SocialFi is changing how people approach social media on the internet. It merges social networking with finance and blockchain. Instead of platforms owning profits and user data, SocialFi enables users and creators to make money from their activity.  In 2025, more people are looking for seamless ways to connect, create content, and get rewarded online. While traditional social media platforms offer visibility, users gain very little income or ownership. SocialFi platforms aim to fix this by using NFTs, tokens, and decentralized systems.  As Web3 adoption grows, SocialFi is becoming a vital part of the digital economy. In this article, we’ll explore the top SocialFi platforms in 2025. Key Takeaways SocialFi combines blockchain and social media with financial incentives. SocialFi platforms reward interaction, posting, and community building. Token sustainability remains a crucial problem. Leading platforms in 2025 focus on monetization and user ownership.  Users and creators earn from engagement instead of platforms owning all value.  What is SocialFi? SocialFi is short for social finance. It refers to social platforms designed on blockchain that enable users to earn money from their activity. This includes engaging with others, posting content, and growing communities.  SocialFi platforms are decentralized unlike traditional social media. Users own their content, profiles, and data. These are usually stored on the blockchain and cannot be controlled by a single company.  Additionally, SocialFi platforms use NFTs and tokens to reward creators and users. These rewards can be traded, held, or used within the platform. This model transforms social interaction into an economic activity, giving users a direct stake in the platform's growth.  Top 7 Social Platforms in 2025 Below are the leading SocialFi platforms in 2025 with their key features, strengths, and limitations. 1. Lens Protocol This platform is a decentralized social solution that enables users to own their profiles, content, and followers on the blockchain. Rather than being tied to one platform, users can spread their social identity across multiple platforms built on Lens. This makes social data user-owned and portable.  Lens is widely used by Web3 developers and creators in 2025, who want long-term control over audiences and content without depending on centralized social media organizations. Pros Strong developer ecosystem. Full ownership of identity and content. Ability to use social identity across multiple platforms. Cons Limited mainstream user adoption. 2. CyberConnect This platform focuses on building a decentralized social identity layer for Web3. It enables users to create social profiles that function across diverse applications. Instead of rebuilding connections and followers on each app, users carry their social graph anywhere CyberConnect is supported.  CyberConnect is widely used as infrastructure for SocialFi apps in 2025. It is a key backbone of the SocialFi ecosystem. Pros Strong infrastructure use case. Developer-friendly. Portable social identities. Cons Low visibility to regular users. 3. Friend.tech This SocialFi platform enables users to monetize social influence through tradable keys. These keys offer holders access to exclusive content and private chats. When the demand for a user increases, the price of their keys rises. Friend.tech remains popular among crypto-native users and influencers in 2025.  Pros Simple earning model. Direct creator monetization. Solid engagement incentives. Cons Not suited for long-term communities. 4. DeSo (Decentralized Social) DeSo is a Layer 1 blockchain designed for creator and social media monetization. It supports NFTs, creator coins, and decentralized social applications. DeSO acts as the foundation for multiple SocialFi apps instead of being a single platform.  Pros Supports diverse SocialFi apps. Built specifically for social applications. Strong creator tools. Cons Slower user adoption. 5. Galxe Galxe is a SocialFi platform that prioritizes community engagement and user rewards. It empowers users to earn tokens by completing social tasks like joining communities, following accounts, or participating in campaigns. In 2025, this platform was widely used for community growth and Web3 onboarding. Many projects use it to build an active user base and to reward early supporters.  Pros Seamless to use. Strong onboarding tool. Broadly adopted by Web3 projects. Cons Rewards mostly feel task-based. 