Crypto campaign donations are democracy at work — former Kraken exec  

Gracy Chen, CEO of cryptocurrency exchange Bitget, criticized Hyperliquid’s handling of a March 26 incident on its perpetual exchange, saying it put the network at risk of becoming “FTX 2.0.”On March 26, Hyperliquid, a blockchain network specializing in trading, said it delisted perpetual futures contracts for the JELLY token and would reimburse users after identifying “evidence of suspicious market activity” tied to the instruments. The decision, which was reached by consensus among Hyperliquid’s relatively small number of validators, flagged existing concerns about the popular network’s perceived centralization.“Despite presenting itself as an innovative decentralized exchange with a bold vision, Hyperliquid operates more like an offshore [centralized exchange],” Chen said, after saying “Hyperliquid may be on track to become FTX 2.0.”FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange run by Sam Bankman-Fried, who was convicted of fraud in the US after FTX’s abrupt collapse in 2022. Chen did not accuse Hyperliquid of specific legal infractions, instead emphasizing what she considered to be Hyperliquid’s “immature, unethical, and unprofessional” response to the event.“The decision to close the $JELLY market and force settlement of positions at a favorable price sets a dangerous precedent,” Chen said. “Trust—not capital—is the foundation of any exchange and once lost, it’s almost impossible to recover.”Source: Gracy ChenRelated: Hyperliquid delists JELLY perps, citing ‘suspicious’ activityJELLY incidentThe JELLY token was launched in January by Venmo co-founder Iqram Magdon-Ismail as part of a Web3 social media project dubbed JellyJelly. It initially reached a market capitalization of roughly $250 million before falling to the single digit millions in the ensuing weeks, according to DexScreener. On March 26, JELLY’s market cap soared to around $25 million after Binance, the world’s most popular crypto exchange, launched its own perpetual futures tied to the token. The same day, a Hyperliquid trader “opened a massive $6M short position on JellyJelly” and then “deliberately self-liquidated by pumping JellyJelly’s price on-chain,” Abhi, founder of Web3 company AP Collective, said in an X post.BitMEX founder Arthur Hayes said initial reactions to Hyperliquid’s JELLY incident overestimated the network’s potential reputational risks.“Let’s stop pretending hyperliquid is decentralised. And then stop pretending traders actually [care],” Hayes said in an X post. “Bet you $HYPE is back where [it] started in short order cause degens gonna degen.”Binance launched JELLY perps on March 26. Source: BinanceGrowing painsOn March 12, Hyperliquid grappled with a similar crisis caused by a whale who intentionally liquidated a roughly $200 million long Ether (ETH) position. The trade cost depositors into Hyperliquid’s liquidity pool, HLP, roughly $4 million in losses after forcing the pool to unwind the trade at unfavorable prices. Since then, Hyperliquid has increased collateral requirements for open positions to “reduce the systemic impact of large positions with hypothetical market impact upon closing.” Hyperliquid operates the most popular leveraged perpetuals trading platform, controlling roughly 70% of market share, according to a January report by asset manager VanEck. Perpetual futures, or “perps,” are leveraged futures contracts with no expiry date. Traders deposit margin collateral, such as USDC, to secure open positions.According to L2Beat, Hyperliquid has two main validator sets, each comprising four validators. By comparison, rival chains such as Solana and Ethereum are supported by approximately 1,000 and 1 million validators, respectively. More validators generally lessen the risk of a small group of insiders manipulating a blockchain. Magazine: What are native rollups? Full guide to Ethereum’s latest innovation

Stablecoin issuers should be restricted from providing yield-bearing opportunities to protect the legacy banking system, which issues home mortgages and small business loans, US Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said at a summit in Washington, DC.Speaking at the 2025 DC Blockchain Summit on March 26, the Democratic senator from New York praised her state for having some of the most robust financial regulations in the world, and said they should be adopted by all financial services sectors.According to Gillibrand, these regulations need to be applied to stablecoin issuers, whether they are regulated at the state or federal levels, to ensure compliance with existing laws and to protect consumer safety. Gillibrand then turned her attention to protecting the banking industry:”Do you want a stablecoin issuer to be able to issue interest, probably not, because if they are issuing interest, there is no reason to put your money in a local bank. If there is no reason to put your money in a local bank, who is going to give you a mortgage?“If there is no deposit, small banks cannot do that anymore; it will collapse the financial services system that people rely on for their businesses and mortgages,” Gillibrand continued.Senator Gillibrand speaking at a panel during the DC Blockchain Summit. Source: DC Blockchain SummitRelated: US stablecoin bill likely in ‘next 2 months’ — Trump’s crypto council headGillibrand is a co-sponsor of the GENIUS stablecoin legislation — a bill introduced by Senator Bill Hagerty in February that would establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital fiat tokens.On March 10, Hagerty updated the bill to include stricter anti-money laundering provisions, know your customer (KYC) requirements, financial transparency regulations, and consumer protection controls.The Senate Banking Committee advanced the GENIUS bill in an 18-6 vote on March 13. The bill must clear both chambers of Congress in floor votes before it hits US President Donald Trump’s desk for signing.The GENIUS Act of 2025. Source: United States SenateCritics of the GENIUS stablecoin bill say the legislation is a thinly veiled attempt to establish a central bank digital currency (CBDC) in the United States through privatized means.Jean Rausis, co-founder of the decentralized trading platform Smardex, argued that centralized stablecoins provide avenues for financial censorship and state surveillance that could culminate in the government’s ability to turn off money or lock individuals out of the financial system.Magazine: Unstablecoins: Depegging, bank runs and other risks loom

