1 | Executive Snapshot StablR Ltd (Malta, C 104007) positions itself as a MiCA-ready euro-stablecoin issuer. Official filings show a simple Dutch holding chain, but deeper registry work and legacy links to Payvision’s cyber-crime scandal raise doubts about the project’s true beneficial owners (UBOs). While no hard evidence yet ties Payvision founder Rudolf Booker (or other ex-shareholders) directly to StablR, multiple red flags—including addresses previously used by Booker-controlled entities and a board dominated by former Payvision managers—demand regulatory scrutiny. 2 | Corporate Chain on Record LayerEntityRegistration & AddressDirectors (per latest filings)Declared Shareholder(s)IssuerStablR Ltd (Malta)MFSA EMI licence “STAB” • LEI 984500AA0OCA9CE0D796 • Level 5, Carolina Court, Ta’ Xbiex XBX 1425 (alt. BusinessLabs, Birkirkara) (Sources: stablr.com; stablr.com; lei-lookup.com)Benjamin Whitby (INED Chair) • Christine Bezzina (INED) • Gijs op de Weegh (CEO) • Corné van der Meijden (CROO) • Julia Frendo (CFO) • Adam Csanyi (CCO) (Sources: stablr.com)Plutus B.V. (100 %) (Sources: stablr.com)Dutch parentPlutus B.V.KvK 87218895 • John M. Keynesplein 12-46, 1066 EP Amsterdam (Sources: stablr.com; transfirm.nl)Gijs op de Weegh • Corné van der Meijden (Sources: stablr.com)Not public (no share ledger in Dutch open data)Tech armSTB Software Development B.V.KvK 87643359 • John M. Keynesplein 12, 1066 EP Amsterdam (Sources: compadex.com; stablr.com)Gijs op de Weegh • Corné van der Meijden • Robin Nijkamp (ex-Payvision) (Sources: stablr.com)100 % held by Plutus B.V. (white-paper) (Sources: stablr.com)Legacy vehicleGW Ventures B.V.KvK 58055452 • Stadionweg 21, 1077 RV Amsterdam (Sources: dnb.com)Key principal: Gijs op de Weegh (only publicly named officer) (Sources: dnb.com)Opaque—no share data in open sources Observation: All Dutch entities are controlled by the same ex-Payvision duo (Op de Weegh & Van der Meijden) and cluster at addresses historically associated with Booker’s Payvision spin-offs. 3 | Payvision Legacy & Conflict Signals Operational DNA: CEO Gijs op de Weegh was COO of Payvision during its onboarding of the boiler-room scammers Uwe Lenhoff & Gal Barak. Dutch Central Bank (DNB) filed a criminal complaint in 2020; Payvision directors were later fined for AML breaches. Although Op de Weegh avoided conviction, court files cite him as the executive in charge of risk/on-boarding (Sources: fintelegram.com; fintelegram.com). Personnel carousel: CROO Corné van der Meijden (ex-Payvision CFO) and Robin Nijkamp (ex-Payvision tech lead) now run StablR’s core functions (Sources: rootdata.com). Address trail: John M. Keynesplein 12—the nerve-centre for Plutus & STB—also housed several Payvision successor vehicles steered by Rudolf Booker (e.g., Safened) – (Source: fintelegram.com). Personal trail: A direct connection links Plutus B.V. to Rudolf Booker. Since 2021, Dutch lawyer Stefanie Keyser has served as managing director of Ardys B.V., the family office of Payvision founder and former CEO Rudolf Booker. Keyser simultaneously held a board position at Plutus, StablR’s parent company, until July 2023. 4 | UBO Analysis – Is Rudolf Booker in the Shadows? IndicatorEvidenceStatusDirect share registerNo Booker-named shares in Plutus/STB/GW available via open KvK extracts. Dutch UBO registry is not publicly viewable without paid request.InconclusiveManagement roleBooker not listed as director in any StablR entity or white-paper.AbsentAddress & network overlapPlutus/STB share Booker’s historic office & advisory network (Safened, Temper, etc.).SuggestiveFunding disclosuresWhite-paper states “founders, related entities and other investors” finance StablR but does not name them—a potential MiCA Article 5/14 omission. (Source: stablr.com)Opaque Provisional Verdict: No hard registry proof yet links Rudolf Booker as a UBO, but the circumstantial footprint is strong enough that MFSA (and ESMA under MiCA) should demand a certified UBO statement and, if necessary, cross-border AML source-of-funds checks. Read our Payvision reports here. 5 | Regulatory & Counter-party Red Flags White-Paper Completeness (MiCA Art. 5 & 14):Missing disclosure of executives’ prior AML findings and civil penalties may constitute a “material omission”. Fit-&-Proper Tests:MFSA must revisit whether former Payvision risk managers meet the integrity criterion now that Payvision’s money-laundering record is final. Systemic-Stablecoin Oversight:Under MiCA’s “significance” regime, euro stablecoins exceeding €100 m supply trigger tighter ESMA/ECB supervision; StablR is actively seeking institutional volume—thus UBO opacity is unacceptable. 6 | Action Items for Stakeholders StakeholderRecommended Next StepMFSA / ESMAIssue Section 56 notice compelling StablR to lodge full UBO affidavit; review white-paper for omission penalties under MiCA.Banking Partners & CustodiansConduct enhanced due-diligence on Plutus B.V. shareholders; insist on notarised UBO declaration.DeFi / CEX IntegratorsFlag StablR as “conditional listing” pending public UBO confirmation and Payvision-legacy risk clarification.Journalists & WhistleblowersProvide documentary evidence (KvK extracts, funding agreements) to confirm or refute Booker’s stake; submit via Whistle42. 7 | Summarizing Table Person / EntityTypeOfficial Role(s) (latest public filings)Key Connections & NotesStablR Ltd (C 104007, Malta)Issuer / EMIMFSA-licensed e-money institution; board: Benjamin Whitby (INED chair) • Christine Bezzina (INED) • Gijs op de Weegh (CEO) • Corné van der Meijden (CROO) • Julia Frendo (CFO) • Adam Csanyi (CCO) stablr.comstablr.com100 % owned by Plutus B.V.; staffed chiefly by ex-Payvision managers.Plutus B.V. (KvK 87218895)Dutch holdingDirectors until 1 Dec 2023: Gijs op de Weegh & Corné van der Meijden; since 1 Dec 2023, the corporate director is GW Ventures B.V. Stefanie Keyser was director until July 2023. transfirm.nldrimble.nlSole shareholder of StablR Ltd and STB Software Dev B.V.; registered at John M. Keynesplein 12-46, Amsterdam – the same address cluster used by several Rudolf Booker spin-offs. stablr.comlei-lookup.comArdys GroupFamily officeFamily office of Rudolf BookerStefanie KeyserWybrand OosterbaanJeroen VetterSTB Software Development B.V. (KvK 87643359)Dutch tech armDirectors: Gijs op de Weeg • Corné van der Meijden • Robin Nijkamp stablr.comlei-lookup.comWholly owned by Plutus; operates the EURR/USDR tech stack.GW Ventures B.V. (KvK 58055452)Dutch holdingDirector: Gijs op de Weegh; address Stadeionweg 21, Amsterdam creditsafe.comtransfirm.nlBecame director of Plutus on 1 Dec 2023 – adds another opaque layer between StablR and its UBOs.Gijs op de WeeghIndividualCEO StablR • Director of Plutus, STB & GW Ventures; ex-COO Payvision stablr.comfintelegram.comOversaw Payvision’s client onboarding when the processor handled scams run by Uwe Lenhoff & Gal Barak; at centre of DNB money-laundering complaint (2020).Corné van der MeijdenIndividualCROO & Director StablR • Director Plutus & STB; ex-CFO Payvision Part of Payvision executive team during AML breaches cited by DNB.Robin NijkampIndividualDirector STB Software Dev; ex-Head of Tech Payvision Bridges Payvision tech stack know-how into StablR.Benjamin Whitby / Christine Bezzina / Julia Frendo / Adam CsanyiIndividualsChair INED / INED / CFO / CCO of StablR respectively Provide regulatory veneer; no known Payvision