Crypto Groups Move to Block Illinois Tax

The Crypto Council for Innovation and Blockchain Association are challenging Illinois’ 0.2% tax on crypto activity, arguing that the levy is unconstitutional and too expensive to administer. Their push comes ahead of the tax’s planned January effective date, raising the stakes for businesses operating in the state.

The groups are building on an earlier lawsuit in an effort to stop the measure before it takes effect. Their central argument is that the tax would create costly compliance demands for exchanges, platforms, and other crypto companies, potentially forcing them to track and report activity in ways that could be difficult to implement.

If the challenge succeeds, Illinois could be blocked from collecting the tax and other states may think twice before copying the policy. If it fails, crypto businesses and users could face higher operating costs, while the case may establish an important precedent for how states tax digital assets.

What This Means for Crypto

A 0.2% tax may sound small, but crypto businesses can process enormous transaction volumes. Applied broadly, even a modest levy could become expensive, especially for exchanges and market makers operating on thin margins.

For traders, the immediate risk is higher fees or reduced services if companies pass compliance costs to customers. Long-term investors may see the case as part of a larger fight over whether crypto should be taxed like traditional financial activity or subjected to special state-level rules.

Market Impact and Next Moves

The short-term market reaction is likely mixed rather than dramatic. This is a legal and policy battle, not a direct threat to a major token, but regulatory uncertainty can still weigh on business investment and weaken confidence among builders.

The biggest risks are an adverse court decision, fragmented state tax rules, and compliance costs that push companies away from Illinois. The opportunity is equally clear: a successful challenge could limit aggressive crypto taxation and give the industry a stronger legal foothold as lawmakers design future digital-asset policy.

Illinois’ tax fight could become a national test of whether crypto regulation supports innovation—or quietly prices it out.

Bitcoin Needs Weekly Close Above $78,000, Capriole Investments Founder Says

Bitcoin must reclaim the $78,000 level by the end of the current weekly trading period to avoid a potential deterioration in its near-term market outlook, according to Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments.

Edwards Sets $78,000 Threshold

Edwards said bitcoin needs to record a weekly close above $78,000 “pronto.” At the time of his statement, the cryptocurrency was approximately $2,000 below that level.

A weekly close above a specific price can carry greater technical significance than an intraday move because it reflects whether the market sustained that level through the end of the trading period. Conversely, failure to regain the threshold could reinforce bearish pressure, according to Edwards’ assessment.

Near-Term Market Focus

The $78,000 level is now a key area for traders monitoring bitcoin’s short-term direction. A sustained move above it could help stabilize market sentiment, while continued trading below the threshold may increase attention on potential downside risks.

Edwards did not provide a specific downside target in his comments. Bitcoin’s next weekly close will determine whether the market can reclaim the level he identified as critical to its near-term outlook.

Jack Dorsey, a longtime advocate of bitcoin and open-source technology, has challenged elements of Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s approach to managing the pace of artificial intelligence development. The debate carries implications for Block, the payments and financial technology company led by Dorsey, which is developing products that combine bitcoin, financial services and artificial intelligence.

Dorsey Calls for Greater Openness

Amodei, whose company developed the Claude AI platform, has argued that the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence requires careful consideration of its potential economic and societal effects. In response, Dorsey pushed back against parts of Amodei’s proposed approach, emphasizing the importance of openness in AI development.

Dorsey’s position is consistent with his broader support for open technologies. He has frequently advocated decentralized systems and publicly accessible software, including through his support for bitcoin and open-source development.

Potential Implications for Block

The discussion is also relevant to Block, the financial technology company Dorsey co-founded and leads. Block operates products including Square and Cash App, and has expanded its work in bitcoin-related services and AI-powered tools.

The company has described its broader goal as building a financial system that is “open to everyone.” As AI becomes more deeply integrated into payments, commerce and financial products, questions surrounding transparency, access and governance could influence how Block develops and deploys these technologies.

AI Development Debate Continues

The exchange highlights a broader debate within the technology industry over how quickly AI systems should advance and how much information companies should disclose about their development. Supporters of greater openness argue that transparency can encourage innovation and public oversight, while industry leaders have warned that advanced systems may create safety, security and economic risks.