Despite strong institutional demand, Bitcoin (BTC) has struggled to reclaim the $100,000 level for the past 50 days, leading investors to question the reasons behind the bearishness despite a seemingly positive environment. This price weakness is particularly intriguing given the US Strategic Bitcoin Reserve executive order issued by President Donald Trump on March 6, which allows BTC acquisitions as long as they follow “budget-neutral” strategies.Bitcoin fails to keep up with gold’s returns despite positive news flowOn March 26, GameStop Corporation (GME), the North American video game and consumer electronics retailer, announced plans to allocate a portion of its corporate reserves to Bitcoin. The company, which was on the verge of bankruptcy in 2021, successfully capitalized on a historic short squeeze and managed to secure an impressive $4.77 billion in cash and equivalents by February 2025.Largest corporate Bitcoin holdings. Source: BitcoinTreasuries.NETA growing number of US-based and international companies have followed Michael Saylor’s Strategy (MSTR) playbook, including the Japanese firm Metaplanet, which recently appointed Eric Trump, son of US President Donald Trump, to its newly established strategic board of advisers. Similarly, the mining conglomerate MARA Holdings (MARA) adopted a Bitcoin treasury policy to “retain all BTC” and increase its exposure through debt offerings.There must be a strong reason for Bitcoin investors to sell their holdings, especially as gold is trading just 1.3% below its all-time high of $3,057. For example, while the US administration adopted a pro-crypto stance following Trump’s election, the infrastructure needed for Bitcoin to serve as collateral and integrate into traditional financial systems remains largely undeveloped.Bitcoin/USD (orange) vs. gold / S&P 500 index. Source: TradingView / CointelegraphThe US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) is limited to cash settlement, preventing in-kind deposits and withdrawals. Fortunately, a potential rule change, currently under review by the US Securities and Exchange Commission, could reduce capital gain distributions and enhance tax efficiency, according to Bitseeker Consulting chief architect Chris J. Terry.Regulation and Bitcoin integration into TradFi remains an issue Banks like JPMorgan primarily serve as intermediaries or custodians for cryptocurrency-related instruments such as derivatives and spot Bitcoin ETFs. The repeal of the SAB 121 accounting rule on Jan. 23—an SEC ruling that imposed strict capital requirements on digital assets—does not necessarily guarantee broader adoption.For example, some traditional investment firms, like Vanguard, still prohibit clients from trading or holding shares of the spot Bitcoin ETFs, while administrators like BNY Mellon have reportedly restricted mutual funds’ exposure to these products. In fact, a significant number of wealth managers and advisers remain unable to offer any cryptocurrency investments to their clients, even when listed on US exchanges.The Bitcoin derivatives market lacks regulatory clarity, with most exchanges opting to ban North American participants and choosing to register their companies in fiscal havens. Despite the growth of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) over the years, it still accounts for only 23% of Bitcoin’s $56.4 billion futures open interest, while competitors benefit from fewer capital restrictions, easier client onboarding, and less regulatory oversight on trading.Related: SEC plans 4 more crypto roundtables on trading, custody, tokenization, DeFiBitcoin futures open interest ranking, USD. Source: CoinGlassInstitutional investors remain hesitant to gain exposure to Bitcoin markets due to concerns about market manipulation and a lack of transparency among leading exchanges. The fact that Binance, KuCoin, OK and Kraken have paid significant fines to US authorities for potential anti-money laundering violations and unlicensed operations further fuels the negative sentiment toward the sector.Ultimately, the buying interest from a small number of companies is not enough to push Bitcoin’s price to $200,000, and additional integration with the banking sector remains uncertain, despite more favorable regulatory conditions. Until then, Bitcoin’s upside potential will continue to be limited as risk perception remains elevated, especially within the institutional investment community.This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.