links.Payvision B.V.Dutch PSP (sold to ING)Under 2020 DNB criminal complaint; several board members fined for AML violations Former employer of Gijs op de Weegh (COO) & Corné van der Meijden; facilitated Lenhoff & Barak scams.Rudolf BookerIndividualFounder & ex-CEO PayvisionNot named in any StablR filing, but Plutus/STB use his historical office hub (John M. Keynesplein 12); circumstantial indicator of possible hidden UBO stake.Uwe Lenhoff / Gal BarakIndividualsOperators of vast boiler-room fraudsTheir schemes used Payvision for payment processing while Gijs op de Weegh was COOING GroupEntityParent of Payvision since 2018Paid multimillion-euro settlements to victims defrauded via Payvision-processed scams. How to read this table Opaque layers: Plutus → GW Ventures → (Unknown shareholders) obscure the money trail. Legacy risk: every Dutch entity above is headed by senior Payvision alumni, transplanting a compliance-failure culture into StablR’s ostensibly “clean” Maltese wrapper. Regulatory gap: MiCA white-paper naming duty is unmet—no disclosure of Payvision history nor of Plutus / GW Ventures share registers. 8 | Conclusion StablR’s legal wrapper looks neat: a single Dutch holding (Plutus), a tech subsidiary (STB), and a Malta-licensed issuer. Reality is messier. The same executives who presided over Payvision’s AML disaster now run the show, while shareholder registers remain sealed. Until independent proof of ultimate ownership is produced—and past AML failures fully disclosed—regulators and counterparties should treat StablR as high-risk despite its MiCA rhetoric. Prepared by FinTelegram Intelligence Unit – June 2025. Sources include MFSA licence records, StablR White Paper v3.1, Dutch KvK extracts, D&B, and prior FinTelegram investigations. Share Information via Whistle42

Revolut’s CEO bets on a $150 billion moon-shot while critics ask: how many zeros—and how many myths—surround the man? 1. Summary Table FieldDetailsNameNikolay “Nik” StoronskySocial MediaLinkedInKey RolesCo-Founder & CEO, Revolut; Founder, QuantumLight family officeKnown AffiliationsRevolut Board; Index Ventures & Balderton (early backers); father ex-Gazprom execLegal ExposureUK & EU banking-licence compliance; past AML and reporting irregularitiesJurisdictionUK (primary); entities in LT, IE, US; renounced Russian citizenship 2022Risk LevelHigh — outsized pay package, fast-growth control lapses, regulatory chafing 2. Introduction Few fintech founders chase scale with the kinetic intensity of Nik Storonsky. This London-based ex-derivatives trader took Revolut from a prepaid FX card in 2015 to Europe’s most valuable private tech company ($45 bn). Now he’s gunning for a $150 bn valuation—and a personal pay-day that could rival Elon Musk’s record Tesla award. 3. Career Path & Affiliations 2006-2013: Equity-derivatives trader at Lehman Brothers and Credit Suisse. 2015: Co-founds Revolut with CTO Vlad Yatsenko out of Level39, Canary Wharf. 2018-2024: Raises >$2 bn, rolls out in 48 countries, pivots into crypto, lending, and telecom add-ons. 2025: Doubles pretax profit to £1.1 bn; increases personal stake to >25 % via restructuring. Side vehicle: QuantumLight, an AI-driven family office scouting VC deals. 4. Role in Revolut’s $150 Billion “Musk-Style” Option MetricTriggerPayout MechanicsValuation stairs~$70 bn → $150 bnUp to 10 % additional equity, vested in tranchesCurrent baseline$45 bn (Aug 2024)No tranches vested yetComparisonTesla 2018 awardMirrors milestone-based approach If all targets hit, analysts estimate a paper windfall north of $15 bn, potentially dwarfing Revolut’s 2024 net income. Read our Revolut reports here. 5. Legal & Financial Risk Exposure Confirmed FCA & PRA still monitoring AML controls; UK full-bank licence conditional. Lithuania 2019: scrutiny over Russian links (no formal finding). Suspected / Under Watch Aggressive crypto expansion could invite SEC or MiCA actions. Option structure may breach UK exec-pay “windfall” caps if Revolut lists in London. IFRS revenue recognition questioned by auditors in 2023—company restated but details sealed. 6. The “106 Children” Narrative—Fact Check Claim: Storonsky fathered 100+ children via sperm donation.Findings: No credible source links him to prolific sperm-donor activity; reliable profiles list two to four children from his marriage. ru.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org The viral figure appears to conflate Storonsky with Telegram founder Pavel Durov, who has publicly admitted to over 100 donor-conceived offspring. Knowledge Gap: Unless Revolut or Storonsky confirm otherwise, the 106-child story remains unsubstantiated. 7. Psychological Snapshot (Open-Source Indicators) TraitObservable BehaviourPossible ImpactHigh-Risk AppetiteDerivatives trader; all-in option schemeDrives innovation but elevates governance riskControl-Focused25 %+ stake & dual-class ambitionsMay deter some institutional investorsImage-CuratingRenounced Russian passport; public Red Cross donationsReputation hedge amid geopoliticsStoic Family-PrivacySparse interviews about spouse/kids; denies donation rumoursSignals boundary-setting amid media swirl 8. Network & Power Links NameRoleTie StrengthVlad YatsenkoCo-Founder & CTOOperational confidantMartin GilbertRevolut Chair; ex-Standard LifeGovernance bufferNeil RimerPartner, Index VenturesLead Series A investorBalderton Capital (Rana Yared)Board observerGrowth-round backerSam WoodsCEO, UK PRALicence gatekeeperNikhil RathiCEO, FCARegulatory oversightNikolay M. StoronskyFather; Gazprom Promgaz headLegacy Russian linkage 9. FinTelegram Verdict Storonsky is a visionary operator whose compensation bet reveals as much about Revolut’s vaulting ambition as it does about governance gaps. The $150 bn option could turbo-charge growth—or trigger a regulatory-PR backlash if returns flow to one man faster than to customers or watchdogs. The “106 children” saga looks more like clickbait than dossier material—yet it underscores how blurred narratives can stick to high-risk protagonists. Share Information via Whistle42

Excerpt Real-world-asset (RWA) tokens on public blockchains surged past $24 billion in June 2025, propelled by a flood of tokenized U.S.-Treasury, private-credit and commodity deals. The jump signals that RWA rails are moving from crypto experiment to mainstream capital-markets infrastructure—and regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are scrambling to catch up. 5 Key Points $24 B milestone & 260 % YTD growth – Aggregate tokenized RWAs soared from ~$9 B at end-2024 to $24 B in mid-2025, a 2.6× expansion in six months. (Source: forbes.commedium.com) Treasuries now the kingmaker – Tokenized T-bill products top $5.6 B–$7 B in AUM, led by BlackRock’s BUIDL fund at $2.9 B, granting TradFi issuers ~44 % market share. (Source: coingecko.com) Regulatory clarity arrives – The EU’s MiCA regime took full effect on 30 Dec 2024, while the U.S. Senate passed the GENIUS Act on 17 Jun 2025, creating a dual-license framework for fiat-backed tokens. (Source: ey.comreuters.com) Wall Street jumps in – Goldman Sachs, Franklin Templeton, and Abu Dhabi’s Realize join BlackRock with multi-billion-dollar tokenization pipelines, signalling an issuer land-grab. onchain.org DeFi integration accelerates – BUIDL, BENJI and others are now used as collateral on Euler, MakerDAO and Kamino; yet holder counts remain just ≈12 k, exposing liquidity pinch-points.