How the debate develops could affect technology companies operating across both AI and digital finance, particularly as they balance innovation with regulatory and risk-management requirements.

Hunter Biden’s LAPTOP Token Rebounds After Falling to $0.192

Hunter Biden’s LAPTOP memecoin rebounded to approximately $0.24 on Tuesday after declining to $0.192. Despite the recovery, the token remains down about 99% from its Sept. 9 peak of $199.51.

Token Remains Far Below Record High

The latest move represents a modest recovery from the token’s recent low, but it has done little to reverse the broader post-launch decline. From its all-time high, LAPTOP has lost nearly all of its value, underscoring the extreme volatility that has characterized the market for politically themed memecoins.

Rebound Comes Amid Broader Market Weakness

LAPTOP’s recovery occurred as the broader cryptocurrency market faced selling pressure following the U.S. Senate’s failed vote on the CLARITY Act. The legislative effort had drawn attention from digital asset market participants because of its potential implications for cryptocurrency regulation in the United States.

While major cryptocurrencies and smaller tokens moved lower during the session, LAPTOP briefly moved higher before remaining well below its September peak.

Memecoin Volatility Draws Continued Scrutiny

Memecoins can experience sharp price movements driven by social-media attention, speculation and limited liquidity. The rapid rise and subsequent collapse of LAPTOP has renewed scrutiny of tokens linked to public figures, particularly those that reach high valuations shortly after launch.

Market participants continue to monitor trading activity and liquidity as the token attempts to stabilize following its steep decline.

Grayscale Places XRP ETF Among Top Allocations in New Model Portfolios

Grayscale has included its XRP exchange-traded fund among the largest allocations in new cryptocurrency model portfolios designed for financial advisers, placing the fund ahead of several other digital-asset products.

XRP ETF Ranks Among Leading Holdings

The XRP fund holds the second-largest allocation in Grayscale’s Next Gen strategy, which excludes bitcoin. It trails only the firm’s ether ETF in that portfolio.

In Grayscale’s broader Leaders model, which includes bitcoin and ether exposure, the XRP ETF ranks third. The firm’s bitcoin and ether funds occupy the first two positions.

Model Portfolios Target Financial Advisers

Grayscale’s model portfolios are structured to help financial advisers build diversified digital-asset allocations for clients. The inclusion of the XRP ETF in the top three positions across the strategies signals that the asset is being considered alongside bitcoin and ether in the firm’s portfolio construction framework.

Grayscale did not disclose the specific allocation percentages in the available information. The rankings also do not indicate future performance or represent investment advice.

KALSHI WINS: COURT SLAPS CFTC FOR BLOCKING ELECTION BETS

Kalshi just beat the CFTC in federal court. The D.C. Circuit refused to pause a lower-court order that forces the agency to let the prediction market list contracts on U.S. elections, exposing a key fault line between regulators and crypto-native exchanges.

The case began when Kalshi asked the CFTC to approve “Congressional Control” contracts—binary bets on which party would control the House and Senate. The agency rejected the product, claiming it was “contrary to the public interest.” Kalshi sued, arguing the CFTC lacked statutory authority to block a contract simply because it was politically sensitive. A district judge agreed and ordered the CFTC to let the market open. The agency rushed to the appeals court, asking for an emergency stay that would have kept the contracts offline until the full appeal played out.

The three-judge panel refused. In a terse order, the court found that the CFTC failed to show it was likely to win on appeal or that letting the contracts trade would cause irreparable harm. That ruling keeps the contracts live while the larger legal fight continues.

The decision is narrow on its face but broad in effect. It tells the CFTC that disapproval must rest on concrete statutory grounds, not vague policy discomfort. It also signals that courts will scrutinize agency attempts to stretch their reach into novel products—especially those built on blockchains.

For crypto markets, the win widens the lane for on-chain event contracts. If Kalshi can host election markets, other platforms may test similar products, accelerating the collision between decentralized finance and traditional regulatory gatekeepers. The CFTC’s loss weakens its leverage in future disputes over what counts as a “commodity” versus an illegal off-exchange bet. Exchanges gain breathing room; traders gain access to risk tools that regulators once blocked.

The CFTC will keep fighting, but today’s order shows courts are willing to second-guess agency instincts when those instincts clash with clear statutory text.

