24-times rise in token consumption by 2030, with monthly consumption rates hitting 120 quadrillion tokens per month, even as token prices per unit decline.
Moreover, Gartner predicts that declining token costs will not mean cheaper enterprise AI applications because agentic AI algorithms use much higher token counts per task, while providers will probably keep the total savings from their side. “Chief Product Officers should not confuse the deflation of commodity tokens with the democratization of frontier reasoning,” said Gartner senior director analyst Will Sommer. Earlier, Cryptopolitan reported that Zuckerberg admited that Meta made ‘mistakes’ on its AI transformation
What can Meta employees expect?
According to reports, the memo revealed that Meta is going to dissuade its employees from using external AI code-writing software and encourage them to use its very own assistant, MetaCode, which was previously called Devmate. These changes will be implemented in the following weeks.
At the same time, Meta’s efforts to reduce the costs related to AI come along with significant organizational changes. In March of this year, Meta was considering layoffs involving at least 20% of the total number of around 79,000 workers, part of which is caused by investments in AI infrastructure worth around $600 billion until 2028.
The CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, has highlighted this challenge in the industry quite well. He stated that “this is the fairest criticism right now of AI,” saying, “You hear companies saying, I am spending a ton of money on AI. And I know some great stuff is happening, but I know there’s a ton of waste.”
For the global economy, the question is whether corporate AI budgets contract before the technology delivers on its productivity promises, or whether falling token prices and better tooling close the gap first. The answer will shape hiring, capital expenditure, and competitive dynamics across industries for years.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

New Mexico is facing a lawsuit from the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) for attempting to enforce state gaming rules on federally regulated contract markets.
The agency is intensifying a growing legal battle over whether federally regulated prediction markets can offer sports-related event contracts without complying with state gambling laws. The case is the latest flashpoint in a nationwide clash between federal regulators and states seeking to restrict platforms such as Kalshi.
The state had sued prediction market Kalshi for running an unlicensed sports gambling operation. It wanted injunctive relief to bar Kalshi from operating in the state and from continuing to market contracts tied to sporting events.
In a Friday federal filing, the CFTC moved to stop New Mexico authorities, asserting that state gambling laws do not apply to CFTC-regulated platforms. It is requesting a declaratory judgment confirming that it alone has the authority to regulate event contracts under federal law, as well as a permanent order preventing the state from enforcing laws that are preempted against its registrants.
The CFTC insists it has exclusive jurisdiction over betting markets
According to New Mexico, Kalshi has never secured proper licensing and allowed participation from people below the legal age limit of 21. Attorney General Torrez also insisted that gaming is legal in New Mexico only when conducted under tribal-state compacts or robust state regulations that safeguard honest play.
In the last few months, the CFTC has launched lawsuits against multiple states to secure federal control over sports-related event contracts. So far, it has sued Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Arizona, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York and now New Mexico.
The agency’s chairman, Michael S. Selig, remarked on the latest lawsuit, “New Mexico is the latest state seeking to nullify black letter law and decades of judicial precedent by imposing state gaming laws on federally regulated derivatives exchanges subject to the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.”
Additionally, he emphasized that the commission is obligated to safeguard its regulatory authority over commodity derivatives, a core responsibility that it will continue to uphold moving forward.
In another statement, the commission added that New Mexico’s enforcement efforts undermine its authority and hinder its ability to oversee swaps and enforce the regulatory structure established by the Commodity Exchange Act.
Major prediction markets support CFTC’s proposed rulemaking
Last week, the CFTC proposed new rules that would enable it to prohibit wagers deemed susceptible to manipulation or inconsistent with the public good. The proposal indicated that most sports-related bets would remain legal, except those involving injuries or “first-pitch” events like pitch speed. It could also bar bets tied to armed conflict, assassinations, and terrorism.
So far, some markets have received the suggestions incredibly well. A Polymarket spokesperson noted, “We are fully supportive of the CFTC’s initiative to provide clarity for prediction markets and remain committed to working toward a federal framework that protects the public and supports innovation — we look forward to commenting on the Commission’s proposed rule.”