(Source: medium.com) Short Narrative Tokenization’s inflection point came as rising global yields met shrinking on-chain returns. When BlackRock launched BUIDL (Jul 2024) it proved that blue-chip treasuries could settle T+instant on Ethereum. By Q2 2025, that proof had scaled: tokenized treasuries mushroomed past $5 B, commodity-backed coins hit $1.9 B, and private credit crept toward $550 M. The Forbes-reported $24 B headline crystallized the sector’s swagger—just days before the U.S. Senate green-lit the GENIUS Act, providing the legal bedrock markets craved. Extended Analysis Market structure. RWA issuance has flipped from crypto-native (Centrifuge, Maple) to TradFi-led. BlackRock, Goldman and Franklin leverage existing custody, KYC and distribution to tokenize balance-sheet assets, tilting competitive advantage toward incumbents. Liquidity, however, is still shallow: fewer than 12 000 addresses hold treasuries, and secondary volume clusters around a handful of OTC venues. Legal & policy backdrop. MiCA imposes EU-wide licensing, reserve and disclosure rules on “asset-referenced tokens,” forcing European projects to align with bank-grade governance. Across the Atlantic, the GENIUS Act’s dual-license regime may override the current state-by-state patchwork, but final House amendments could tighten AML screens—raising compliance costs and pushing smaller issuers offshore. The SEC, meanwhile, signalled in May that tokenized title instruments could fall outside traditional securities analysis, hinting at lighter-touch treatment for fully reserved RWAs. Litigation & enforcement. Class-action risk remains: mis-matched reserves or buggy smart-contracts will invite securities-fraud suits. MiCA’s market-abuse provisions and the SEC’s refreshed Howey guidance give whistleblowers clearer channels to expose non-compliant issuers. Investment Implications OpportunityRisk5 %+ on-chain T-bill yield with 24/7 liquidity, minus brokerage frictionSmart-contract exploits; oracles and custodians are single-points-of-failureFractional real-estate or commodity exposure for Gen Z investorsRegulatory re-classification could freeze trading & force off-chain redemptionArbitrage between DeFi collateral rates and TradFi money-market yieldsThin secondary order books amplify slippage and redemption gatesEarly equity in tokenization rails, custody APIs & compliance SaaSMargin compression as incumbents muscle in; venture dilution risk Recommendation / Warning Allocators should treat RWA tokens as “yield-plus-infra” bets, not buy-and-forget products. Limit exposure to ≤ 5 % of AUM, stick to fully audited issuers (BUIDL, BENJI, OUSG), and monitor reserve attestations monthly. Whistleblowers: watch for reserve-asset rehypothecation and undisclosed DeFi rehypothภัย—these will be the first cracks when rate spreads compress. Share Information via Whistle42

They did it again: another press release. FinTelegram dissects the Dream Finance/CoinsPaid network—an Austrian-fronted, Baltic-based crypto processor whose glossy PR masks a web of gambling interests, Russian capital, and whistle-blower claims of large-scale laundering. However, the background story is a quite different one. 5 KEY POINTS High-Risk Wrapper – CoinsPaid & sister brand CryptoProcessing are merely labels; real operations sit in Estonia (Dream Finance OÜ), Lithuania (Dream Finance UAB), and Poland (Dream Payments Sp. z o.o.). Front-Seat Faces – CEO Max Krupyshev, Ukrainian national resident in Germany, drives the public narrative, while co-founder Ivan Montik holds the purse strings. Casino DNA – Montik also founded SoftSwiss, a major i-gaming platform reportedly dominated by Russian investors. Reputation-Laundering Playbook – Success stories are blasted via coordinated press releases—classic “announce-then-repeat” strategy to drown out risk signals. Insider Red Flag – A former manager alleges the group is “used for massive money laundering,” yet regulators remain largely silent. Read the Ivan Montik profile here. SHORT NARRATIVE CoinsPaid, trumpeted as Europe’s fastest-growing crypto payment gateway, sits atop a tri-jurisdictional scaffold of shell entities branded “Dream Finance.” The firm’s relentless PR cycle highlights record transaction volumes and new merchant wins, but glosses over its deep ties to online gambling powerhouse SoftSwiss, Russian money, and an ownership chain designed for opacity. Behind the celebratory headlines lies a structure tailor-made for regulatory arbitrage. EXTENDED ANALYSIS Legal & Licensing Gaps Estonia & Lithuania issue crypto-asset service licences with comparatively light AML oversight; CoinsPaid leverages these “regtech-lite” jurisdictions while marketing to higher-risk verticals (gambling, adult, high-yield schemes). Poland’s Dream Payments Sp. z o.o. provides an EU payments passport, yet Polish KNF records reveal minimal capital and skeleton staffing—suggestive of a pass-through entity. Regulatory Blind Spots Ultimate Beneficial Ownership (UBO) filings list Montik, but Russian backers behind SoftSwiss remain undisclosed—a critical gap given current EU sanctions frameworks. PR Armor acts as soft influence: repeated announcements in trade media create a veneer of legitimacy that can lull compliance officers and journalists alike. Operational Red Flags Concentration Risk: Same tech stack (Merkeleon white-label) runs both gambling platforms and “legit” merchants—blurring transactional origin. Effective Control vs. Nominal Seats: Krupyschev is CEO, yet key strategic decisions purportedly require soft-signoff from Montik’s SoftSwiss board—classic indicator of shadow governance. ACTIONABLE INSIGHT Regulators should perform an immediate source-of-funds audit on Dream Finance entities and cross-match CoinsPaid merchant flows with SoftSwiss casino payouts. A fast-track joint review (Estonia-Lithuania-Poland) could pierce jurisdictional silos and surface potential sanction breaches tied to hidden Russian stakes. CALL FOR INFORMATION Have you processed, audited, or investigated CoinsPaid/CryptoProcessing transactions? Share your information with FinTelegram via our whistleblower system, Whistle42. Share Information via Whistle42.

Excerpt As reported by FinTelegram, the U.S. Senate’s 68-30 passage of the GENIUS Act—the first federal rule-set for dollar-backed stablecoins—sent Coinbase (COIN) up as much as 16% and newly-listed Circle Internet Group (CRCL) up 34%. The rally signals Wall Street’s hunger for crypto-regulated clarity, but it also exposes both stocks to a looming squeeze on their plush interest-income stream if (or when) the Fed cuts rates. 