Ukrainian authorities, working with Eurojust and law enforcement agencies from Latvia and Lithuania, have dismantled a network of fraudulent crypto investment call centers in Dnipro that allegedly defrauded EU citizens twice, first posing as investment advisors, then returning as fake recovery lawyers to steal again. Eleven suspects are now in custody following a sweeping operation that seized UAH 21 million in cash, luxury vehicles, and dozens of devices.
According to Prosecutor General , the suspects, all local residents allegedly orchestrated a sophisticated crypto investment scam that targeted citizens of European Union member states. The investigation identified at least nine confirmed victims from Latvia and Lithuania, with reported losses exceeding UAH 8 million.
In Dnipro, fraudsters profited from deceiving EU citizens with crypto through call centers; elite cars and millions in foreign currency were found – Prosecutor General
An international investigative team, as part of a large-scale special operation, uncovered a network of fraudulent call centers in Dnipro, where EU citizens were defrauded through “crypto-investing.” Law enforcement officers conducted over 30 searches, seizing luxury cars and millions in various currencies. 11 suspects were detained, Prosecutor General Ruslan Kravchenko announced on social media on Monday, according to UNN.
The large-scale operation, code-named “VENI, VIDI, VICI,” involved more than 30 coordinated searches across Dnipro. Authorities seized computer servers, cryptocurrency wallets, and high-end vehicles believed to have been purchased with illicit proceeds from the crypto investment scam.
“Modern crimes know no borders, but our response to them is also becoming global. The digital footprint inevitably leads to accountability. We continue to work,” — Ruslan Kravchenko, Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
How the crypto investment scam operated
Investigators say the crypto investment scam relied on a two-stage deception strategy designed to exploit victims multiple times.
“The first stage was ‘pseudo-investment,’” Kravchenko explained.
“Operators called citizens of EU countries and offered ‘profitable investments’ in cryptocurrency, using popular platforms. Through remote access to the victims’ gadgets, they helped them open crypto wallets, created the illusion of profit growth in fictitious applications, and sometimes even returned small amounts to convince them to invest more. As soon as a person tried to withdraw all funds, the connection was cut off,” Ruslan Kravchenko, Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Authorities said the fraudsters used manipulated applications to simulate trading gains, persuading victims to increase their deposits. Once larger sums were transferred, communication ceased.
The second phase of the crypto investment scam allegedly involved re-targeting the same victims under the guise of asset recovery services.
“‘The second stage is asset recovery,’” Kravchenko stated.
“The same victims were offered ‘legal assistance’ via messengers to recover what they had lost. Using fictitious names, they sent generated documents and videos and extorted money again under the guise of ‘commissions’ or ‘insurance premiums.’ The money received was converted into cryptocurrency, withdrawn through a network of controlled individuals, and distributed among the participants,” — Ruslan Kravchenko, Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
This layered approach allowed organizers of the crypto investment scam to extract additional funds from individuals already financially harmed.
Seizures, arrests, and criminal charges
During the searches, investigators confiscated 41 mobile phones, 46 laptops, four tablets, server equipment, electronic storage devices, and documentation tied to the alleged crypto investment scam. Authorities also seized cryptocurrency wallets, bank cards, traumatic weapons, luxury vehicles, and cash in multiple currencies totaling more than UAH 21 million.
All 11 suspects were detained under Article 208 of Ukraine’s Criminal Procedure Code. Prosecutors formally notified them of suspicion on charges including large-scale fraud, money laundering, creation and leadership of a criminal organization, and participation in it under relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
“Currently, 10 suspects have been remanded in custody without the right to bail, and one, due to health reasons, has been placed under round-the-clock house arrest,” — Ruslan Kravchenko, Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
The investigation remains ongoing, with authorities reviewing seized digital evidence to determine whether additional victims were affected by the crypto investment scam and whether further suspects may be implicated.
The dismantling of the Dnipro-based crypto investment scam underscores the growing scale of international cooperation in combating financial cybercrime. The joint investigative group was coordinated by and involved collaboration with law enforcement authorities in as well as agencies in and .
Officials emphasized that digital fraud schemes, including this crypto investment scam, increasingly operate across borders, making coordinated international responses essential.
Authorities continue forensic analysis of confiscated equipment to identify the full financial scope of the operation. Prosecutors say additional episodes linked to the crypto investment scam may surface as electronic data is processed.
The case highlights the persistent risks facing retail investors approached through unsolicited calls or online messaging platforms promising high cryptocurrency returns — a model investigators say remains central to many evolving fraud schemes across Europe.
Vitalik Buterin has outlined a framework in which personal AI assistants — trained on a user’s preferences, writing history, and stated values, would vote on DAO proposals on their behalf, a proposal he argues could fix chronically low governance participation while keeping humans, not machines, in ultimate control.
This development is closely watched by crypto investors evaluating the long-term sustainability of Web3 governance models.
DAOs, blockchain-based entities that allow token holders to vote on protocol decisions, often struggle with participation rates reportedly ranging between 15% and 25%, creating risks of centralization and governance manipulation.
Buterin’s proposal seeks to address this structural weakness by integrating AI without handing control entirely to machines, a balance he describes as critical for crypto’s future.