COURT BLOCKS TEXAS BLOCKCHAIN RAID

Texas appeals court halts a surprise raid on Envy Blockchain, ruling that state regulators and sheriffs overstepped their authority when they seized mining equipment without proving the company posed an imminent threat to public safety. The Eighth District’s decision slams the brakes on aggressive enforcement tactics and signals that crypto operations cannot be treated like drug labs or weapons caches.

The fight began when the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and local law enforcement obtained an ex parte seizure order claiming Envy’s 30-megawatt mining site was an unlicensed “energy hog” that endangered the grid. Envy fired back with a petition for mandamus, arguing that the regulators had no statutory power to bypass normal notice-and-hearing requirements and that the seizure violated due-process protections. The appeals court agreed, finding that the state had failed to demonstrate “extreme necessity” and that the administrative code does not grant blanket authority to confiscate private property first and ask questions later.

The panel granted the writ, ordering the immediate return of the seized ASIC rigs and vacating the seizure order. Envy, its landlord, and CEO Stephen Decani emerge as clear winners; the state agencies and the sheriff’s office lose both the hardware and the precedent they hoped to set. Going forward, any future enforcement action against a mining facility must proceed through ordinary administrative channels—complete with notice, an opportunity to be heard, and judicial oversight—unless regulators can show an actual, immediate danger.

In plain terms, the ruling tells state officials they cannot weaponize emergency powers to short-circuit the legal process just because the target is a crypto mine. It reinforces that blockchain operations are businesses entitled to the same procedural safeguards as any other industrial enterprise, even when they draw heavy power loads.

For crypto markets, the decision narrows the perceived regulatory gap between Texas and friendlier jurisdictions. Miners gain confidence that equipment cannot be snatched overnight, lowering perceived jurisdictional risk and potentially tilting more hash rate toward the Lone Star State. Exchanges and lending desks that finance mining operations can price that risk lower, while stablecoin issuers who rely on Texas-based settlement nodes face one less overhang of sudden operational disruption. The SEC’s influence is untouched, but the ruling underscores that state-level commodity or energy regulators will face judicial pushback if they attempt to regulate by confiscation.

The bigger lesson: courts will still demand evidence before they let regulators treat a data center like a crime scene.

Court Forces CFTC to Hand Over Kraft Documents

The Seventh Circuit has ordered the CFTC to surrender internal documents to Kraft and Mondelēz, ending a years-long fight over what regulators must disclose when they settle manipulation cases. The ruling tightens the leash on an agency that has grown comfortable keeping its investigative files secret.

The dispute began in 2015 when the CFTC accused Kraft of rigging wheat futures. The companies settled for $16 million but demanded the underlying evidence for their own litigation. When the CFTC refused, Kraft sued. A district judge sided with the companies and ordered production. The agency appealed, claiming the records were privileged and that disclosure would chill future enforcement. Yesterday the appeals court rejected that argument, holding that once the CFTC elects to settle a case, the public—and the settling parties—have a presumptive right to see the evidence that justified the penalty.

The judges ruled that the CFTC’s investigative files are not automatically shielded by deliberative-process or law-enforcement privileges when the agency has already concluded its investigation and accepted a settlement. They warned that allowing blanket secrecy would let regulators “write their own exemption from discovery,” undermining both fairness and transparency. Kraft and Mondelēz now gain access to emails, memos, and trader communications that could reshape how the industry views the original enforcement action—and how future targets negotiate with the agency.

In plain terms, the CFTC can no longer treat settled enforcement files as its private archive. Any company that pays a fine can now demand the documents used to build the case, and courts will generally order disclosure unless the agency shows a specific, compelling reason to withhold them. That shifts the balance of power: defendants gain leverage in settlement talks, and regulators lose the comfort of knowing their work product stays hidden.

For crypto markets the precedent is immediate. The CFTC is the primary derivatives cop for Bitcoin, Ether, and every token-labeled future or swap. If enforcement targets can force production of chat logs, internal models, and staff analyses, traders and exchanges will gain early insight into how the agency interprets “market manipulation” in decentralized venues. That visibility could chill aggressive enforcement or, conversely, push the CFTC to settle only when its evidence is bulletproof—raising the stakes for both sides.