5 Key Points Double-Digit Pops: Coinbase closed +16.3% at $295; Circle finished +33.8% at $199.59 (Source: Cointelegraph.com). Bill Mechanics: GENIUS Act forces a 1-for-1 reserve in cash or sub-3-month Treasurys and green-lights stablecoin issuance by banks and fintechs (Source: investopedia.com). Disruption Warning: Visa and Mastercard shed ~5% on fears that on-chain dollars will bypass card rails (Source: investopedia.com). Treasury-Market Ripple: Citi projects stablecoins could absorb $1 tn in T-bills by 2030, lowering short-end yields but raising run-risk volatility, per BIS. (Source: investopedia.com). Coinbase’s Hidden Dependency: COIN pockets 50% of Circle’s USDC interest revenue—$297 m last quarter—making both firms highly rate-sensitive. (Source: cointelegraph.com) Short Narrative (Core Facts) On June 18, 2025 the Senate approved the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. The bill imposes strict reserve, AML/KYC, and audit rules on issuers while explicitly authorizing banks and licensed non-banks to mint U.S. dollar stablecoins. Within minutes of the vote, Coinbase—USDC’s distribution partner—and Circle—the token’s issuer—spiked to the top of the tape, outpacing every S&P 500 component and dwarfing IPO-week gains. The legislation now heads to the House, where a competing STABLE Act is in committee. Extended Analysis Regulatory Lift vs. Compliance Drag. Clear federal rules slash existential risk discounts that once weighed on crypto equities. Yet the mandate for audited, 24-hour-liquidity reserves will crimp spread-gaming models and raise capital costs, especially for non-bank fintechs chasing Coinbase/Circle’s moat. Interest-Rate Cliff. Both firms monetize idle USDC cash via overnight repos and T-bill ladders. With the Fed still penciling in two cuts for Q4—and the GENIUS Act barring >90-day paper—the juicy carry that fueled COIN/CRCL’s last four quarters could halve within a year. Payment-Network Fallout. Stablecoins settle near-instantaneously at a fraction of interchange fees. Card networks’ sell-off underscores a structural threat to their $100 bn+ fee pool. Expect lobbying ramp-ups and potential House amendments aimed at latency, fraud-liability, or wallet-custody safeguards. Macro-Market Knocks. BIS warns that fire-sale dynamics during a stablecoin run could yank hundreds of billions of T-bills into forced liquidation, spiking short-end yields and disabling the Fed’s rate-control levers—an irony for an act pitched as “innovation.” Investment Implications OpportunityRiskFirst-mover equity stakes in USDC at scale; potential wallet fees, tokenized-equity rails, and custody mandates baked into GENIUS Act.Compressed net-interest margins when Fed eases; heavy compliance spend; House revisions could cap non-bank issuance or hike capital buffers.Possible migration of corporate treasuries to on-chain cash, boosting USDC float.Antitrust scrutiny if Coinbase/Circle tandem dominates U.S. stablecoin flow; whistleblower risk if reserves or audits fail new thresholds.Short-selling setups in legacy payment rails if House aligns with Senate text.Valuation froth: CRCL has gained >540% since its June 5 IPO—ripe for mean-reversion once euphoria fades. omniekonomi.se Recommendation / Warning FinTelegram Take:Go long regulatory clarity, not hype. Trim into strength above COIN $300 / CRCL $200 and rotate proceeds into option-protected pairs: long COIN vs. short card networks until House language crystallizes. Whistleblowers should scrutinize reserve attestations—any slip could flip today’s euphoria into a liquidity run. Share Information via Whistle42

From Malta’s shadow desks to Dubai’s glossy skyline 1. Summary Table ItemDetailsNameGennaro (a/k/a “Genny”) LanzaKey rolesFounder/CEO DB Investing; Owner & Director Capital Solutions Ltd; Head DBX ConsultantsKnown affiliationsDB Investing, DBFX, Dubai FXM, NewFX, OnspotBNK, Capital Solutions Ltd, DBX Consultants, Big Horizons Ltd, Invest Group Global LtdLegal exposureMultiple regulator warnings (CNMV Spain, Consob Italy); CySEC licence revocation of affiliated Belight Capital Group; ongoing defamation cross-fire with Gripeo; historic boiler-room litigation in MaltaJurisdictions of operationMalta (boiler rooms), Seychelles (licences & shareholding), Vanuatu, Cyprus, Dubai (UAE), DominicaFinTelegram risk levelHIGH – “Black Compliance” (persistent red-flag pattern) 2. Introduction – Why He’s Back on the Radar Last week DB Investing trumpeted a “strategic partnership” with KYC vendor Sumsub. In reality, adding an off-the-shelf AML tool is hardly headline material; hundreds of brokers do it every day. The publicity blast looked less like real news and more like image-laundering for a man whose broker stable has ping-ponged across regulators, shells and continents for nearly two decades. Read our reports on Gennaro Lanza here. 3. Career Path & Affiliations Malta Boiler-Rooms (2000s–2021). Through Capital Solutions Ltd, Lanza ran aggressive call-centre sales floors channelling clients into unlicensed FX brands. Originally co-owned with Italians Italo Mainolfi and Massimiliano Moroni, the shares were later moved to his Seychelles vehicle Invest Group Global Ltd. Offshore Broker Factory. Brands include Dubai FXM, DBFX, NewFX and flagship DB Investing – each hopscotching between Vanuatu, Seychelles and Dominica registrations whenever a warning landed. DBX Consultants (Dubai). Marketed as a “company-builder” and merchant-services outfit, DBX offers corporate setups and payment rails across multiple jurisdictions – a classic servicing arm for grey-zone brokers. OnspotBNK cluster. FinTelegram traced the vanished scam broker OnspotBNK back to Lanza’s network – same payment processors, same boiler-room staff DNA. Image-Management Wars. Since 2023 Lanza has fought an online defamation slug-fest against review site Gripeo, spawning mirror domains, PR releases and even alleged DDoS spill-over on FinTelegram. 4. Role in DB Investing & the Sumsub Hype Lanza positions DB Investing as his crown jewel, now “headquartered” in Dubai’s DIFC marketing hub. The Sumsub press note claims world-class compliance, yet: The broker remains unlicensed in the EU/UK, pushing clients to a Seychelles entity. Prior Lanza brands have accumulated regulator blacklists; re-branding is a pattern, not a pivot. The announcement, therefore, reads less like genuine governance progress and more like reputation white-paint on an old boiler-room wall. 5. Legal & Financial Risk Exposure ConfirmedSuspected / Under-InvestigatedCNMV (Spain) warnings against DBFX/Dubai FXM/OnspotBNK; Consob (Italy) domain black-outs; CySEC revoked Belight Capital Group licence linked to DB brands. Whistle-blower claims of aggressive cold-calling and mis-selling via Malta & Cyprus desks; internal use of layered PSPs to disguise ultimate beneficiaries; potential FCA payment-processing ties via One Financial Markets (unverified). Pending civil suit in Malta over staff-poaching (ZP Services v Lanza). Possible orchestrated DDoS attacks targeting FinTelegram amid the Gripeo feud (no forensic link proven). 6. Network & Power Links Name / EntityRoleLink to LanzaItalo MainolfiEarly shareholder, Capital SolutionsCo-founded Malta boiler room; sold shares 2020 Massimiliano MoroniEarly shareholder, Capital SolutionsDitto; exited alongside Mainolfi Alpin ShaCompany secretary, Capital SolutionsHolds token 0.05 % share Big Horizons Ltd (SC)Seychelles SPVHistorical shareholder for Capital Solutions & NewFX Invest Group Global Ltd (SC)Lanza-controlledNow 99.5 % owner of Capital Solutions; vehicle for PR “entrepreneurial triumph” claims OnspotBNKVanished offshore brokerPart of same brand swarm — shared infra & staff 7. FinTelegram Verdict Gennaro Lanza is a serial jurisdiction-hopper whose business model thrives in regulatory shade.A fresh coat of Sumsub does not rewrite a history of boiler rooms, shell games and regulator warnings. Risk radar stays deep-red. Whistle-blowers welcome. Share Information If you have any information about Gennaro Lanza and his activities, please share it with us via our whistleblower platform Whistle42. Share Information via Whistle42.