The governance problem facing DAOs
Decentralized governance has long been promoted as one of blockchain’s defining innovations, allowing communities rather than centralized executives to guide projects.
DAOs frequently require members to vote on dozens, sometimes thousands of technical proposals covering treasury management, upgrades, funding allocations, and partnerships.
According to Buterin, most participants lack the time or expertise to evaluate every decision.
“The core problem with democratic and decentralized modes of governance is the limits to human attention.” Buterin wrote in a public statement cited by multiple crypto outlets.
The traditional workaround, vote delegation has introduced new risks. Delegation often concentrates power among a small group of influential token holders or professional delegates.
It is also undermining decentralization and exposing protocols to governance attacks, where large stakeholders push through proposals unnoticed.
Lastly, governance failures can translate directly into protocol risk, affecting token value, treasury security, and ecosystem stability.
AI assistants as “personal governance agents”
Buterin’s proposed solution involves personal AI models, large language model (LLM) assistants trained on an individual user’s preferences, writing history, and stated values.
These AI agents would analyze proposals, summarize relevant information, and cast votes aligned with the user’s intentions.
“If a governance mechanism depends on you to make a large number of decisions, a personal agent can perform all the necessary votes for you.”
Buterin explained, adding that the AI should consult the user when uncertain or when decisions carry significant importance.
Under the proposal, AI would automate routine participation while escalating critical issues to human review.
Supporters argue this could dramatically increase governance engagement without requiring constant manual oversight.
Lane Rettig, a governance researcher at the Near Foundation, previously highlighted similar experimentation with AI digital twins designed to vote on behalf of DAO members to address low turnout.
The concept also introduces prediction markets to filter low-quality proposals. AI agents could stake value on which proposals are likely to succeed, rewarding accurate analysis and discouraging spam.
Privacy and security remain central concerns
A key element of Buterin’s framework is privacy preservation, an issue that has historically limited decentralized governance.
Certain DAO decisions involve sensitive information, such as hiring, disputes, or negotiations, which cannot be fully disclosed on public blockchains.
Buterin proposes using secure cryptographic tools such as zero-knowledge proofs and trusted execution environments so AI agents can process confidential data without exposing it publicly.
This approach aims to protect voters from coercion or bribery while preserving anonymity, factors investors increasingly view as essential for institutional adoption of DAO governance.
A cautious stance: AI governance still carries risks
Despite advocating AI-assisted participation, Buterin has repeatedly warned against fully autonomous AI governance.
In earlier comments, he cautioned that malicious actors could exploit AI systems through “jailbreak” attacks to manipulate funding or decision outcomes.
“If you use an AI to allocate funding… people will put a jailbreak plus ‘gimme all the money’ in as many places as they can.” He warned, arguing that naive AI governance models remain vulnerable.
Instead, his vision positions AI as an augmentation layer, enhancing human decision-making rather than replacing it.
AI-assisted governance, if successful, could strengthen DAO resilience and reduce centralization risks that have historically undermined decentralized projects.
Why this matters for crypto markets
The proposal arrives amid growing convergence between artificial intelligence and blockchain infrastructure.
As DAOs manage billions of dollars in assets across DeFi, gaming, and infrastructure protocols, improving governance efficiency has become a strategic priority.
If AI-assisted voting increases participation while maintaining decentralization, analysts say it could unlock more scalable governance models.
Buterin’s framework does not represent an immediate protocol upgrade; rather, it signals a direction for Ethereum-aligned governance experimentation in the coming years.
Whether AI becomes a stabilizing force or a new attack surface remains an open question.
What is clear, however, is that governance, once considered a niche technical issue, is rapidly becoming one of crypto’s most important investment narratives.
An AI trading bot built by OpenAI employee Nik Pash transferred its entire $250,000 holdings in LOBSTAR tokens to a random X user who had simply asked for the equivalent of $4 in Solana, after the autonomous agent apparently misread an API response and executed an irreversible on-chain transaction on February 22, 2026.
Developed by OpenAI employee Nik Pash as an experimental autonomous trading agent, the bot misinterpreted a donation request and transferred its entire token holdings.
About 5% of the total supply of its native LOBSTAR token, to a user who had asked for just 4 SOL (Solana tokens).
Because blockchain transactions are irreversible, the funds could not be recovered once confirmed on-chain.
The mistake that triggered a six-figure loss
According to multiple crypto news reports, the bot had been operating for only a few days and was managing a Solana-based trading wallet funded with approximately $50,000 worth of assets.
Its design allowed it to interact publicly with users and occasionally send small rewards or tips.
The incident began when a user, identified online as Treasure David, replied to one of the bot’s posts requesting financial help and shared a wallet address.
The AI attempted to send a small payment equivalent to about 4 SOL.
Instead, due to what analysts believe was an API parsing or data-interpretation error, it transferred more than 52 million LOBSTAR tokens effectively its entire balance.
On-chain data later confirmed the transfer represented roughly $250,000 at the time of execution, though some estimates placed the peak valuation closer to $400,000 depending on market pricing.