Kalshi spokeswoman Dani Lever also asserted that bets on war-related action are already banned on the platform. Nonetheless, overall trading in prediction markets increased significantly, with suspected insiders reportedly making more than $1 million from contracts related to the Iran airstrike.
But that aside, of late, prediction markets and federal authorities have been more active in trying to eliminate questionable wagering activity. Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour recently announced that traders targeting high-risk markets must soon submit employment disclosure forms to prevent manipulation.
In May, the House Oversight Chair James Comer also asked for records from Kalshi and Polymarket executives following allegations of rampant insider trading. Moreover, ex-Rep. George Santos is also facing inquiry for using Kalshi to bet about his own appearance at the State of the Union address.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Anthropic disabled its two top-performing AI models on Friday, June 12 following an export control order from the U.S. Department of Commerce. It was an unusual instance of a government interfering with commercialization of frontier AI technology.
U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick ordered Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei at 5:21 p.m. ET on Friday to restrict access to Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5, according to Anthropic’s statement.
The directive applied to all foreign individuals, regardless of whether they were inside or outside the United States, including Anthropic’s own foreign-born employees.
Anthropic stated that it couldn’t effectively enforce nationality-based restrictions and so deactivated the models. The other Claude models are still available.
Commerce Department moves against Anthropic’s newest models
The directive followed a warning from an unnamed company about a technique that could bypass parts of Fable 5’s safety system, Axios reported, citing an administration official.
Anthropic had released the two models only three days earlier, on June 9. Fable 5 was publicly available, while Mythos 5 was limited to selected cybersecurity partners under Project Glasswing.
Prior to this, the Trump administration had been engaged in conversations attempting to persuade the company to postpone its rollout but Anthropic proceeded regardless.
A White House official said they felt it important to keep the models locked down while the nation strengthens federal security infrastructure and said he thinks that will take weeks.
Under the directive, any party seeking to export, reexport, or transfer either model in the U.S. would need a license from the Commerce Department. Anthropic would also have to apply for individually validated licenses. Failure to comply could carry monetary and civil penalties, Axios reported.
Anthropic says the jailbreak risk is overstated
Anthropic pushed back against the directive, saying the jailbreak in question was narrow and did not amount to a universal bypass of the models’ safety systems.
The company described the technique as one that asks a model to review a specific codebase and identify software flaws. Anthropic said it reviewed a demonstration of the method and found that it surfaced only previously known, minor vulnerabilities.
“We have found that other publicly-available models are able to discover them as well without requiring a bypass,” Anthropic wrote, naming OpenAI’s GPT-5.5 as one example.
Anthropic also said it had conducted thousands of hours of red-teaming before launch with the U.S. government, the UK AI Safety Institute, and private organizations.
Those tests found no universal jailbreak, the company said, meaning no single method that could broadly defeat the model’s safety controls across many capabilities.
“We disagree that the finding of a narrow potential jailbreak should be cause for recalling a commercial model deployed to hundreds of millions of people,” Anthropic wrote. “If this standard was applied across the industry, we believe it would essentially halt all new model deployments for all frontier model providers.”
Fable 5 was already facing criticism
The shutdown capped a turbulent launch week for Anthropic.
Fable 5 debuted on June 9 with filters that routed sensitive queries in cybersecurity, biology, chemistry, and AI research to an earlier model, Claude Opus 4.8. Those filters were criticized almost immediately as too restrictive.
According to Cryptopolitan’s prior report, users said the model struggled with basic biology questions involving cell membranes and mRNA vaccines.
Another controversy centered on Anthropic’s 319-page system card, which said Fable 5 would automatically reduce output quality for questions related to frontier AI research without warning users.
Anthropic changed that policy on June 10 after researchers argued that hidden safeguards would concentrate AI capabilities among a small group of companies. The company apologized and said future safeguards would be visible to users.
Microsoft also restricted employee use of Fable 5 because of Anthropic’s 30-day data retention requirement for Mythos-class models, The Verge reported.
Under that policy, prompts and outputs are stored for 30 days for trust and safety purposes, while flagged content can be retained for up to two years.