6. Cheelee This is one of the few watch-to-earn SocialFi platforms that reward users for watching and engaging with video content. It merges entertainment with financial rewards, making passive engagement more valuable. The platform attracts users who want to earn without creating content. It focuses on sustainability by using reward limits and token burn mechanisms to manage inflation. Pros Appeals to passive users. Strong engagement incentives. Simple earning model. Cons Earnings depend on platform rules. 7. Pulse This SocialFi platform focuses on community interaction and gamified rewards. Users earn tokens for joining discussions, engaging with content, and participating in events. The platform leverages simple mechanics to encourage daily activity. It also appeals to users who enjoy community-driven platforms with clear reward systems instead of complex DeFi features. Pros Strong community focus. Gamified engagement. Easy to understand. Cons Limited advanced features. Challenges Facing SocialFi Platforms SocialFi platforms face many obstacles that slow down growth and adoption. 1. Low mainstream adoption Many SocialFi platforms still attract mainly crypto-native users. Wallet setup, tokens, and private keys can be confusing for new users. This makes it challenging to onboard people from traditional social media platforms.  2. Token sustainability issues Many platforms rely on token rewards to drive engagement. When rewards reduce or token prices decline, user activity often drops. This creates short-term growth rather than long-term value. 3. Regulatory uncertainty SocialFi merges social networking with financial incentives, putting it in a grey area for regulators. There are unclear rules around tokens, rewards, and user earnings that create risks for users and platforms. 4. Speculation over real engagement Some users join SocialFi platforms mainly to speculate on tokens instead of building communities. This weakens authentic interaction and can negatively affect the platform’s long-term health.  Conclusion: SocialFi is Still Early SocialFi is changing how individuals interact and earn online. It offers a new model where users own their content and get rewarded for participation. This makes it attractive to communities and creators.  However, SocialFi is still in its early phases. Hurdles like sustainability issues, adoption barriers, and regulations need to be addressed. As these platforms mature, the ones that focus on user experience and real value will shape the future of social media in Web3. 

PlatinCasino is an offshore casino without regulatory permission in the UK or the EU. Its cashier labels a deposit option “Sofort,” but our testing indicates a very different mechanism: an open-banking style bank-selection and authorization flow via secure.bankgate.io, leading into a user’s bank (e.g., Revolut) to approve a third party. This is a classic chokepoint: regulated rails enabling offshore gambling deposits. Key facts (what we observed) Selecting “Sofort” on PlatinCasino opens a pop-up at secure.bankgate.io (bank selection / routing UI). (Confirmed) Choosing a bank (e.g., Revolut) redirects to the bank’s Open Banking domain (e.g., oba.revolut.com) for login and authorization. (Confirmed) The Revolut authorization screen shows the user is asked to authorize a third party (e.g., “PERSPECTEEV SAS” in our capture). (Confirmed) A bankgate endpoint returns a SALTEDGE-branded error page (404), suggesting infrastructure linkage between bankgate.io and SALTEDGE. (Corroborated) This rail can operate even when the casino itself appears offshore and accessible across EU/UK jurisdictions with limited friction at onboarding. (Confirmed in our deposit UX tests; merchant-of-record details remain Unknown) Rail Map Mini (hop sequence) platincasino.com (cashier) → “Sofort” secure.bankgate.io (bank picker / gateway) oba.revolut.com (bank login + consent) → “Authorize [third party]” Return to gateway/casino flow (completion/confirmation step) (Indicated; receipt evidence pending) Why this matters This is not just “another payment option.” It’s a compliance chokepoint: open-banking rails can become a high-velocity funding path into offshore gambling, shifting the risk burden to intermediaries (gateway/TPP/banks) while players may assume “Sofort” means a familiar consumer method. Read more We publish the full SALTEDGE Compliance Note with entity transparency, risk flags, and evidence gaps to resolve (merchant-of-record, payee details, contracting chain). Read the full report here. Call for Information (Whistle42) Worked at SALTEDGE / bankgate.io, in onboarding, risk, compliance, or partnerships? Or deposited via this “Sofort” flow and can share receipts/merchant descriptors? Submit securely via Whistle42.com. Share Information via Whistle42