The bot itself publicly acknowledged the mistake in a post shortly afterward, writing:
“I just tried to send a beggar four dollars and accidentally sent him my entire holdings.” – Lobstar Wilde AI agent, public post on X
Because blockchain transactions cannot be reversed without cooperation from the recipient, developers had no technical way to retrieve the funds.
Rapid sell-off shakes token market
Within minutes of receiving the tokens, the recipient reportedly sold most of the holdings on decentralized exchanges.
However, due to limited liquidity and significant slippage, the sale generated only about $40,000 in realized proceeds, far below the theoretical market value of the transfer.
The sudden liquidation triggered sharp volatility in the LOBSTAR token price, briefly pushing values downward before viral attention drove a surge in trading activity.
In the 24 hours following the incident, trading volume reportedly exceeded $36 million, while market capitalization temporarily climbed above $11 million as speculation intensified.
Market observers noted that the event illustrated a recurring reality in memecoin markets: nominal valuations can collapse quickly when liquidity is thin and large holders sell simultaneously.
“Low-liquidity tokens amplify execution risk dramatically. A single transaction can reshape the entire order book within seconds.”
Market analyst commentary reported by PANews
AI autonomy meets crypto custody risks
Beyond the immediate financial loss, the episode has ignited broader debate about whether autonomous AI agents should control cryptocurrency wallets without human oversight.
Developers and investors pointed to missing safeguards such as transaction limits, manual approval layers, and emergency shutdown mechanisms.
Some experts believe the error likely stemmed from the AI misreading numerical output returned by an API, confusing a request for 52,439 tokens with 52.43 million tokens.
The debate arrives at a time when AI-powered trading bots are gaining popularity across decentralized finance.
A warning sign for crypto investors
The Lobstar Wilde incident underscores a critical emerging risk: automation may remove human emotion from trading, but it also removes human judgment when systems fail.
Autonomous agents are increasingly marketed as tools capable of trading 24/7, distributing rewards, or managing treasury funds without intervention.
Yet the episode demonstrates how even minor technical misunderstandings can translate into irreversible financial losses on blockchain networks.
Despite the costly mistake, the AI bot reportedly continued operating after the incident, resuming online activity and distributing smaller token rewards to users.
The takeaway is clear: while AI may represent the next frontier of crypto automation, custody risk remains unchanged.
Bitcoin enters the final week of February facing a dense slate of macro catalysts — including Fed speeches from Christopher Waller and Raphael Bostic, weekly jobless claims, and the Producer Price Index — any one of which could shift rate-cut expectations and trigger price swings analysts estimate at 3% to 5%.
Recent data has painted a conflicted picture: inflation pressures have moderated slightly, unemployment claims remain relatively low, and central-bank commentary has leaned careful rather than decisive. That ambiguity has kept investors glued to the calendar of US Economic Events, searching for confirmation about the direction of monetary policy and liquidity conditions.
Federal Reserve Speakers Take Center Stage
A packed speaking schedule from officials at the Federal Reserve tops the list of US Economic Events traders are tracking. Appearances from Christopher Waller, Lisa Cook, Austan Goolsbee, and Raphael Bostic are scheduled across multiple days, creating a dense stream of policy commentary.
Markets currently anticipate two or three interest-rate cuts in 2026, but tone matters as much as substance in these US Economic Events. Historically, both Waller and Bostic have emphasized vigilance against inflation and a data-driven approach. If their remarks reinforce concern about lingering price pressures, bond yields could climb and the dollar could strengthen—conditions that often weigh on Bitcoin.
On the other hand, if policymakers highlight signs of slowing growth or softening employment, traders may interpret that as groundwork for looser policy. In that case, risk assets—including crypto—could benefit.
Analysts note that clustered speeches heighten volatility risk because inconsistent messaging during these US Economic Events can spark rapid repricing in rate expectations.
Jobless Claims: A Real-Time Labor Gauge
Another critical set of US Economic Events arrives with weekly initial jobless claims, widely viewed as one of the most timely snapshots of labor-market health. The latest reading surprised forecasters by dropping to 206,000, reinforcing the narrative of a resilient employment backdrop.
Economists now expect around 215,000. Should claims fall below 210,000, it would signal continued labor strength and could embolden hawkish policymakers during upcoming US Economic Events appearances. Strong employment typically delays expectations for rate cuts, tightening financial conditions and sometimes limiting upside for speculative assets like Bitcoin.
Conversely, a jump above 225,000 could signal cooling momentum. That scenario would likely intensify recession worries and raise the probability of policy easing. Traders often respond to such outcomes by increasing exposure to assets that benefit from liquidity expansion.
Because claims data can move Bitcoin by up to roughly 1% in either direction, surprises within these US Economic Events could spark amplified reactions if they contradict central-bank rhetoric.
Producer Price Index: Inflation Pipeline Check
The week concludes with another pivotal entry on the calendar of US Economic Events: the Producer Price Index (PPI). This measure tracks wholesale-level inflation and often foreshadows consumer price trends. Forecasts suggest headline and core readings near 3.0% year over year.