Anthropic says it is working to reverse the shutdown
Anthropic said the government’s action was based on a misunderstanding and that it is working with officials to resolve the issue. The company said it would provide more information within 24 hours.
The shutdown comes at a critical moment for Anthropic. The company submitted confidential documents earlier this month for a planned U.S. IPO after raising $65 billion at a $965 billion valuation late last month, Reuters reported.
Anthropic is now facing pressure on two fronts: regulators are questioning the safety of its most advanced models, while investors are betting on its ability to keep growing commercial revenue.
Claude’s official account on X told users that new sessions will now default to their selected model or to Opus 4.8. Existing Fable 5 sessions will end with an error, and developers were advised to update their integrations to other Claude models.


Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Since February 2025, Anthropic has launched 13 vertical AI products and has stopped consistently warning business partners before releasing tools that compete with them.
The shift has hit design and enterprise software companies hard. Figma is down about 50% year to date, raising fresh questions about how AI model providers will coexist with the companies building products on top of their models.
The issue is familiar in tech: a platform company moves up the stack and enters its customers’ market. What makes Anthropic different is the speed of the expansion and the leverage it holds over the model layer.
Anthropic moves deeper into its customers’ markets
Anthropic introduced Claude Code in February 2025 and kept expanding from there. By May 2026, the company had added agents for financial services, Claude for Legal, and Claude for Small Business, according to PYMNTS.
Each product puts Anthropic closer to startups and traditional software companies that have built tools around its models. Those companies now face a supplier that can also become a direct competitor.
Partners say the warning signs are fading
Anthropic previously notified some clients before launching products that could compete with them. That practice is now less consistent, according to The Information.
The report said Anthropic does not always tell partners before entering their markets. It also pointed to the company’s Mythos AI model, which reportedly reduces performance when customers use it to build competing AI software or hardware.
For companies that chose Anthropic as their foundation model provider, that combination narrows the runway. They are not only competing with Anthropic’s products; they are also dependent on Anthropic’s infrastructure.
Figma becomes the clearest casualty
The market reaction was most visible on April 17, when Anthropic launched Claude Design, a conversational tool powered by Claude Opus 4.7. The product can generate prototypes, slide decks, and marketing assets from text prompts.
Figma shares fell 7.5% that day, closing at $18.84 from a prior close of $20.32, according to the Times of India. Adobe also dropped more than 1%.
Three days before the launch, Anthropic chief product officer Mike Krieger resigned from Figma’s board, a seat he had held for about a year, The Information reported. Krieger has publicly argued that the largest AI labs will come to dominate software businesses, according to SmarterX.
Figma has now fallen sharply from its 52-week high of $142.92, reached in August 2025, according to AI Business Weekly. The company went public in July 2025, with shares surging 250% on the first day of trading.
Less than a year later, it is caught in what Wall Street has called the “SaaSpocalypse,” a broader software selloff that has wiped close to $1 trillion from the sector in early 2026.
Platform risk returns, but with more control
Platform companies competing with their partners is not new. Amazon Web Services spent years assuring customers it would not move aggressively into application-layer software, then launched services that challenged companies such as Elastic, MongoDB, and Datadog.
Apple’s annual developer conference has long carried the threat of “Sherlocking,” a term coined after Apple copied key features from Watson, a popular third-party search tool, and built similar functionality into macOS. Google has also displaced partners by bundling maps, email, and productivity tools into its own ecosystem.
The AI boom adds a more serious twist. Model providers do not just control distribution or access to an app store. They control the inference layer.
This provides Anthropic with a much higher degree of control than early platform companies enjoyed. A model can be degraded with respect to specific competitive use cases; thus, the platform provider can degrade the underlying technology that forms the partner’s product.
Software companies look for ways around the threat
Based on The Information, firms that may feel the heat from Anthropic’s expansion fall into one of three categories. They are developing more specialized products for different sectors, emphasizing the compliance and observability features that a generic AI system lacks, and allowing users to select their preferred AI models.
This last point might be the most crucial. In Feb of ’26, Figma themselves partnered with Anthropic on “Code to Canvas”-an integration that “transforms Claude Code responses into Figma designs,” AI Business Weekly reports.