Exchanges that list crypto derivatives should now model two scenarios: faster, thinner settlements that come with document dumps, or drawn-out litigation where the agency fights to keep its files closed. Either path increases compliance costs and litigation risk, especially for DeFi protocols that touch U.S. persons. The ruling also strengthens arguments that tokens tied to physically-settled contracts may face the same disclosure obligations once the CFTC brings enforcement.

Regulators just lost their favorite hiding place; traders gained a flashlight.

Ripple Signs Multi-Year Partnership With University of Louisville Athletics

Ripple has entered into a multi-year partnership with the University of Louisville athletics program that will place XRP branding on the school’s basketball court.

XRP Branding to Appear at KFC Yum! Center

Under the agreement, the XRP logo will be displayed permanently on Denny Crum Court at the KFC Yum! Center in Louisville, Kentucky. The venue hosts home games for the university’s men’s and women’s basketball teams.

Partnership Expands XRP’s Sports Presence

The court branding gives Ripple and XRP a long-term presence at one of the university’s most prominent sporting venues. Financial terms and additional details of the partnership were not disclosed in the available announcement.

Ripple is a blockchain technology company, while XRP is the digital asset associated with the XRP Ledger ecosystem. The partnership represents a branding and sponsorship agreement and does not, by itself, change the functionality or status of the XRP token.

Court Blocks Bilzerian’s New Bid to Dodge SEC Ban

A federal judge in Washington just shut down Paul Bilzerian’s latest attempt to wriggle out of a 2001 injunction that bars him and his family from launching new lawsuits without SEC approval. The ruling keeps a two-decade-old financial-fraud sanction alive, signaling that regulators still hold the upper hand when old enforcement orders collide with fresh crypto-era maneuvers.

Bilzerian, once a high-profile corporate raider, was nailed by the SEC in the late eighties for stock manipulation and lying to regulators. The 2001 injunction was meant to stop him from filing endless follow-on suits that could harass victims or clog courts. Last year his son — acting through an entity tied to the family — tried to sue several targets without first getting the Commission’s nod, claiming the old order was either expired or unenforceable. Judge Royce Lamberth rejected both arguments in a brisk nine-page opinion, holding that the injunction’s language is still crystal-clear and that Bilzerian’s creative corporate reshuffling does not erase the restriction.

The decision hands the SEC a quiet but useful precedent: decades-old judgments retain their bite even when defendants attempt to route around them through new entities or next-generation assets. For crypto markets, the message is blunt—courts will not let creative corporate structures or token wrappers dissolve prior restraints, and the Commission can weaponize old orders against repeat players who surface in digital-asset schemes. Exchanges and DeFi protocols that onboard wallets linked to sanctioned individuals now carry added diligence costs; one misstep could trigger contempt findings that ripple through liquidity pools and custody arrangements.

Bottom line: old enforcement orders never sunset on their own—plan accordingly or expect the SEC to collect.

COURT SLAPS SEC IN COINBASE APPEAL — RULING REWRITES CRYPTO ENFORCEMENT

The Second Circuit just handed Coinbase a partial victory that chips away at the SEC’s long-held assumption that almost every token is a security. Judges ruled the agency cannot treat secondary-market trading of already-issued tokens as an ongoing “investment contract” unless it shows fresh promotional efforts by issuers. The decision narrows the agency’s enforcement reach and forces it to prove more than mere resale on an exchange.

The lawsuit began when the SEC sued Coinbase in 2023, claiming the exchange offered unregistered securities by listing tokens like SOL, ADA, and others. Coinbase fought back, arguing that once tokens left the hands of promoters, later trades on the platform no longer met the Howey test’s “efforts of others” prong. The appeals court agreed in part, holding that a token’s initial distribution may have been a security, but its later circulation on a secondary market is a separate question. Judges said the SEC must show ongoing issuer involvement or economic reality tying buyers to the issuer’s profits—not just the fact that the token trades. The agency lost on its broadest theory but kept the ability to pursue cases where issuers actively solicit buyers after listing.

Exchanges and traders gain breathing room; the SEC loses leverage. Coinbase can keep listing tokens whose only connection to issuers is historical, while the Commission must now draft narrower complaints or risk dismissal. Issuers win certainty that secondary liquidity alone will not trigger fresh registration duties, though they still face liability for the original sales. DeFi protocols that merely host order books or automated-market-maker pools gain a stronger argument that they are not offering securities themselves.