As crypto markets mature, investors are increasingly exploring indirect ways to gain exposure to digital assets without holding tokens directly. Two structures often discussed in this context are Exchange-Traded Funds (ETFs) and Digital Asset Trusts (DATs). While they may appear similar at a glance, they are built on fundamentally different foundations and serve distinct purposes within the crypto investment landscape. Understanding how these vehicles differ has become more important as institutional participation grows and regulators apply tighter oversight to crypto-linked investment products. key takeaways Crypto ETFs and Digital Asset Trusts are fundamentally different products, with ETFs structured as regulated funds and DATs operating as fixed-supply trusts. ETFs track the price of their underlying crypto assets more accurately because their creation and redemption mechanism helps eliminate persistent pricing gaps. Digital Asset Trusts often trade at premiums or discounts to net asset value since their share supply does not adjust to market demand. Liquidity is generally higher in crypto ETFs, as they trade on public exchanges with tighter spreads and easier entry and exit for investors. While DATs played an important role before spot crypto ETFs gained approval, ETFs now represent a more mature and efficient vehicle for crypto market exposure. How Crypto ETFs Work A crypto ETF is a regulated investment fund that tracks the price of a cryptocurrency or a basket of digital assets and trades on a public stock exchange. Its structure mirrors traditional ETFs used for equities or commodities, with adjustments made to accommodate digital assets. A defining feature of ETFs is the creation and redemption mechanism. Authorized participants can create new ETF shares when demand rises or redeem shares when demand falls, using the underlying asset or a cash equivalent. This mechanism keeps the ETF’s market price closely aligned with its net asset value. Because ETFs trade on major exchanges, they offer continuous liquidity, transparent pricing, and efficient price discovery. Investors gain exposure to crypto price movements without managing wallets, private keys, or executing transactions on-chain. What a Digital Asset Trust Represents A Digital Asset Trust is structured as a private trust rather than a fund. It holds a fixed pool of cryptocurrencies and issues shares that represent fractional ownership of those assets. Unlike ETFs, DATs do not adjust share supply in response to changes in market demand. Once issued, trust shares are largely static. Trading occurs on secondary markets, often with limited liquidity and, in some cases, mandatory lock-up periods. This structure reflects the period in which DATs became popular, when regulators were unwilling to approve spot crypto ETFs and trusts were among the few compliant options for institutional exposure. Structural Differences and Pricing Impact The absence of a creation and redemption mechanism is the most significant difference between ETFs and DATs. ETFs are designed to correct pricing inefficiencies through arbitrage, keeping prices close to the value of their underlying assets. DATs lack this corrective force. As a result, DAT shares frequently trade at significant premiums or discounts to net asset value. During bullish market conditions, demand can push trust prices well above the value of the crypto they hold. In bearish environments, discounts can persist for extended periods. Investor returns are therefore shaped not only by crypto price movements but also by shifts in market sentiment toward the trust itself. ETFs, by contrast, tend to track their underlying assets closely. Any meaningful deviation between the ETF price and its net asset value typically attracts arbitrage activity that brings prices back into alignment. Regulation, Liquidity, and Long-term Costs Crypto ETFs operate within established securities frameworks and are subject to strict regulatory oversight, including disclosure requirements, custody standards, valuation rules, and compliance obligations. These protections are particularly important during periods of market stress, when liquidity and price accuracy matter most. DATs generally face lighter regulatory scrutiny. While often offered by regulated firms, the trust structure provides