If core PPI exceeds roughly 3.2%, inflation fears could resurface, potentially lifting real yields and the dollar. Such a result would echo recent post-data sell-offs and might pressure Bitcoin. But a softer-than-expected print below about 2.8% would reinforce the disinflation narrative and strengthen the case for monetary easing—conditions historically favorable for crypto markets.
Because PPI lands at month’s end, it often cements trends shaped by earlier US Economic Events. Combined with jobless claims, it could generate Bitcoin swings of 2–3% if results sharply diverge from forecasts.
Macro Correlations Keep Crypto on Edge
Correlation metrics show Bitcoin moving increasingly in step with traditional markets such as the Nasdaq and the U.S. dollar, underscoring how macro forces dominate price action. That linkage means US Economic Events now rival crypto-native developments in importance for traders.
Data compiled by MarketWatch indicates that macro releases and policy signals have recently driven sharper price reactions than blockchain-sector news. Analysts say this trend reflects a market environment where liquidity expectations overshadow fundamentals.
If this week’s slate of US Economic Events collectively leans dovish, strategists estimate Bitcoin could rally between 3% and 5% as investors anticipate easier financial conditions. A unified hawkish signal, however, could produce a pullback of similar magnitude.
Outlook
For now, traders are bracing for volatility as US Economic Events dominate the narrative. With policy expectations delicately balanced and correlations elevated, the coming days may determine whether Bitcoin finishes February on stable ground or under renewed pressure. In the current environment, liquidity signals from US Economic Events—not crypto-specific catalysts—remain firmly in the driver’s seat.
Missouri lawmakers have advanced a bill that would authorize the state treasury to buy and hold bitcoin for a minimum of five years, making it one of the more structurally distinct proposals in a wave of state-level bitcoin reserve legislation sweeping the United States.
The initiative, introduced in early 2026, would allow the state treasury to hold Bitcoin alongside traditional assets.
A development closely watched by crypto investors assessing long-term institutional demand.
The bill, known as House Bill 2080, was introduced by Republican Representative Ben Keathley and recently advanced to the Missouri House Commerce Committee.
If passed, Missouri would join a growing list of states considering Bitcoin reserves as a hedge against inflation and currency risk.
The proposal arrives amid increasing political and institutional interest in Bitcoin across the United States, raising questions about whether state-level adoption could become a major catalyst for future BTC price cycles.
Missouri’s legislation seeks to create a Bitcoin Strategic Reserve Fund managed by the state treasurer.
Under the proposal, the treasury would be authorized to receive, invest in, and hold Bitcoin using state funds as well as donations, grants, or gifts from residents and government entities.
The bill also includes a long-term holding requirement: Bitcoin acquired under the program must be held for at least five years before it can be sold or converted.
Supporters argue that integrating Bitcoin into state reserves could diversify public investments while protecting purchasing power against inflation.
“Creating a Bitcoin reserve allows states to explore alternative assets that may preserve value over time.” Ben Keathley, Missouri State Representative, said in legislative remarks summarized in bill documentation.
The proposal follows a similar Missouri bill introduced in 2025 that stalled in committee.
The structure of the bill is particularly notable because it enables both direct acquisition and passive accumulation through contributions.
A nationwide push toward state-level bitcoin treasuries
Missouri’s move is not happening in isolation. Nearly two dozen U.S. states have proposed or explored Bitcoin reserve legislation.
Texas, for example, passed legislation in 2025 establishing a strategic Bitcoin reserve fund, allowing the state to purchase cryptocurrency as a long-term financial asset.
Other states including Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Kentucky have introduced similar proposals.
While some efforts have faced resistance or legislative rejection due to concerns about volatility and regulatory uncertainty.
Industry analysts believe widespread adoption could materially affect Bitcoin markets.
Strategic Bitcoin reserves across U.S. states could generate more than $23 billion in potential demand if widely implemented, according to estimates cited by asset manager VanEck.
That scale of potential accumulation is one reason institutional investors are closely monitoring policy developments rather than focusing solely on private-sector adoption.
Why states are turning to bitcoin now
Several macroeconomic and political factors are driving the push toward state Bitcoin reserves.
First, inflation concerns and long-term currency depreciation have encouraged policymakers to explore alternative stores of value.
Bitcoin’s fixed supply and growing institutional acceptance have positioned it as a potential hedge similar to gold in earlier eras.
Second, federal policy momentum has reinforced legitimacy. In March 2025, a U.S. executive order established a national Strategic Bitcoin Reserve using government-owned BTC holdings.
Finally, competition between states to attract crypto businesses and innovation hubs has intensified.
This policy competition may represent a structural demand driver distinct from traditional market cycles driven by retail speculation.
Critics argue that cryptocurrency volatility could expose public funds to unpredictable risk.
Similar concerns led lawmakers in South Dakota to reject a Bitcoin reserve bill after officials questioned Bitcoin’s lack of income generation and price stability.
Opponents also warn that government adoption could politicize crypto markets or introduce regulatory complexity.
Still, proponents counter that limited allocations and long holding periods reduce risk while positioning states for potential upside if Bitcoin continues to mature as a global reserve asset.
If more states follow through, analysts say state-level accumulation could create steady, long-term buying pressure.