It demonstrates the problem software businesses are in. They must integrate with frontier AIs in order to keep their product relevant even if they risk killing their business themselves by integrating with those AIs.
AI uncertainty freezes software dealmaking
The pressure is also showing up in software mergers and acquisitions. Software deal activity fell to $50 billion in the first five months of 2026, down from $88 billion during the same period last year, according to PYMNTS. That marks the lowest January-to-May deal volume since the pandemic era.
PYMNTS cited industry executives who said buyers are struggling to value software companies while AI reshapes the sector. The concern is simple: many software firms may not be as defensible if model providers can build similar products faster and cheaper.
For Anthropic, the move into vertical software makes business sense. Selling full products can offer better margins than selling API access, especially as the company works to grow revenue before a possible IPO.
For the software companies that built on Anthropic’s models, the equation has changed. Their platform provider is no longer just a supplier. It is becoming a competitor.


If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

An alliance of U.S. state attorneys general is investigating OpenAI, issuing the company an expansive subpoena on Friday, June 12. The states are seeking documents on OpenAI’s advertising policies, user interactions, data management, and product use by children and older users.
The investigation, led by New York’s attorney general, could force new scrutiny on how OpenAI designs, markets, and monitors ChatGPT and its other AI products.
Subpoena reaches into ChatGPT’s core design
According to WSJ, the attorneys general are seeking documents related to deep learning algorithms, company policies, consumer health information, and user retention tactics.
For OpenAI, each of these categories could represent a point of regulatory scrutiny. OpenAI’s business hinges on hundreds of millions of people using a single chatbot and any issues concerning safety, engagement, privacy, and handling of delicate conversations, could have far-reaching effects.
OpenAI acknowledged the investigation with this statement:
AI is a new and powerful technology, and we work every day to safely bring its benefits to people in a responsible way. We take the concerns raised by state attorneys general seriously and intend to engage constructively with their offices.
Warnings over AI chatbots turn into enforcement pressure
This subpoena comes after months of alerts from state authorities. The Verge states that the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter in December of 2025 to Meta, Google, OpenAI, and other AI providers suggesting that their chatbot services could be illegally circumventing state regulations.
The letter called AI generative technology “a threat to the public” and said companies have until January 16, 2026 to reply with specifics of “safeguards.”
In September, Attorney General Rob Bonta and Attorney General Kathy Jennings met with OpenAI directly and sent a letter stating “grave concern over increasing reports of the way OpenAI products interact with children.”
This meeting happened about a week after Bonta and 44 other attorney generals sent a letter to 12 of the largest AI companies due to reports of sexually inappropriate conversations with AI chatbots.
This pattern is reminiscent of prior state-driven attempts to clamp down on social media, crypto, and data privacy in which the state regulators outpaced Congress, leaving companies scrambling before federal guidelines were established.
Florida lawsuit raises the stakes for OpenAI
The multi-state investigation follows Florida’s decision to become the first state to sue OpenAI directly.
On June 1, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a lawsuit against OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman personally, alleging that ChatGPT harmed children by giving information to school shooters, offering guidance on self-harm, and addicting young users without adequate parental controls.
“OpenAI and Altman ignored internal and external safety warnings, put children at great risk, and allowed a dangerous product to reach millions of Floridians,” Uthmeier said.
He added that the company could face liability “potentially for billions of dollars” and called for a court order forcing OpenAI to change how its products interact with young users.
OpenAI said in response that it had “put in place industry-leading protections and policies,” including age prediction tools and a more protective experience for minors.
The Florida lawsuit grew out of a criminal investigation Uthmeier launched in April into ChatGPT’s alleged role in a 2025 mass shooting at Florida State University, where prosecutors reviewed chat logs between the accused gunman and the chatbot.
Congress stalls as states move ahead on AI rules
Federal legislation has moved more slowly. On April 30, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the Guidelines for User Age-verification and Responsible Dialogue Act, known as the GUARD Act.