EFRI & The Cybercrime Tsunami Cybercrime is the new plague of the online age. Scammers systematically destroy people’s financial situations and lives. The authorities are doing far too little to protect people and take action against scammers. Organizations such as the European Fund Recovery Initiative EFRI, an officially recognized NGO in the field of victim protection and fund recovery, have been pioneers in victim protection in the area of cybercrime since 2017. As an advocate for victims, EFRI has already recovered a significant amount of money for victims of scam-facilitating financial institutions. Unfortunately, there are also many unscrupulous providers who want to exploit the desperation of victims to make money. Unfortunately, this includes many law firms riding the cybercrime tsunami. One of those law firms seems to be the Amsterdam based Barentskrans. As reported by FinTelegram, BarentsKrans is alleged to have acted in an unethical and possibly unprofessional manner in court proceedings brought by EFRI on behalf of victims of online trading scams. This could mean that the victims represented by EFRI may not be able to recover the millions they lost to scammers. The News in 90 Words In its fight for justice for victims, EFRI has filed a disciplinary complaint with the Haagse Orde van Advocaten against top-tier Dutch firm BarentsKrans and partner William Schonewille. The Bar has acknowledged receipt and assigned the matter to its supervisory board (file number undisclosed). EFRI alleges conflict-of-interest concealment, abrupt withdrawal on the eve of a deadline, and retention of unearned fees in a mass-fraud appeal against ING subsidiary Payvision. More than 600 retail victims are left without counsel. What the Complaint Says AllegationDetail (EFRI version)Compliance LensConcealed conflictBK partner Arno Voerman earlier advised Payvision; firm allegedly sought Payvision’s permission before taking the brief.Art. 7 NOvA Code: former-client conflicts are non-waivable without full disclosure.Procedural sabotageFirm pushed for a 3-month delay, then walked away 5 days before filing deadline, citing “trust issues.”Care-of-client duty – timing alone may constitute “manifestly improper conduct.”Retainer misuse€30k “fixed fee” accepted; zero work product delivered; offer to refund only 50 % if criticism deleted.Possible unreasonable fee + breach of honour code (Gedragsregel 17).MisrepresentationBarentsKrans allegedly told the client no conflict existed after checking internally.Duty of candour – mis-statements to a client = disciplinary offence. Read our report EFRI v BarentsKrans here. Why Regulators Should Care While EFRI pursues justice for scam victims with official recognition and a strong international reputation, a growing number of shady or outright fraudulent “fund recovery experts” are preying on the desperation created by the cybercrime tsunami. These so-called recovery services represent one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime—striking twice by exploiting already devastated victims, draining them both financially and emotionally. Likely Next Moves In the EFRI v BarentsKrans Case, the Dutch Haagse Orde will decide whether to open formal disciplinary proceedings; average investigation cycle: 6-12 months. Civil malpractice suit remains on the table; EFRI hints at damages for 600+ victims. Regulatory ripple: Dutch Financial Supervision Office could examine lawyers’ trust-accounts under Wwft (AML) obligations once money-flows are exposed. Report Malpractice If you have any information about legal malpractice in the funds recovery context, please share it with us via our whistleblower page, Whistle42. Share Information via Whistle42

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act has cleared the Senate’s final procedural hurdles and is racing toward a floor vote that could deliver America’s first federal crypto statute. The bill would yank stablecoins out of the regulatory gray zone, impose 1-for-1 reserve rules, and force public officials to reveal their own holdings—moving the market from “Wild West” to compliance grid. 5 Key Points Bipartisan Momentum – The Senate advanced the GENIUS Act 66-22, defeating a filibuster and reviving support after an earlier Democratic blockade. 1-for-1 Reserves, No Exceptions – Issuers must hold short-term U.S. Treasuries or cash equal to every stablecoin in circulation, publish monthly attestations, and undergo annual audits. Freeze-and-Seize Mandate – All permitted issuers—foreign or domestic—must prove they can halt or burn illicit tokens and comply with U.S. AML / sanctions orders. Ethics & Disclosure – Members of Congress and senior Executive-branch officials must disclose stablecoin positions above $5 k; the bill also bars them from issuing coins while in office. Algorithmic & Yield Coins Outlawed – Algorithmic stablecoins and yield-bearing payment tokens are expressly prohibited, walling off riskier designs. Short Narrative Born from months of cross-party bargaining, the GENIUS Act aims to cement U.S. leadership in digital dollars while reining in systemic and ethical risk. Origins – Senators Hagerty, Scott, Gillibrand, and Lummis drafted the bill after the 2024 collapse of several offshore coins and mounting pressure to keep the dollar dominant on-chain. Roadblocks & Revisions – Initial progress stalled when Democrats tied the bill to concerns over President Trump’s crypto ventures. A disclosure rider for lawmakers, tougher bankruptcy priorities for coin-holders, and new Treasury surveillance powers won back enough votes. Current Status – With cloture passed, final Senate approval is expected within days; the House has signaled support but could seek tweaks on SEC jurisdiction. Extended Analysis Regulatory Consequences Unified Oversight Model – Banking regulators (Fed, OCC, FDIC) become the primary supervisors of “permitted payment stablecoin issuers,” ending the turf war with the SEC for these assets. Off-shore coins that refuse registration face de-facto U.S. market exile via exchange blocklists. Bankruptcy-Remote Reserves – Reserve assets are segregated and cannot be rehypothecated, giving coin-holders senior claims over other creditors—a first in U.S. crypto law. AML Arms Race – The freeze-function requirement effectively deputizes issuers as compliance gatekeepers, mirroring EU-MiCA standards and pressuring Tether-style offshore projects to either onboard U.S. rules or lose banking rails. Market Impact Incumbent Winners – Circle (USDC) and Paxos (USDP) already publish audited reserves; they can file for “permitted issuer” status quickly. Bank Entry – Large U.S. banks eye tokenized deposits and white-label coins, betting on new fee streams and on-chain settlement efficiencies. Losers – Algorithmic coins (e.g., FRAX’s original model) and yield-bearing tokens lose U.S. distribution; spreadsheets suggest $35 bn in daily trading volume could migrate to compliant instruments. Investment Implications StakeholderUpsideDownsideAction SignalRegulated Stablecoin IssuersRegulatory clarity unlocks bank partnerships & retail flows.Higher compliance costs.Go long on reserve-transparent issuers.Surveillance & AML TechMandated monitoring = revenue boom.Market saturation risk.Track contract wins at Chainalysis, TRM.Offshore Coins & CEXsMight be frozen out of U.S. banking rails.Liquidity drain; delisting risk.Consider hedged shorts vs. regulated peers.Big BanksNew product line: tokenized deposits.Capital rule uncertainty.Watch early pilot disclosures for catalysts. Recommendation / Warning FinTelegram Verdict: The GENIUS Act is no longer a “maybe” headline—it’s a near-term base case. Treat non-compliant stablecoins and algorithmic designs as at-risk assets once the bill hits the President’s desk. Investors should rotate into fully-audited, dollar-backed issuers and monitor bank-token announcements for first-mover advantages. Whistle-blowers: scrutiny will intensify—document reserve gaps now before the audit clock starts. Share Information with FinTelegram

The U.S. FinCEN’s 2023 move to label all “convertible virtual-currency mixing” as a primary money-laundering concern, the 2024 DOJ indictment of Samourai Wallet’s founders, and the EU’s new AML Rulebook banning anonymity-enhancing features by 2027 have pushed CoinJoin from grey zone to regulatory bull’s-eye. The upshot: Bitcoin’s most popular privacy workflow is on a collision course with compliance desks worldwide, forcing investors, service providers, and whistle-blowers to reassess risk. 5 Key Points FinCEN’s “Special Measure” – The October 2023 NPRM treats any CVC mixing (CoinJoin included) as a transaction class “of primary money-laundering concern,” triggering enhanced reporting for U.S. FIs (Source: fincen.gov) Criminal Precedent – April 2024: DOJ charges Samourai Wallet founders with money-laundering conspiracy and operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business; prosecutors cite the wallet’s CoinJoin-based “Whirlpool.” (Source: justice.gov) Market Reaction – Days later, Wasabi Wallet developer zkSNACKs geofence-blocks all U.S. users, citing the same enforcement wave. (Source: coindesk.com) EU AML Regulation 2024/1624 – From July 2027, EU-licensed CASPs are prohibited from offering accounts that “allow anonymisation or increased obfuscation of transactions,” explicitly covering CoinJoin-style mechanisms. (Source: eur-lex.europa.eu) FATF Pressure – The 2023 targeted update flags mixers and privacy tools as emerging AML gaps, urging jurisdictions to tighten VASP oversight and Travel-Rule compliance. (Source: fatf-gafi.org). Short Narrative CoinJoin, invented in 2013, lets multiple Bitcoin users combine inputs and outputs into a single transaction, scrambling blockchain linkages without moving