The ruling shifts the regulatory center of gravity from the SEC to Congress and the CFTC. Stablecoins and governance tokens that never promised issuer-driven profits look safer, while any token whose whitepaper or social-media campaign continues post-listing remains exposed. Traders pricing legal risk into Solana or Cardano now have court language to cite; desks that treated every altcoin as a potential enforcement target will recalibrate models. Expect the SEC to appeal or pivot to “ecosystem” theories, but the opinion already signals judges will demand real evidence of promoter follow-through.

Markets now price in lower enforcement odds for pure listings, yet higher odds for cases built on fresh marketing—opportunity for compliant platforms, caution for issuers still tweeting price targets.

COURT DECLARES CFTC CAN SUE TRUSTEES, NOT JUST TRUSTS

In a ruling that expands regulators’ reach, the Seventh Circuit held that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can bring enforcement actions directly against trustees of commodity-trading trusts, not merely the trusts themselves. The decision reverses a lower court’s dismissal and sends the case back for further proceedings, signaling that individuals who control trading entities cannot hide behind trust structures to avoid accountability.

The dispute arose after the CFTC alleged that Michael and Phyllis Conway, acting as trustees, used the Conway Family Trust to trade futures contracts in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act. The Conways argued that only the trust—not they personally—could be sued. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit rejected that view, holding that the statute’s broad language allowing actions against “any person” includes trustees who direct trading activity. The court emphasized that the CFTC’s enforcement power is not limited by state-law distinctions between trusts and individuals.

The ruling clarifies that the CFTC can pursue both the trust entity and the people who control it, increasing the risk for anyone managing pooled commodity investments. Trustees now face personal exposure for trading violations, regardless of how the account is legally titled.

In plain English, this means regulators can go after the decision-makers, not just the paper entity. State-law trust formalities will not shield individuals from federal commodity-law violations.

For crypto markets, the decision widens the net regulators can cast. If the CFTC treats digital-asset trading the same way it treats futures, managers of decentralized funds, DAOs, or DeFi protocols could be held personally liable even if the trading occurs through a trust or LLC. The ruling strengthens the agency’s hand against attempts to use novel structures to limit accountability, potentially accelerating enforcement actions in crypto and raising compliance costs for exchanges and protocol developers. Traders should expect closer scrutiny of who actually controls leveraged or derivatives products.

The message is clear: legal wrappers will not outrun CFTC jurisdiction.

Ethiopia Cuts Electricity Allocations to Bitcoin Miners Amid Water Shortages

Ethiopia has reduced electricity deliveries to bitcoin miners by 75% as El Niño-related weather conditions cut reservoir inflows by approximately 20%, placing pressure on the country’s hydropower system.

Miners Receive Only a Fraction of Contracted Power

Following the reduction, bitcoin mining operators are receiving about 23% of the electricity covered by their contracts, according to the reported figures. The cuts reflect concerns over lower water availability for hydropower generation, which supplies most of Ethiopia’s electricity.

The development threatens to disrupt mining operations that have expanded rapidly in Ethiopia because of the country’s comparatively low-cost electricity and abundant hydropower resources.

Mining Industry Became a Major Utility Customer

Bitcoin miners had become one of Ethiopian Electric Power’s largest customer groups. The industry reportedly consumed roughly one-third of the utility’s electricity while contributing approximately 35% of its revenue.

That dependence has created a difficult balance for the state-owned power provider. Mining revenues have supported the utility, but the sector’s substantial electricity demand has also increased its exposure to fluctuations in water availability and power generation.

Hydropower Constraints Put Expansion Under Pressure

The reduced reservoir inflows linked to El Niño have highlighted the risks facing energy-intensive industries that rely on Ethiopia’s hydropower network. Prolonged or recurring water shortages could limit the country’s ability to maintain current mining activity while meeting electricity needs elsewhere.

The extent and duration of the restrictions will depend on reservoir levels, future rainfall and the power system’s ability to balance industrial demand with broader electricity requirements.