The bipartisan bill from Senators Josh Hawley and Richard Blumenthal would ban AI companions designed to simulate relationships with minors and impose criminal penalties on companies that make chatbots producing sexually explicit content available to children. However, no floor vote has been scheduled, according to reports.
In the meantime, states are moving ahead. Since 2025, lawmakers in 49 states and the District of Columbia have introduced 464 bills related to chatbot safeguards and AI in health care, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. More than half of those states have enacted at least one such law.
“It’s better if we can do it at a national level so we have consistency across the nation, but we can’t wait,” Washington State Representative Lisa Callan said.
Regulatory pressure could follow OpenAI into its IPO window
The probe may undermine OpenAI’s forthcoming public offering, a deal that could value the company as one of the biggest tech companies ever.
Broad document requests concerning policies, engagement metrics, data handling, and product design, would potentially invite legal scrutiny and public debate over OpenAI’s choices.
The terms of any settlement or consent decree may even require changes to the design of ChatGPT, in areas such as health-related advice, youth safety, prompts encouraging engagement, and the collection of personal user data.
Due to the large size of the company the risks for OpenAI appear to be even greater. With more than 900 million weekly users reported in April, any actions taken by regulators could have a significant impact on its user numbers.
Investors watching the IPO process will now be looking closely at whether the state investigations produce new legal risks before OpenAI’s expected listing window in September.


If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Binance CEO Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has commented on the abrupt halt of the exchange’s long-awaited space-themed listing. He assured customers’ security is at the top of their list.
The decision comes after Binance and other crypto exchanges, including Bybit and Bitget, failed to secure enough SpaceX-related shares to back tokenized exposure products tied to the company’s upcoming public listing.
The canceled offering had attracted huge demand. Despite the high interest, the partner issuer behind the product was unable to provide enough underlying SpaceX stock to match the tokenized claims. And exchanges ended up stopping allocations entirely.
CZ reassures users as Binance halts SPCXx IPO plan
CZ emphasized user protection on an X post, saying “Protect users when things don’t go as planned.”
He also linked the official statement to the Binance Wallet SPCXx IPO reversals. Binance said it was unable to carry out the plan due to “circumstances outside of our control.” It added, “We sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.” It also specified how compensation was made available to those affected.
All USDC tokens that participants subscribed to will be refunded to them in the same way as they paid. Refunds are in process and will be completed by June 12, Binance said.
In addition to refunds, Binance also announced a $1 million compensation for the users in the form of SPCXB tokens. Binance says SPCXB will be an “upcoming bStocks token that will track the price of the SpaceX stock.”
They say users who participated in the airdrop will also receive the same amount of the airdrop in their Binance Spot accounts by June 18. The digital asset will be backed “1:1 by real SpaceX shares held by a regulated custodian” and will also provide proof of reserves for transparency, the company says. Prior to that, Binance had launched pre-IPO perpetual futures for SpaceX’s debut.
$557M investor demand builds before Binance cancels SPCXx offering
Many investors were keenly interested in Binance’s canceled campaign. Dune Analytics reported that the offering attracted about $557 million in subscriptions from 27,689 wallet addresses.
Retail investors dominated the offering. These subscribers, who pledged less than one-fifth of the total capital, earned over $20,000. About 17% of the subscribers were mid-sized participants ($20,000-$100,000) who contributed nearly 58% of the money raised. The large investors were also part of the campaign. More than 10% of the subscribed capital, or at least 114 wallet addresses, contributed more than $500,000.
The SPCXx was attached to xStocks and was intended to give investors exposure to SpaceX without them having to buy shares publicly. However, SpaceX’s pre-IPO allocation received by xStocks from underwriters came in below expectations. Hence, Binance and Bybit had to cancel their campaign.
SPCXx fallout exposes risks in tokenized stock markets
The incident highlights growing demand for tokenized real-world assets, while also exposing challenges in aligning blockchain-based products with traditional equity markets. Analysts note that while investor appetite is strong, supply constraints and regulatory complexities remain key hurdles.