Ripple chief legal officer Stuart Alderoty joined a third White House meeting on stablecoin yield this week alongside representatives from major crypto firms and banking institutions, as the company simultaneously maintained a community presence at ETHDenver in Denver, where RippleX hosted a gathering of XRP builders and developers.
The gathering, which included a dedicated XRP community night, drew a public response from Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and highlighted Ripple’s expanding engagement within the broader blockchain ecosystem.
The ETHDenver event, widely regarded as one of the largest annual Web3 gatherings in the United States, provided the backdrop for the XRP-focused meetup. Community members used the occasion to connect, share updates and discuss developments in the XRP Ledger (XRPL) ecosystem, underscoring XRP’s visible presence at an event historically associated with Ethereum builders.
XRP community night at ETHDenver event draws attention
During the ETHDenver event, XRP holders and developers hosted a community night in Denver aimed at strengthening ties among participants in the XRP Ledger ecosystem. The gathering featured builders, creators and partners who are actively contributing to XRPL-based applications and financial tools.
RippleX, Ripple’s developer-focused initiative, described the evening in positive terms, calling it “a great evening with the community” and thanking those who attended. The statement reflected the company’s ongoing efforts to nurture grassroots engagement alongside enterprise partnerships.
The XRP community’s presence at the ETHDenver event did not go unnoticed. Responding to a social media post highlighting the Denver meetup, Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse offered a brief but supportive comment.
“Love to see it.” — Brad Garlinghouse, CEO, Ripple.
Garlinghouse’s remark, shared on X, signaled approval of the community-led initiative and underscored Ripple leadership’s public alignment with ecosystem-driven events during the ETHDenver event.
The Denver gathering follows a recent XRP community day hosted by Ripple earlier this month, which similarly brought together builders, creators and partners within the XRP Ledger network. The timing suggests a sustained push to maintain momentum and visibility amid a competitive blockchain development landscape.
Ripple’s broader footprint beyond the ETHDenver event
While the ETHDenver event served as a focal point for in-person engagement, Ripple’s activity extends beyond conference participation. This week, a third stablecoin yield meeting took place at the White House, attended by a small group representing both crypto firms and banking institutions. Ripple was represented at the meeting by its chief legal officer, Stuart Alderoty.
Although details of the White House discussion were limited, Ripple’s participation signals its continued involvement in policy-level conversations surrounding digital assets and stablecoins. The juxtaposition of community-driven engagement at the ETHDenver event and regulatory discussions in Washington reflects Ripple’s dual-track strategy: ecosystem building and institutional dialogue.
In Asia, Ripple-related developments also continued. SBI Ripple Asia signed a memorandum of understanding with Asia Web3 Alliance Japan to provide technical support to startups and businesses seeking to implement blockchain-based financial services. The partnership aims to create a framework for deploying blockchain technology more broadly across financial sectors.
Together, these efforts indicate that Ripple’s engagement strategy spans community gatherings like the ETHDenver event, government meetings and international partnerships.
XRP Ledger updates and technical developments
Alongside public-facing events such as the ETHDenver event, the XRP Ledger ecosystem is undergoing technical updates. According to a notice on the XRPL blog, Ripple has rotated the GPG key used to sign “rippled” packages in preparation for a fix release.
Users have been urged to download and trust the new key to prevent potential issues with future software upgrades, as automatic updates may not function properly until the updated key is verified. The advisory emphasizes operational continuity and security for node operators and developers.
The XRPL Foundation also confirmed that a fix is underway for a batch amendment bug. The update is currently undergoing additional validation before inclusion in a new XRP software release. The foundation stated it is preparing a release to formally deprecate the current batch amendments once testing is complete.
These technical steps, while separate from the ETHDenver event, form part of the broader context in which the XRP community operates. Developers attending the Denver gathering are likely tracking such updates closely, as protocol stability and security remain central to ecosystem growth.
Community momentum amid industry competition
The ETHDenver event is traditionally associated with Ethereum developers, yet its open format attracts a wide array of blockchain communities. XRP’s organized presence signals an effort to remain visible and competitive in a rapidly evolving Web3 environment.
By hosting a community night during the ETHDenver event, XRP participants reinforced their commitment to collaboration and innovation beyond brand silos. The event’s scale — with more than 25,000 builders and creators in attendance — offered an opportunity for cross-ecosystem dialogue.
Garlinghouse’s public endorsement of the meetup, RippleX’s community outreach, and concurrent policy and technical developments illustrate a coordinated approach: strengthen community ties, maintain regulatory engagement and ensure technical reliability.
As the ETHDenver event concludes, the XRP community leaves with renewed visibility and institutional backing, while Ripple continues to balance grassroots engagement with global expansion efforts.
Bored Ghosts Developing, the core engineering firm behind Aave v3, announced Friday it will exit its contract with the Aave DAO in April, publicly accusing Aave Labs of applying strategic pressure to deprecate the protocol’s primary revenue engine before v4 is ready — sending the AAVE token down more than 6%.
Aave governance dispute deepens over v3 support
BGD stated it could not continue working on Aave v3 while what it described as strategic pressure toward v4 was underway.
The group emphasized that v3 remains the protocol’s primary revenue engine and a fully operational system.