Court Clips SEC’s Wings on Crypto Authority

Fifth Circuit just handed the SEC a sharp defeat that could redraw the entire crypto enforcement map. In a sweeping decision, the appeals court ruled that the agency overstepped its statutory authority when it tried to regulate digital assets as securities without clear congressional backing. The ruling lands like a legal earthquake—shaking not only the SEC’s enforcement playbook but also the foundation of how tokens, exchanges, and DeFi protocols may be treated going forward.

The case began when the SEC brought an enforcement action against a crypto firm, arguing that certain digital tokens constituted unregistered securities. The defendants fought back, claiming the tokens lacked the hallmarks of traditional investment contracts and that the agency was stretching decades-old precedent to fit new technology. The legal question boiled down to whether the SEC could unilaterally expand its jurisdiction to cover digital assets without fresh legislation from Congress. The Fifth Circuit said no, holding that the agency exceeded its authority under existing securities laws.

In practical terms, the court found the SEC’s broad interpretation of what counts as an “investment contract” was not supported by the statutory text. The judges rejected the idea that merely offering tokens to the public automatically triggers securities regulation. Instead, they emphasized that each token must meet the specific elements of the Howey test—and that the SEC cannot shortcut that analysis. The decision hands a victory to the crypto industry and a loss to regulators who had been pushing aggressive enforcement actions without clear statutory grounding.

Translated into plain English, the ruling tells the SEC it cannot simply declare new asset classes as securities to fit its enforcement goals. The agency will now need either clearer congressional authority or a narrower, more fact-specific approach to each token. This narrows the SEC’s leverage in settlement talks and weakens its ability to bring sweeping enforcement actions that rely on vague interpretations of existing law.

For markets, this decision tilts power away from Washington and toward innovation. It raises the bar for the SEC to prove that tokens are securities, which could slow enforcement and give exchanges and DeFi projects more room to operate. Stablecoins and utility tokens may now face lower classification risk, while traders could see reduced regulatory overhang on platforms that list a wide range of digital assets. The CFTC’s role may also grow as crypto edges closer to being treated more like commodities than securities. But the fight is far from over—the SEC is expected to appeal or seek new legislation, so the landscape remains fluid.

The bottom line: the Fifth Circuit just bought the crypto industry time and legal breathing room, but it also signaled that without clear legislation, regulators will keep testing the limits—and markets will keep pricing in that uncertainty.

Regal Commodities v Tauber (2024 NY Slip Op 01736)

Court hands crypto broker victory on trading-account liability.

In a March 27 decision, New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department, ruled that Regal Commodities, a commodities and digital-asset brokerage, can pursue a former client for alleged margin shortfalls after the client claimed the platform “glitched” during volatile crypto trading. The panel rejected the client’s argument that the brokerage’s automated risk-engine was a “defective product” under New York law, finding instead that the margin calls arose from an ordinary contractual relationship governed by the account agreement.

The dispute erupted in early 2022 when bitcoin and ether prices swung more than thirty percent in a single session. Tauber, trading on margin, saw his account equity collapse below maintenance levels; Regal’s system automatically liquidated positions and then demanded an additional six-figure deposit. Tauber refused, arguing that a software error—not market moves—triggered the shortfall, and countersued under product-liability and negligence theories. Regal countered that its user agreement clearly shifted all execution risk to the trader and that disputes belonged in arbitration per FINRA-style clauses.

Writing for a unanimous bench, Justice Miller held that the brokerage’s risk-management software did not constitute a “product” for strict-liability purposes; rather, the platform merely executed the parties’ bargained-for allocation of risk. The court enforced the arbitration clause, stayed the litigation, and ordered Tauber to post collateral or face an immediate damages hearing. In short, the decision lets brokerages keep using click-wrap agreements to push crypto-trading losses onto customers so long as the contract is clear and arbitration is specified.

Translated into market terms, the ruling narrows the avenues disgruntled retail traders can use to challenge automated liquidations or claw-backs. Because the Second Department covers New York City—home to many trading desks and OTC crypto desks—platforms can now point to precedent when denying “glitch” excuses. That predictability should lower litigation reserves for exchanges and market-makers, but it also tightens the noose on users who treat margin trading like a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose proposition.

For traders, the message is blunt: if the contract says you eat the slippage, the courts in New York will probably make you swallow it.