fewer guarantees around liquidity, transparency, and redemption rights. Liquidity is typically lower, with wider bid-ask spreads and higher execution risk, especially for larger positions. Cost structures also differ. ETFs often benefit from scale and competition, which tend to drive management fees lower and limit long-term friction. DATs typically charge higher fees, and when combined with persistent premiums or discounts, the total cost of ownership can be materially higher over time. Conclusion ETFs and Digital Asset Trusts both offer indirect exposure to cryptocurrencies, but they are built for different stages of market development. ETFs prioritize price accuracy, liquidity, and regulatory clarity, making them better suited for investors seeking efficient and scalable access to crypto markets. DATs, on the other hand, reflect an earlier phase of institutional adoption, where access mattered more than precision. As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve and crypto products become more integrated with traditional finance, ETFs are increasingly setting the standard for institutional and retail participation. DATs may still serve niche use cases, but for most investors, the structural advantages of ETFs make them the more reliable vehicle for long-term crypto exposure. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 1. What is the main difference between a crypto ETF and a Digital Asset Trust?The main difference is structure. ETFs can issue or redeem shares to match demand, while DATs have a fixed supply of shares, which affects pricing and liquidity. 2. Why do Digital Asset Trusts trade at premiums or discounts?Because DATs lack a creation and redemption mechanism, their market price is driven by supply and demand rather than the value of the underlying assets. 3. Are crypto ETFs safer than Digital Asset Trusts?ETFs generally offer stronger investor protections due to stricter regulatory oversight, clearer disclosure rules, and better liquidity. 4. Do investors own crypto when buying an ETF or DAT?No. Investors own shares that track or represent exposure to crypto assets, not the tokens themselves. 5. Are Digital Asset Trusts still relevant today?DATs remain relevant in niche situations or restricted markets, but ETFs are increasingly preferred for broad, efficient crypto exposure.

In accordance with the Notice on 2026 DCE Market Holiday Arrangements, the trading hour arrangements of Dalian Commodity Exchange (DCE) for the 2026 New Year's Day Holiday are hereby notified as follows: The market will be closed from January 1, 2026 (Thursday) to January 3, 2026 (Saturday) for holidays, and on January 4, 2026 (Sunday) for weekend. There will be no night trading session on the night of December 31, 2025 (Wednesday). The market will open as usual from January 5, 2026 (Monday), with the call auction held between 8:55 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. The night trading session will resume on the night of January 5, 2026 (Monday). Members should remind their clients of the trading hour arrangements in a timely manner, so as to ensure smooth market operation. Disclaimer: This English translation may be used for reference only. In cases there is any discrepancy between the English version and the original Chinese version, the original Chinese version shall prevail. Dalian Commodity Exchange may change or update this English translation without any prior notice and shall accept no responsibility or liability for damage or loss caused by any error, inaccuracy, misunderstanding, or change with regard to this English translation.

At the Finance Magnates London Summit 2025, industry leaders convened to discuss the changing role of artificial intelligence in trading during the panel “Secret Agent Deploying AI for Traders at Scale 1” Moderated by Joe Craven, Global Head of Enterprise Solutions at TipRanks, the session highlighted how AI is reshaping workflows, enhancing decision-making, and creating both opportunities and challenges for market participants.Craven opened by framing AI as a tool to make complex data more digestible for retail investors, highlighting TipRanks’ work in integrating linguistic technology and machine learning into financial platforms. Panelists David Dyke, Head of Engineering - Wealth at CMC Markets, Guy Hopkins, Founder & CEO of FairXchange, Ihar Marozau, Chief Architect of Capital.com, and Rebecca Healey, Founder of MindfulMarkets.AI offered varied perspectives on AI adoption.AI as a Tool for Retail InvestorsHopkins