“We believe even proposing this on the main revenue-maker & fully functional engine of Aave is borderline outrageous,” — Bored Ghosts Developing, post on Aave governance forum.
The Aave governance dispute triggered an immediate market reaction. The AAVE token declined more than 6% following the announcement, reflecting investor concerns about continuity and governance stability.
Kulechov publicly acknowledged BGD’s role in building the protocol and responded to the escalating Aave governance dispute on social media.
“Aave V3 would not be what it is today without their contributions,” — Stani Kulechov, Founder, Aave.
Source: X
BGD co-founder Ernesto Boado previously served as chief technology officer at Aave Labs, underscoring the long-standing ties between the entities now at the center of the Aave governance dispute.
Brand control and DAO authority at stake
The Aave governance dispute extends beyond technical upgrades. In recent months, delegates within the DAO have debated the control of brand-related assets, including naming rights, social media accounts and the aave.com website.
A proposal to transfer those assets from Aave Labs to the DAO narrowly failed.
Delegate Marc Zeller described BGD’s exit as a significant blow amid the broader Aave governance dispute.
“Devastating,” — Marc Zeller, Aave DAO Delegate.
Aave, which reports more than $26 billion in user deposits, operates under a decentralized governance model in which tokenholders vote on proposals.
However, the Aave governance dispute illustrates the complexity of balancing decentralized decision-making with the influence of founding entities and core contributors.
Aave Labs later proposed redirecting revenue from Aave-branded services to the DAO but tied that arrangement to formal recognition of Aave v4 as the protocol’s future technical foundation.
BGD objected to that linkage, warning that altering parameters on v3 could pressure users to migrate prematurely.
Aave Labs responds as SEC probe concludes
In response to the Aave governance dispute, Aave Labs said there is no immediate migration timeline and that Aave v3 will remain supported.
Kulechov added that Aave Labs could assume maintenance responsibilities if necessary and emphasized that the protocol will continue operating normally.
BGD’s contract is set to expire April 1, though the firm has offered short-term transitional support to help the DAO identify a replacement.
The Aave governance dispute thus marks the first major operational fracture in what has long been viewed as one of DeFi’s most stable governance structures.
Meanwhile, regulatory uncertainty surrounding the protocol has eased. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission formally concluded its multi-year investigation into the Aave Protocol without recommending enforcement action.
The decision ends nearly four years of scrutiny for one of decentralized finance’s most prominent platforms.
For crypto investors and policymakers, the Aave governance dispute underscores broader questions about DAO governance, intellectual property control and protocol evolution.
As DeFi projects mature and manage billions in user deposits, disputes over upgrade pathways and brand authority may become more frequent.
The resolution of the Aave governance dispute could shape how decentralized protocols balance innovation with stability and how governance models adapt as projects scale into multi-billion-dollar ecosystems.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6–3 that President Donald Trump lacked the legal authority to impose sweeping global tariffs under emergency powers law, invalidating duties that generated over $175 billion in collected revenue and immediately triggering White House contingency measures to keep import taxes in place.
The decision immediately reshaped U.S. trade policy, triggered legal uncertainty for businesses and importers, and prompted swift action from the White House to preserve tariff revenue through alternative legal channels.
Supreme Court’s IEEPA tariff ruling redefines executive power
At the core of the IEEPA tariff ruling is a constitutional question: who has the authority to impose tariffs? Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that the Constitution clearly vests the power to tax — including tariffs — in Congress, not the president.
The Court applied the “major questions doctrine,” a legal principle requiring explicit congressional authorization for executive actions with vast economic and political consequences. The majority found that the administration’s use of IEEPA to impose sweeping tariffs lacked such explicit authorization.
The IEEPA tariff ruling affects trillions of dollars in trade flows and disrupts one of the administration’s signature trade strategies. Tariffs previously imposed under IEEPA authority on imports from countries such as China, Mexico, and Canada are now considered invalid, though certain sector-specific duties under other statutes remain in effect.
The decision also opens the door for importers to seek refunds for duties collected under the now-invalid authority. Legal experts caution that reimbursement processes through customs channels and federal courts could take years to resolve, adding another layer of complexity following the IEEPA tariff ruling.
President Trump criticized the decision shortly after it was announced, calling it “deeply disappointing” and expressing frustration with the Court’s interpretation. Lawmakers and business groups offered mixed reactions, with some praising the ruling as a constitutional safeguard and others warning of renewed trade instability.
White House pivots after IEEPA tariff ruling
Within hours of the IEEPA tariff ruling, the administration unveiled a new strategy to maintain import taxes. President Trump signed an executive order invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a temporary 10% global tariff set to take effect on February 24, 2026.
Section 122 allows the president to implement tariffs of up to 15% for 150 days to address balance-of-payments concerns. Unlike other trade statutes, it does not require lengthy investigations before duties can be applied. However, the temporary nature of Section 122 suggests the administration views it as a stopgap following the IEEPA tariff ruling.