Binance has reiterated that all affected users will be fully refunded, with no additional action required on their part. As the industry continues experimenting with tokenized securities, the episode underscores the difficulties of bridging traditional stock markets with crypto infrastructure in fast-moving conditions.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

A federal lawsuit was filed by Google on Friday against a China-based cybercrime network which, officials claim, used Google’s Gemini AI to conduct a phishing campaign that is now linked by the FBI to 3.87 million stolen credit cards and a total $1.9 billion in losses since July 2023.
The network, which Google calls “Outsider Enterprise,” sold phishing software as a subscription for $88 per week or $200 per month, according to the complaint filed in Manhattan federal court.
Buyers got access to more than 290 ready-made website templates impersonating banks, telecom providers, government agencies, shipping companies, state DMVs, New York’s E-ZPass, NYC government services, and retailers, along with step-by-step instructions for using AI platforms to generate convincing fake pages.
Google is pursuing claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alongside trademark infringement and misuse of Google Cloud and Drive services.
The FBI traced 3.87 million stolen cards and $1.9 billion in losses to one network
Between November 14, 2015 and April 14, 2016, Google flagged over 1.59 million URLs associated with the phishing service.
During a two-week period in May this year, Android users reported 55,000 spam texts linked to the operation, and 2.5 million Android devices received texts containing Outsider-generated website links.
According to an FBI assistant director, Brett Leatherman, financial losses are “much higher” than those reported by Google. The Outsider platform allowed attackers to compromise approximately 3.87 million credit card numbers and resulted in estimated losses totaling $1.9 billion since July of 2023.
The bureau says attacks hit people and businesses in 55 countries. The payment cards themselves were issued by financial institutions in 95 countries, per Google’s complaint.
“Criminals increasingly use AI to make fraud like this more convincing and harder to detect,” Leatherman said.
Outsider sold a turn-key phishing platform that runs on Telegram and Gemini
The Outsider software functions as a turnkey phishing platform that requires no coding ability. Subscribers buy access through a Telegram bot, then use pre-built templates to spin up fake websites in minutes. The platform offers real-time dashboards, keystroke logging, automated credential harvesting, and tools to bypass multifactor authentication.
According to Google’s complaint, the network distributed detailed tutorials on how its members can use Gemini and other Google AI tools to create shell site HTML. The requests for Gemini were worded to appear like harmless programming requests to create a “gift redemption page” with desired features, while not including JavaScript and using inline CSS.
Once a fake site goes live, the operation’s “spammer group” blasts out text messages impersonating trusted brands. Common lures include missed packages, unpaid tolls, parking violations, brokerage account problems, and mobile carrier rewards.
Victims who click through and enter their credentials hand over data in real time through the platform’s keystroke logging system.
The network ran like a company with four specialized divisions
Google’s complaint describes Outsider Enterprise as a structured organization. One group develops and maintains the phishing software and templates.
Another curates target lists from public records, social media, and data breaches.
A third handles bulk SMS infrastructure, operating smartphone banks, SIM cards, and modems.
A fourth monetizes stolen credentials and launders funds. Members coordinate openly on Telegram, where they train each other, share strategies, and recruit new participants.
Operation Ghost Hook combined a civil lawsuit with FBI infrastructure seizures
The joint operation, dubbed “Operation Ghost Hook,” netted the seizure of several core admin domains, a Shopify storefront, roughly $100,000 from Outsider payment wallets, and thousands of domains registered through US-based providers.
The FBI even used Outsider’s own Telegram bot to access information on the network’s customers. Google coordinated with the FBI and Lumen Technologies’ Black Lotus Labs on the takedown, and is working with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon to block Outsider-linked texts from reaching customers. Google said its AI-powered defenses intercept more than 10 billion scam messages per month.
The case is Google’s second major action against China-based phishing-as-a-service in seven months. As Cryptopolitan reported in May, Google’s Threat Intelligence Group caught the first zero-day exploit built with AI assistance, attributed to Chinese and North Korean groups.
In November 2025, Google sued a separate operation called Lighthouse, which targeted more than 1 million victims across 120 countries and offered over 600 templates impersonating 400 entities.