coins off-chain. What began as a cypherpunk privacy hack is now bundled in retail wallets (Wasabi, Samourai) and used by arbitrage desks, political dissidents—and, according to law enforcement, ransomware crews and sanctions evaders. Regulators have responded in three waves: Guidance → Classification: FATF’s 2019-23 guidance pushed nations to treat “anonymity-enhancing services” as regulated VASPs. U.S. Enforcement: Treasury’s 2023 NPRM expands Section 311 to any foreign CoinJoin transaction touching U.S. financial rails; DOJ cases translate that into criminal liability for code-based service providers. EU Rulemaking: The 2024 AML package hard-codes a ban on anonymity-by-design features for EU-licensed exchanges and custodians, effectively sidelining CoinJoin from mainstream EU markets post-2027. Extended Analysis Legal Consequences – FinCEN’s definition of “CVC mixing” is technology-neutral; even non-custodial CoinJoin coordinators may be classed as money transmitters if they take fees. The DOJ case hints that “facilitating” obfuscation plus fee extraction equals MSB status. EU AMLR is even broader: any CASP that allows advanced obfuscation faces license loss. Expect further seizures, indictments, and de-platforming. Market Impact – Exchanges serving U.S./EU flows will deploy CoinJoin heuristics to auto-flag deposits, raising transaction-freeze risk for retail users. Surveillance firms (Chainalysis, Elliptic) gain business tailwinds. Privacy-first wallets may pivot offshore, open-source only, or sunset products. Technical Arms Race – Developers contemplate client-side coordination, zero-fee rounds, or decoy-free “stonewall” batching to dodge the “mixing service” label—but each tweak reduces liquidity or usability, diluting CoinJoin’s privacy payoff. Investment Implications StakeholderRiskOpportunityRetail Bitcoin holdersIncoming wallet blacklists; blocked withdrawals; SAR filings.Pre-screen UTXOs; switch to regulated custodians.Exchanges/CustodiansLicensing breach, Section 311 reporting cost spike.Offer reg-native privacy (e.g., Merkle proofs) as premium service.Listed Blockchain-analytics firms—Revenue boost from expanded compliance demand.Short-sellersWallet projects reliant on CoinJoin face funding/runway crunch; potential targets.Monitor new actions for catalyst trades. Recommendation / Warning FinTelegram Takeaway: Treat CoinJoin-touched coins as hot potatoes. Unless you’re willing to document source-of-funds and survive enhanced due-diligence, avoid mixing or holding mixed UTXOs in U.S. or EU jurisdictions. Issuers and service providers should implement on-chain tracing and geofence high-risk CoinJoin flows immediately—or risk being the next headline. Share Information via Whistle42

Paddle.com Market Limited, a UK-based fintech specializing in payment processing for software companies, has agreed to a $5 million settlement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The settlement resolves allegations that Paddle facilitated deceptive tech-support schemes targeting US consumers, particularly older adults, by enabling fraudulent operators to access the US credit card system. In addition to the monetary penalty, Paddle faces a permanent ban on processing payments for tech-support telemarketers and must implement stricter compliance and transparency measures. Background and Context Paddle provides a suite of services, including checkout, payment processing, subscription management, invoicing, and compliance for over 6,000 digital product companies globally. Backed by major venture capital firms, Paddle was valued at $1.4 billion in 2022. The FTC’s investigation focused on Paddle’s role as a payment processor for companies engaged in deceptive telemarketing practices, specifically tech-support scams. These scams often used fake virus alerts and pop-up messages impersonating reputable brands like Microsoft or McAfee to mislead consumers into purchasing unnecessary or fraudulent services. Allegations and Regulatory Findings The FTC alleged that Paddle: Opened merchant accounts while claiming to be a “merchant of record” or software “reseller,” then used these accounts to process payments for numerous unrelated third-party merchants. Enabled foreign-based tech-support schemes to access the US payment system and evade detection by merchant banks and card networks. Facilitated recurring subscription charges without clear disclosure or consumer consent, making it difficult for consumers to cancel these charges. Processed payments for schemes like Restoro-Reimage, which used scare tactics and impersonation to defraud consumers. The FTC emphasized that Paddle‘s actions allowed deceptive operators to harm US consumers and that payment processors must be vigilant in monitoring their clients’ activities. Settlement Terms The settlement includes: A $5 million payment by Paddle to the FTC, which will contribute to compensating victims of the fraudulent schemes. A permanent ban on Paddle processing payments for tech-support telemarketers or merchants involved in deceptive practices Requirements for enhanced client screening, transaction monitoring, and reporting to payment-service providers Obligations to improve transparency in subscription terms, obtain explicit consumer consent for recurring charges, and provide an easy cancellation process. Industry Implications This case marks a significant regulatory stance: payment processors are now expected to proactively prevent their platforms from being used for fraudulent activities. The FTC’s action serves as a warning to the broader fintech and payments industry that facilitating or ignoring red flags in client conduct will result in substantial penalties and operational restrictions. Company Response Paddle has stated that it did not knowingly process payments for deceptive telemarketing practices and highlighted its commitment to serving legitimate digital product companies. The company acknowledged the presence of bad actors in the digital ecosystem and expressed its intent to strengthen compliance measures moving forward. Conclusion The $5 million FTC settlement with Paddle underscores the growing regulatory scrutiny on payment processors and their responsibility to prevent their platforms from being exploited by fraudulent operators. The case sets a precedent for enforcement and compliance standards in the fintech sector, particularly regarding consumer protection and anti-fraud measures. Share Informatin with FinTelegram via Whistle42

Since Donald Trump took office as president, the crypto segment has finally arrived in the financial world. The stablecoin market has emerged as a critical bridge between traditional finance and cryptocurrency ecosystems, driven by explosive growth, corporate adoption, and regulatory tailwinds. Here’s a comprehensive analysis of this transformative sector: Market Overview: Scale and Velocity The stablecoin market capitalization reached $228–260 billion in 2025, marking a 17% year-to-date increase. Key metrics underscore its dominance: Monthly transfer volume: $4.1 trillion (February 2025), with record highs of $719 billion in December 2024. Active wallets: 30 million (up 53% YoY), signaling broader retail and institutional adoption. B2B dominance: $94.2 billion settled between 2023–2025, with Tether (USDT) and USD Coin (USDC) facilitating 80% of transactions. Stablecoins now account for 70% of all crypto trading volume, cementing their role as the primary on-ramp for fiat-to-crypto conversions. Key Issuers and Market Dynamics The sector remains highly concentrated, with two players dominating: Tether (USDT): Market cap: $155 billion (62% dominance). Backed by $100 billion in U.S. Treasuries, widely used for cross-border settlements. Circle (USDC): Market cap: $61 billion, growing 39% in 2025. Known for transparency, with reserves in cash and short-term Treasuries. Smaller issuers like Paxos (PYUSD) and DAI focus on niche compliance and DeFi applications. Read our reports on StablR here. Corporate Adoption: Amazon and Walmart’s Stablecoin Ambitions Retail giants Amazon and Walmart are exploring proprietary stablecoins to: Avoid interchange fees: Save billions annually paid to Visa/Mastercard (5% per transaction). Accelerate settlements: Leverage blockchain for instant payments vs. traditional 2–3-day delays. Global expansion: Streamline cross-border e-commerce with dollar-pegged tokens. While plans are in early stages, their entry depends on the GENIUS Act, a Senate bill establishing stablecoin regulations. Analysts warn commercial issuance faces political hurdles over data privacy concerns. Investor Confidence: Circle’s Landmark IPO Circle’s June 2025 IPO validated stablecoins’ investment appeal: 167% first-day surge: Shares jumped from $31 to $83.23, valuing the company at $16.7 billion. Revenue model: 99% derived from interest on USDC’s $60 billion reserves. Strategic tailwinds: Regulatory clarity and Shopify’s USDC integration boosted sentiment. The offering signals Wall Street’s bet on stablecoins as foundational financial infrastructure. Regulatory and Competitive Risks GENIUS Act: Mandates 1:1 reserves, anti-money laundering controls, and federal/state oversight. Passage could spur corporate adoption but may restrict commercial issuers like Amazon. Depegging risks: Collateral mismanagement (e.g., TerraUSD’s 2022 collapse) remains a concern. Banking disruption: Stablecoins threaten card networks’ $50 billion in annual interchange fees. Future Outlook Stablecoins are poised to reshape global payments: Institutional demand: 81% of SMBs and Fortune 500 firms plan stablecoin integration. Technological edge: Near-instant settlements at <1% transaction costs vs. 3% for cards. Policy momentum: Bipartisan U.S. support and Trump-era deregulation fuel growth. As traditional finance and crypto converge, stablecoins will likely underpin the next era of digital commerce, with a projected $5 trillion annual transaction volume by 2027. Share Information via Whistle42