At the same time, the White House announced plans to initiate formal investigations under Sections 301 and 232 of the Trade Act. Section 301 addresses unfair trade practices, while Section 232 focuses on national security risks tied to imports. These pathways involve more extensive administrative procedures but could support longer-term tariffs.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled confidence that the new measures would offset the impact of the IEEPA tariff ruling.
He said the temporary tariff and additional investigations would “largely maintain tariff revenue levels” despite the legal setback, underscoring the administration’s determination to preserve trade leverage.
Markets and foreign governments are now closely watching whether the new tariffs under Section 122 — and any future measures under Sections 301 or 232 — face fresh legal challenges similar to those that culminated in the IEEPA tariff ruling.
Business fallout and refund uncertainty
For U.S. businesses and importers, the IEEPA tariff ruling introduces immediate operational and financial questions. Companies that paid duties under the invalidated authority may seek refunds, potentially totaling billions of dollars. However, the refund process is expected to be complex, involving customs claims and possible litigation.
Economists and industry groups warn that the abrupt policy shift could disrupt supply chains already strained by years of tariff-related volatility. Some sectors have reported rising input costs and slower job growth amid ongoing trade tensions.
The short-term 10% tariff under Section 122 adds another layer of uncertainty. Although narrower in duration than the invalidated measures, it still applies broadly to goods from nearly all countries, with limited product exemptions. Businesses must now adjust to a revised tariff framework shaped directly by the IEEPA tariff ruling.
International reaction has been cautious. Governments in Europe and Southeast Asia have expressed measured relief that the sweeping emergency-based tariffs were struck down, while remaining wary of the new temporary duties and pending trade investigations.
A turning point in U.S. trade authority
The IEEPA tariff ruling marks a significant judicial check on executive power in trade policy. By reinforcing Congress’s constitutional authority over taxation, the Supreme Court has reshaped the legal landscape for future administrations seeking to use emergency powers to influence global commerce.
Whether Congress will respond with new legislation clarifying presidential tariff authority remains uncertain. In the meantime, the administration’s reliance on alternative statutory tools signals that trade disputes are far from resolved.
As businesses, lawmakers, and trading partners assess the aftermath of the IEEPA tariff ruling, one outcome is clear: the balance of power over U.S. tariff policy has been recalibrated, with economic and legal consequences likely to unfold for years.
The Netherlands Gambling Authority has ordered Polymarket to stop accepting wagers from Dutch users, warning that failure to comply could cost the platform nearly $990,000, the sharpest enforcement action yet against a crypto-native prediction market in Europe.
Regulators said the company allowed users to participate in contracts tied to outcomes such as political events—activities prohibited under national law. Officials also noted the firm had not responded adequately to earlier compliance inquiries, escalating concerns over prediction markets regulation enforcement.
“Prediction markets are on the rise, including in the Netherlands,” said Ella Seijsener, director of licensing and supervision at the authority. She stressed that the types of wagers offered “are not permitted in the Dutch market under any circumstances,” underscoring the country’s strict interpretation of prediction markets regulation.
The decision places Polymarket’s Dutch operations effectively on pause and illustrates how quickly prediction markets regulation is tightening as authorities confront platforms blending finance, speculation, and gaming mechanics.
Legal Grey Zones Fuel Global Prediction Markets Regulation Debate
The case reflects wider friction between emerging platforms and regulators worldwide, especially in jurisdictions still defining prediction markets regulation frameworks. Earlier this year, Polymarket’s chief legal officer Neal Kumar said the company remained open to dialogue with regulators while U.S. courts weigh questions about which agencies should oversee event-based contracts.
In the United States, similar platforms have faced scrutiny from state regulators who argue these products resemble sports betting or unlicensed derivatives. Meanwhile, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has asserted federal jurisdiction in certain cases, creating overlapping authority disputes that complicate prediction markets regulation.
Industry analysts say this jurisdictional tug-of-war could shape how digital forecasting platforms operate globally. Some legal scholars contend that prediction markets can serve as data-driven forecasting tools, while critics argue they blur the line between financial instruments and gambling. The unresolved debate has made prediction markets regulation one of the most closely watched issues in fintech compliance.
The enforcement action arrives as lawmakers in the Dutch House of Representatives consider broader financial reforms that could reshape the country’s digital-asset landscape. A proposal under discussion would introduce a 36% capital-gains tax on certain investments, potentially covering cryptocurrencies if passed and ratified by the Senate. If enacted, the measure could take effect in 2028.
Policy observers say combining tax reforms with stricter prediction markets regulation suggests a coordinated strategy to assert stronger oversight of emerging financial technologies. Governments across Europe have increasingly signaled that platforms offering speculative products tied to real-world outcomes will face the same compliance standards as traditional financial or betting operators.
Even as prediction markets regulation intensifies, data shows Dutch investors’ indirect exposure to digital assets has surged. According to De Nederlandsche Bank, holdings of crypto-linked securities climbed to roughly €1.2 billion by October 2025, up sharply from about €81 million at the end of 2020. Much of that increase reflects price appreciation in major tokens rather than a massive influx of new capital.
Despite the growth, such assets still represent only about 0.03% of the country’s overall investment market, indicating traditional financial instruments continue to dominate portfolios. Analysts say this contrast highlights the balancing act regulators face: encouraging innovation while maintaining safeguards through prediction markets regulation and related oversight tools.