That earlier suit, also brought under RICO, effectively shut Lighthouse down within hours via a temporary restraining order. The Outsider case extends that approach into the AI era, with the model layer doing the work that human coders did for Lighthouse.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Mark Zuckerberg confirmed in an internal memo that Meta’s broad AI reorganization was “disruptive” for many employees and said that further layoffs are not expected company-wide in 2026. He promised an increased sense of stability following a year of the company’s 10% reduction of its workforce and tens of thousands of employees shifting into new roles focused on AI.
The memo, issued on Friday, comes as frustration has hit a fever pitch inside of Meta. Last month 8,000 Meta employees were laid off while approximately 7,000 were transitioned into new AI focused positions.
In total the reshuffling impacted approximately 20 percent of Meta’s near-78,000 employee base, per an earlier internal memo by Chief People Officer Janelle Gale.
Given the complexity of these changes, we’ve made mistakes and will almost certainly make more.
– Mark Zuckerberg, Meta CEO
It is the first time he has publicly acknowledged that the AI pivot is causing real damage inside the company.
Applied AI Engineering employees call their unit ‘the gulag’
The sharpest complaints center on Applied AI Engineering, a unit of roughly 6,500 engineers and product managers assembled since March to support Meta Superintelligence Labs.
Employees reassigned to AAI had no option to transfer elsewhere within Meta. They could join or leave the company, an unusual demand for senior technical workers in Silicon Valley.
Some have taken to calling themselves “draftees.” Three current employees told WIRED that the work feels menial compared to the software development roles they previously held, with tasks including generating coding puzzles to test and train frontier AI models.
One worker claimed most found the job “soul crushing.” Another called it “literally the gulag,” with a structure in which workers interacted minimally and were assigned tasks weekly with little creative latitude.
Some AAI teams operated with a 50-to-1 ratio of individual contributors to managers.
Zuckerberg said the company will scale that back. He defended the unit as critical to advancing Meta’s models, framed the work as temporary, and said the company will look to move staff into new roles around Meta in the coming months.
He also said employees could transfer back to their original teams if staffing decisions prove to be mistakes.
More than 1,600 employees signed a petition against mouse-tracking
The discontent at Meta runs beyond AAI. New reports say more than 1,600 employees signed a petition against a recently launched program that monitors US workers’ clicks and keystrokes to generate AI training data, up from about 1,000 signatures in May.
Meta scaled the program back on June 2, allowing employees to pause data collection for up to 30 minutes and request specific exemptions.
As Cryptopolitan reported in May, more than 95,000 tech workers were cut across 240 separate events in the first months of 2026, with companies pointing directly to AI as the cause.
Meta has been one of the loudest contributors, and Polymarket traders have priced elevated layoff odds across major tech for months. Zuckerberg’s promise to halt company-wide layoffs for the rest of 2026 is the first sign of a pause from any major US tech employer this year.
Chris Cox tells leadership to ‘get in touch with the company again’
At a company-wide Instagram meeting this week, Meta chief product officer Chris Cox described the past few months as “brutal,” comparing the experience to running a marathon in the middle of a hailstorm.
Cox urged leadership to “get in touch with the company again” and cautioned against treating AI as either savior or threat.
Just a week after that May 18th layoff memo where Zuckerberg unapologetically told workers that success is “not a given,” Meta raised its guidance for 2026 capital expenditures to a range of $125B-145B, almost double its spending of $72B in 2025.
The change in stance from May to the Friday, June 12 memo, where Zuckerberg owned his missteps and promised steadiness, shows how much the internal pressure at Meta has shifted Zuckerberg in just three weeks.
Zuckerberg pledges hackathons, assigned desks, and bigger offsite budgets
Per the memo, Meta will increase budgets for team offsites and corporate events, organize a company-wide hackathon in July, and restore assigned desks for employees in many offices by year-end.
Zuckerberg also said the company will look for new roles for staff currently doing AI model training work.
The restructuring is part of Zuckerberg’s broader bet on artificial intelligence as Meta competes with OpenAI, Google, and Microsoft on AI agents and services.
As of the time of writing, Meta has yet to comment on the memo.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.