Is the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) a beacon of global humanitarian aid or a cesspool of corruption masquerading as philanthropy? On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped a bombshell that lends credence to the latter view, confirming allegations long championed by Elon Musk, the former head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Four men, including former USAID contracting officer Roderick Watson, pleaded guilty to a decade-long bribery scheme involving over $550 million in taxpayer-funded contracts. The Tip of the Iceberg? The guilty pleas not only expose systemic rot within USAID but also validate Musk’s relentless crusade to dismantle what he calls a “criminal organization” controlled by left-wing Democrats. But is this scandal, as Musk tweeted on X, “just the tip of the iceberg”? And what does it say about an agency that has long operated under the radar, funneling billions to politically connected insiders? The Charges: A Decade of Deception The DOJ’s press release lays bare a sordid conspiracy that began in 2013 and persisted until 2023, implicating Roderick Watson, 57, alongside corporate executives Walter Barnes, 46; Darryl Britt, 64; and Paul Young, 62. Watson, a USAID contracting officer, admitted to accepting bribes worth over $1 million in exchange for steering 14 prime contracts—valued at more than $550 million—to companies owned by Barnes (Vistant) and Britt (Apprio). Young, a subcontractor to both firms, facilitated the scheme by funneling bribes, which included cash, laptops, NBA suite tickets, a country club wedding, mortgage down payments, cell phones, and even jobs for Watson’s relatives. The scheme exploited the U.S. Small Business Administration’s 8(a) program, designed to aid socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. Apprio and Vistant, certified under this program, secured lucrative non-competitive contracts through Watson’s manipulation of USAID’s procurement process. He recommended their companies for sole-source awards, leaked sensitive bidding information, provided glowing performance evaluations, and approved contract enhancements like increased funding and security clearances. To conceal their crimes, the conspirators used shell companies, fake invoices, and fraudulent payroll entries listing Watson as an employee. Barnes also pleaded guilty to securities fraud for defrauding a Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) to secure a $14 million loan for Vistant, which he used to pay himself a $10 million dividend. Both Apprio and Vistant admitted criminal liability and entered three-year deferred prosecution agreements, agreeing to pay modest civil settlements—$500,000 and $100,000, respectively—due to their claimed inability to afford steeper penalties. Watson faces up to 15 years in prison, while Barnes, Britt, and Young each face up to five years. Musk’s DOGE Initiative: Shining a Light on USAID’s Dark Corners Elon Musk has never shied away from controversy. As the former head of DOGE—a Trump administration initiative to slash government waste—Musk made USAID a prime target, arguing it was riddled with fraud and served as a slush fund for Democratic cronies. The DOJ’s June 12 announcement appears to vindicate his claims, with some crediting DOGE’s scrutiny for bringing the bribery scheme to light. Musk’s allegations go beyond this single case. He has repeatedly labeled USAID a “criminal organization” controlled by left-wing Democrats, accusing it of funneling taxpayer dollars to politically connected individuals and groups. USAID’s history of questionable grants fuels suspicion. For instance, in November 2022, USAID awarded $100,000 to a Palestinian activist group linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a designated terrorist organization. Between 2009 and 2012, it provided $1.1 million to Just Vision, which later produced a documentary criticizing U.S. laws against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Commenting on the Watson indictment, Musk tweeted on X, “This is just the tip of the iceberg,” hinting at deeper, undiscovered corruption. His rhetoric resonates with conservatives who view USAID as a bloated bureaucracy that prioritizes political agendas over humanitarian goals. The Trump administration, with DOGE’s backing, sought to dismantle USAID entirely, citing waste on projects like a transgender opera in Colombia and global DEI initiatives. USAID’s Dubious Legacy: A Pattern of Waste and Cronyism? USAID, established in 1961 to administer U.S. foreign aid, has long faced criticism for inefficiency and misuse of funds. Its $50 billion annual budget supports programs in over 100 countries, but skeptics argue much of this money never reaches intended recipients. The 8(a) program, central to the Watson scandal, exemplifies how well-intentioned policies can be gamed. By allowing non-competitive contracts for minority-owned businesses, it creates opportunities for abuse, as seen when Watson funneled millions to Apprio and Vistant. Musk’s allegations of Democratic control find traction in USAID’s ties to politically connected figures. Democratic lawmakers, like Senator Brian Schatz, have defended the agency, dismissing claims of widespread waste as conspiracy theories. Yet, the guilty pleas of Watson and his accomplices undermine such defenses. Critics also point to USAID’s funding of groups aligned with progressive causes, raising questions about its impartiality. Was the agency’s largesse a reward for political loyalty, as Musk suggests? And why has the mainstream press, often quick to amplify Democratic talking points, largely ignored this scandal? The Bigger Picture: Is USAID Beyond Redemption? The Watson case raises unsettling questions about USAID’s integrity. If a single contracting officer could orchestrate a $550 million scheme over a decade, how many other Watsons are lurking within the agency? Musk’s “tip of the iceberg” comment suggests this is merely the beginning of a broader reckoning. The DOJ’s ongoing investigations into government procurement fraud, including a separate IT-related bribery case announced in January 2025, hint at systemic issues across federal agencies. Conclusion: A Call for Accountability Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative may have ended, but its legacy lives on in exposing USAID’s dark underbelly. The $550 million bribery scandal is a damning indictment of an agency that has operated with impunity for too long. As Musk warned, this may be just the beginning. The American public deserves answers: How deep does USAID’s corruption run? Who else has profited from its largesse? And can an agency so steeped in scandal ever be trusted again? Until these questions are answered, USAID will remain a lightning rod for suspicion, and Musk’s provocative allegations will continue to echo louder than the agency’s hollow defenses. Report Corruption and Financial Wrongdoing via Whistle42

1. Context – MiCA’s promise meets Malta’s “crypto-friendly” reality The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) was sold to legislators as the end of Europe’s regulatory patch-work. In theory, every crypto-asset service provider (CASP) will live under the same anti-money-laundering (AML), governance and disclosure standards from 30 December 2024. In practice, the first six months of “early bird” licensing suggest that member states are already competing to become the Cayman Islands of MiCA. Malta is the out-of-the-gate frontrunner. Within weeks of MiCA’s entry into force, it rubber-stamped licences for OKX and Crypto.com and is now preparing one for Gemini, prompting ESMA and peer regulators to worry aloud about a “race to the bottom.” How has the island been able to move so fast? The answer lies in a two-step transposition strategy: Legal Notice 296 of 2024 rewrote Malta’s 2018 Virtual Financial Assets (VFA) rules to make them “MiCA-equivalent” a full year before they become mandatory (Source: legislation.mt). MFSA’s fintech team publicly boasts that this alignment was “completed earlier in 2024,” allowing a simplified application procedure for existing VFA licence holders (Source: mfsa.mt) Fast-tracking may look efficient, but it also hands Malta a first-mover marketing slogan: “Get your passport here—today!” That slogan should make every serious compliance officer nervous. Remember, this is the same jurisdiction that spent a year (June 2021 – June 2022) on the FATF grey list for strategic AML deficiencies— hardly ancient history. 2. Case study – StablR, Payvision fingerprints and the MFSA’s blind eye Nothing illustrates Malta’s tolerance better than StablR Ltd, the euro-stablecoin issuer proudly waving an MFSA e-money licence since July 2024. FinTelegram has already documented why the project raises every conceivable red flag: Leadership baggage. Founder/CEO Gijs op de Weegh and several senior executives cut their teeth at Payvision, the Amsterdam high-risk PSP ING was forced to shut in 2021 after a string of money-laundering scandals. Dutch prosecutors have since fined former Payvision directors for AML breaches. Direct links to organised cyber-crime. As Payvision COO, op de Weegh personally boarded the boiler-room networks of Uwe Lenhoff, Gal Barak and Gery Shalon—names synonymous with European cyber-fraud. Omission of material facts. None of this chequered past appears in the StablR white paper or marketing deck—although MiCA’s disclosure rules (Articles 5–15) require full information on senior management integrity. The question: How did MFSA’s “enhanced MiCA due-diligence” not spot—or not mind—what a few Google queries reveal in minutes? Read our reports on Payvision here. 3. Systemic implications – MiCA’s weakest link problem MiCA is built on mutual recognition: a CASP licensed in one member state can passport its services to all 27. That architecture only works if the toughest supervisor sets the bar. Today, it is the softest that dictates the standard. The Payvision precedent tells us what happens when gate-keeping collapses: Illicit flow risk – Stablecoins are borderless cash. History shows that Payvision-trained managers treat AML controls as optional. Market integrity risk – By offering a quick-and-easy licence, Malta undermines slower but stricter peers (e.g., France, Germany), incentivising regulatory arbitrage. Reputational risk for the EU – The bloc fought hard to sell MiCA as a gold standard after the FTX debacle. A Malta-based scandal will hand ammunition to every crypto-skeptic policymaker. 