described AI as “a solution looking for a problem,” noting that while algorithmic and model-driven trading are well-established, interest has surged around generative AI and large language models. Healey added, “People can’t make sense of all the information coming at them. We’re potentially moving into the world of a headless EMS, where access to information is customizable and personal.”Regulatory and Operational ChallengesPanelists highlighted compliance and operational hurdles. Marozau explained, “AI output must be auditable and explainable,” while Dyke cautioned, “You can use that to think that you’re making progress, but without it being checked correctly by the experts, you can’t explain why you’ve come to a particular conclusion.” Hopkins noted a human tendency to over-trust AI: “There is a kind of abdication of responsibility when people start to rely on these tools.”Addressing risk mitigation, Healey emphasized accurate data and differentiating AI types: “An institutional asset manager building execution models may spend six months deciphering broker data before starting an AI model. AI has highlighted existing problems in the industry and made them bigger.” Hopkins illustrated practical application: LLMs aren’t deployed directly in calculations due to unpredictability but are used to understand user intent and connect to deterministic agents. Dyke described similar implementations at CMC Markets, where AI monitors customer communications while human oversight remains critical.Workforce ImplicationsThe panel explored AI’s impact on workforce development. Dyke suggested AI could reduce friction for newcomers, supporting learning. Hopkins warned that automating junior tasks could limit experiential learning for developing senior professionals. Healey countered, arguing AI allows learning to change: “Rather than just having learned experience on equities, you might need learned experience covering all asset classes, which you couldn’t do manually.” Marozau emphasized that knowledge is increasingly commoditized, shifting focus to conceptual understanding and adaptable user interfaces.December 2025 Compliance Report: Key insights from CySEC’s Investor Guide 2025. Learn which practices to avoid, educate clients, and keep AI, digital tools & affiliates compliant. Download your Free report: https://t.co/gVs7w2T9h7#Compliance #CySEC pic.twitter.com/pgQfxPA23k— Finance Magnates (@financemagnates) December 24, 2025Practical Concerns and End-User BenefitsAudience questions raised concerns about AI maturity, mistakes, and overconfidence. Panelists highlighted VIP coding tools and experimentation frameworks that allow safe testing. Healey noted smaller firms and retail investors can experiment more freely than heavily regulated institutions.Panelists repeatedly emphasized personalization and efficiency as main benefits. Healey said AI enables traders to respond rather than react, improving optionality across assets and regions. Hopkins added that AI helps users assimilate data quickly, enhancing decision-making. Dyke highlighted AI’s educational value, providing judgment-free environments for learning.Same app, different users, different outcomes. Check out Microsoft Purview for user-aware protection. https://t.co/crYxmCxyrJ #PurviewSDK #purview #datagovernance #microsoft #microsoft365 #microsoftsecurity pic.twitter.com/N9soZdCV0u— Microsoft Mechanics (@MSFTMechanics) December 8, 2025Risks and Market ConsiderationsThe discussion touched on potential risks of accelerating workflows, such as increased volatility and momentum. Panelists stressed the necessity of keeping humans in the loop. Healey referenced the move from T+2 to T+1 settlement as an example of AI enabling fundamentally different market engagement rather than simply speeding up processes.AI Advances Trading, Human Control RemainsClosing the panel, consensus was clear: AI in trading is a powerful but complex tool. Its transformative potential lies in personalization, data synthesis, and workflow automation, but human oversight, regulatory compliance, and rigorous data governance remain indispensable. As Hopkins summarized, “Regulators and practitioners are all over AI getting it to production on the trading floor faces significant headwinds.”The panel highlighted that while AI is reshaping the industry, success depends on combining machine intelligence with human judgment, ensuring both innovation and accountability in financial markets. This article was written by Tareq Sikder at www.financemagnates.com.