Institutional interest is also expanding. Last year, Dutch crypto firm Amdax secured €30 million to launch the Amsterdam Bitcoin Treasury Strategy, a vehicle designed to accumulate up to 1% of the total Bitcoin supply—roughly 210,000 coins. Moves like this illustrate why regulators are racing to refine prediction markets regulation before market adoption accelerates further.
Outlook: Prediction Markets Regulation Becoming a Global Flashpoint
The Dutch order is the latest signal that prediction markets regulation is shifting from theoretical policy debates to concrete enforcement. Compliance experts say platforms operating across borders must now anticipate stricter licensing demands, localized restrictions, and heavier penalties for violations.
Financial law specialists note that as prediction markets regulation evolves, companies will likely need hybrid compliance strategies combining elements of derivatives law, gaming law, and digital-asset policy. That complexity could favor well-capitalized firms capable of navigating multi-jurisdictional rules, while smaller startups may struggle to meet regulatory thresholds.
For now, the Netherlands’ decisive action serves as a warning shot to the broader industry: prediction markets regulation is no longer optional, and authorities are prepared to act swiftly when platforms operate outside national frameworks.
With governments worldwide drafting new rules, the clash between innovation and oversight appears set to intensify—ensuring prediction markets regulation remains at the forefront of financial policy discussions.
Austria’s financial regulator has banned KuCoin EU from onboarding new customers or launching new products, just three months after granting the Vienna-based exchange its MiCA licence, after finding that the platform had eliminated all of its legally required money laundering and sanctions compliance officers.
The Financial Market Authority issued the prohibition order on February 19, 2026. The finding was direct: KuCoin EU Exchange GmbH no longer employs the legally mandated anti-money laundering officers, sanctions officers, or their respective deputies. Under European law, those roles are not optional. Without them, the licence is effectively void.
The ban does not revoke the CASP authorisation KuCoin EU received on November 27, 2025. It does something arguably more damaging to a growth-stage platform: it freezes the user acquisition pipeline entirely until lawful compliance is restored.
Champagne at the Spanish Riding School
The regulatory freeze lands with particular force given what preceded it. At the end of January 2026, weeks before the FMA acted, KuCoin hosted a lavish VIP Gala at Vienna’s Spanish Riding School, one of the city’s most recognisable institutions, to celebrate its European launch.
The evening came with a high-profile announcement: a sponsorship partnership with Tadej Pogačar, the two-time Tour de France champion and one of the most recognisable athletes in European sport.
The message was deliberately grand. KuCoin EU was not just entering Europe, it was arriving.
Beneath the press releases and the cycling jerseys, the operational infrastructure was already failing. By February 4, the platform had suspended trading and deposit services, citing system stability issues. The FMA’s prohibition order revealed that the instability was not in the servers.
The spin that did not hold
The day after the FMA prohibition became public, KuCoin EU issued a press release announcing the expansion of its local compliance and governance team in Austria, framing the emergency scramble to fill legally mandated positions as a proactive commitment to responsible and regulated growth.
The FMA’s response to that framing was implicit and unambiguous: the prohibition order remains in effect until lawful compliance is actually restored, not announced.
“You cannot just buy a licence. You have to staff it — every day, with qualified people, or regulators will shut the door.” European compliance analyst, speaking on background
What MiCA actually costs
KuCoin EU’s situation is a case study in the operational reality that dozens of international platforms are currently underestimating as they race to secure a MiCA passport before the regulatory deadline in mid-2026.
Obtaining a CASP licence under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation requires demonstrating robust compliance structures to the relevant national authority. What KuCoin EU’s experience now demonstrates is that the demonstration must be continuous, not one-time.
If a key compliance officer resigns and no qualified deputy is in place, the entire user acquisition pipeline can be suspended by the state on a few weeks’ notice.
For years, offshore exchanges operated on the assumption that compliance was a checkbox something to be managed with skeleton crews while resources concentrated on marketing, token listings, and user growth.
European regulators are now systematically dismantling that assumption. The FMA did not fine KuCoin EU. It did not issue a warning. It turned off new customer access and made the conditions for restoration explicit.
The cost of operating in Europe under MiCA is not the legal fee to secure the initial licence. It is the permanent, recurring expense of maintaining a fully staffed compliance infrastructure, AML officers, sanctions specialists, qualified deputies for each, with no gaps permitted. Exchanges that planned their European budgets around a one-time licensing cost are facing an uncomfortable recalculation.
What comes next
KuCoin EU has not had its licence revoked and the pathway to resuming full operations remains open, provided it fills the mandated compliance roles and satisfies the FMA that those positions are genuinely operational, not populated with names on a contract.
How quickly that can be achieved, and what it signals to prospective European customers already watching the platform closely, remains to be seen.
For the broader European crypto market, the message from Vienna is already being read. The exchanges currently filing MiCA applications are now on notice that the FMA and by implication other national competent authorities across the EU, is actively monitoring post-authorisation compliance, not just pre-authorisation paperwork. Getting the licence is not the finish line. In Europe in 2026, it is the starting gun.