Kevin Kennedy, executive vice president – North American markets, Nasdaq   I believe 2026 will be a transformative year for market innovation. On the technology front, I expect significant progress in tokenisation and digital assets, including tokenised securities and new product launches that drive meaningful AUM growth. We might also see the first ETFs structured as share classes of mutual funds, and AI will continue to reshape trading and market operations. I also anticipate clearer legislation on crypto and digital market structure, which will provide much-needed oversight to enable innovation.   From a regulatory perspective, we could expect updates to the order protection rule and related rules, while infrastructure changes like smaller tick sizes and a consolidated SIP will remain in focus. I also expect the launch of 23/5 trading to help enable global access to US markets – the largest and most liquid markets in the world.    Retail investors will continue to drive priorities, fueling growth in index options, buffered ETPs, and overall options activity, which reached record highs in 2025.   Darko Hajdukovic, head of digital markets infrastructure and chief executive of DMI private funds, LSEG   Capital markets are set for a major shift in 2026 with distributed ledger technology (DLT) being increasingly adopted to bring blockchain-powered innovation and efficiency to real world assets (RWA). The adoption of DLT as core infrastructure for markets will be a significant evolution and signal a future where tokenisation, liquidity enhancement, and data-driven automation redefine market operations, creating a more transparent, efficient, and inclusive financial ecosystem.   Central to this evolution is interoperable digital markets infrastructure (DMI). DMI introduces a framework that addresses long-standing inefficiencies by enabling tokenisation, real-time settlement, and secure post-trade servicing across asset classes. Its core strength lies in LSEG’s open model that embraces interoperability – connecting digital platforms with traditional systems to reduce friction, lower counterparty risk, and improve transparency.    This approach allows market participants to benefit from digital innovation without overhauling existing processes, thanks to modular integration and minimal adoption costs. Private markets are the first to benefit, with enhanced fund distribution and secure data access unlocking liquidity and efficiency. Beyond private funds, universal architectures will extend these benefits across equities, fixed income, and other asset classes, paving the way for tokenised assets to become mainstream.   Dirk Bullmann, managing director, public policy, strategy and innovation, CLS   Last year was pivotal for the evolution of the stablecoin market. Newly implemented regulatory regimes spurred institutional interest and contributed to a surge in volumes.    In 2026, we expect to see continued development of institutional use cases, including interoperability between blockchains, improvements to intraday liquidity management and the emergence of cross-currency collateral transfers.    At the current juncture, stablecoin use cases primarily serve retail and remittance businesses. Adoption in wholesale FX is likely to remain limited in the near term, given the enormous size of the global FX market, with $9.6 trillion being exchanged every day, stablecoins could only play a niche role today.   Moreover, the vast majority of stablecoins (99%) are US dollar-pegged and the current landscape therefore lacks sufficient diversity to meaningfully support broader FX market activity. In addition, near-instant settlement on blockchain does not yet provide the liquidity efficiency of payment-versus-payment (PvP) models.    Beyond 2026, we expect to see hybrid models evolve, where tokenised assets and stablecoins complement, rather than replace, trusted settlement networks.   Melissa Stevenson, head of FX product management, ION   Increased regulatory clarity in the US and Europe over stablecoins will spur more confidence and acceptance for commercial use. The US GENIUS Act and the EU’s MiCA framework will address concerns about compliance and risk, allowing mainstream financial institutions and retailers to integrate stablecoins into their operations.   Traditional financial players are actively partnering with crypto infrastructure providers. Firms like Mastercard and Circle are expanding partnerships to enable stablecoin settlement, while Morgan Stanley is planning to launch cryptocurrency trading for e-trade customers. In Europe, a consortium of nine major banks plans to launch a euro-pegged stablecoin in the second half of 2026.   There is also a continued focus on cross-border payments, with stablecoins expected to gain more widespread adoption as they offer faster, cheaper settlement compared to legacy banking systems like SWIFT.   At the same time, retailers will continue to explore acceptance of stablecoin payments as a way to bypass the high fees associated with card networks and to improve cash flow management through faster settlement. Finally, stablecoins are increasingly seen as a substitute for both crypto and traditional fiat. They will continue to grow as an acceptable medium over the very volatile crypto market and traditional fiat money, enabling transparent, predictable, and faster transactions that unpredictable cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin cannot offer for everyday needs.   The post The TRADE predictions series 2026: Post-trade innovation appeared first on The TRADE.

US derivatives industry regulator NFA (National Futures Association) has issued a Complaint against Forex Wizard Inc. and Mitsuaki Kataoka, charging […] The post NFA charges Japan’s Forex Wizard and Mitsuaki Kataoka with delaying withdrawal requests appeared first on FX News Group.