4. What Malta says – and what it doesn’t MFSA insists that “expedited processing” is possible because it has “in-depth understanding acquired over these years.” But those very years include: The Pilatus Bank fiasco, where senior officials ignored blatant laundering signals. The FATF grey-listing, triggered by lax enforcement of beneficial-ownership rules. If institutional memory is Malta’s secret sauce, investors deserve to taste the recipe. So far, transparency is scarce; MFSA’s licence decisions come with no published reasoning, unlike ESMA’s fit-and-proper assessments in securities markets. Read our reports on Pilatus Bank here. 5. Recommendations – closing the Maltese loophole Immediate ESMA peer review. Article 122 MiCA gives ESMA authority to investigate national competent authorities. Malta should be top of the list. Public fit-and-proper dossiers. Require host regulators to publish (redacted) integrity assessments for passported firms, allowing civil-society watchdogs to validate findings. Transition cap. Until the peer review is complete, limit the number or size of MiCA licences a single MS can issue. StablR re-assessment. Given Payvision’s proven AML failures, MFSA should reopen its gatekeeper report—or ESMA should do it for them. Read our reports on StablR here. 6. Final thought MiCA was never meant to be a marketing incentive; it was meant to be a safety net. By racing ahead with a minimalist interpretation, Malta risks turning that net into a sieve. The StablR case shows exactly how bad actors exploit regulatory enthusiasm for “innovation.” The choice for EU supervisors is stark: enforce one standard everywhere, or watch the single market become a haven for the next Payvision—in stablecoin clothing. FinTelegram will keep digging. Whistle-blowers with additional information about StablR, MFSA’s licensing process, or any other MiCA-passporting shortcuts are invited to contact us via Whistle42. Share Information via Whistle42

Coinbase’s Global Head of Research, David Duong, warns that the surge in corporate bitcoin acquisitions—now totaling around $130 billion—could trigger a systemic crypto market downturn if sentiment turns. With companies funding buys via debt issuance, forced sell-offs could cascade, threatening market stability. 5 Key Points Corporate treasuries hold ~$130 billion in BTC, including $80 billion by publicly traded firms. Borrowing to buy BTC—via bonds or share sales—adds debt-servicing pressure that could force liquidations . Coinbase’s David Duong labels this a “medium-to-long term systemic risk”, albeit manageable short-term. A coordinated wave of selling might destabilize crypto markets before debt maturity pressures emerge. Analysts, including Standard Chartered, note half of corporate bitcoin holders go underwater if BTC falls below $90k. Short Narrative Coinbase’s research team sounds the alarm on what it calls a nearly $130 billion corporate bitcoin bubble—led by publicly traded companies like Michael Saylor‘s MicroStrategy and GameStop. Many have issued debt or equities to fund bitcoin buys. While bullish in the short run, this phenomenon adds a fragile layer of financial risk: if BTC dips and firms face debt obligations, they might sell holdings en masse, triggering a broader crypto sell-off. Coinbase’s David Duong terms this structurally important and potentially destabilizing . Extended Analysis Corporate bitcoin accumulation is fueling both demand-side strength and structural vulnerability. The near-term uptrend is clear—private reserves and Bitcoin ETFs see inflows—but the debt-financed buildup is sowing volatility risk. Regulatory scrutiny may intensify: if a sell-off occurs, contagion concerns could motivate capital rules or margin regulations for fiat‑funded crypto exposure. Even absent regulation, risk profiles shift—auditors and financial platforms may pressure firms with large BTC holdings via debt. All this could unsettle bitcoin derivatives, stability of crypto-credit markets, and adoption momentum. Investment Implications Risks: A sudden correction could spur a cascade of liquidations, amplifying volatility and pressuring leverage providers. Corporate treasuries could pivot out of BTC, drastically reducing demand. Opportunities: Volatility traders and crypto hedge funds may profit from spreads and derivatives. Meanwhile, long-term believers could view Bitcoin pullbacks from $100k as a discounted entry window. Recommendation or Warning Warning: investors should flag this as a red‑flag macro risk: the entanglement of corporate balance sheets in debt‑leveraged bitcoin introduces a systemic fragility. Analysts should stress‑test scenarios at BTC < $90k. Retail investors beware the next downturn—this isn’t just volatility, it’s a structural unravelling in the making. Share Information via Whistle42

A July 2023 Supreme Court ruling (Philipp v Barclays) narrowed the classic Quincecare duty, but a May 2025 High Court judgment against FCA-regulated Moorwand Ltd shows that APP fraud can still trigger Quincecare-style liability where a payment institution’s own onboarding and monitoring failures put it “on inquiry.” Expect tougher civil suits, regulatory heat, and capital-flight risk for fintechs that keep “flexible” KYC in high-risk verticals. 5 Key Points What the duty is: Quincecare requires a bank/PSP to halt payments instructed by an agent of the customer when red-flag facts suggest fraud. mayerbrown.com Supreme Court clarification: When a customer directly authorises a payment (typical APP fraud), the victim’s own bank is no longer liable—but the Court reaffirmed that the duty survives where agency red flags exist. Onboarding matters: The High Court in Hamblin v Moorwand [2025] EWHC 817 held Moorwand liable because its lax KYC let a scam company open an e-wallet; the fraudster’s director acted as the account’s “agent,” re-activating Quincecare. Regulatory overlay: FCA expectations on AML/CTF mean PSPs must treat suspicious onboarding and transaction patterns as triggers to freeze funds—failure now invites both civil claims and Section 166 reviews. Market signal: Investors are repricing U.K. e-money licences; compliance lapses can wipe out cash buffers via litigation reserves and remediation costs. Short Narrative In 2023, the UK Supreme Court re-examined Quincecare in Philipp v Barclays. It ruled that a bank must execute a clear instruction from its customer—even if that customer is being duped—so the duty did not stretch to ordinary authorised push payments. The Court did, however, underline that if an agent sends the instruction and obvious fraud indicators exist, the bank must step on the brakes. Fast-forward to 2025: victims of a crypto-themed APP scam sued Moorwand, the receiving PSP. Because Moorwand had waved through a shell company after minimal checks, the High Court found it “on inquiry” and ordered it to restore £160 k to the account, giving victims a recovery path. Read our Moorwand reports here. Extended Analysis – Legal & Market Fallout Scope creep for PSPs: The precedent pushes Quincecare beyond traditional clearing banks to e-money and wallet providers. Any firm offering settlement accounts now faces a dual test—regulatory AML plus civil-law Quincecare when agents act suspiciously. Derivative-action playbook: The Hamblin claim succeeded via a derivative action on behalf of the defrauded corporate account, sidestepping Philipp limits. Expect copy-cat claims whenever a scam vehicle is insolvent. Onboarding risk lens: Courts are effectively saying “bad KYC = you were on notice.” Historical ties to binary options and grey-market gambling (Moorwand, Clearhaus, etc.) will be mined by litigants to prove constructive knowledge. Insurance squeeze: Professional-indemnity carriers are already hiking premiums for EMI/PSP clients exposed to high-velocity APP corridors. Regulatory arbitrage is shrinking: With the FCA, Danish FSA, and BaFin increasingly sharing intel, firms that once bounced between jurisdictions (e.g., Moorwand’s network) now face coordinated enforcement. Read our Clearhaus reports here. Investment Implications ExposureDownside RiskOpportunityListed fintechs with EMI licencesHigher litigation reserves, share-price volatilityEarly adopters of AI-driven KYC could command premium valuationsPrivate PSPs in gaming/crypto nichesLicence revocation, capital-raising difficultiesM&A buyers can demand steep discountsInsurtech underwriting PSP riskClaims inflationNew products for Quincecare-gap coverage Recommendation / Warning If you run or back a U.K. PSP, treat onboarding like a live bomb. Deploy robust KYB, monitor directors’ histories, and document red-flag escalations. One sloppy file can trigger Quincecare liability even after Philipp. For investors, haircut valuations of EMI-heavy portfolios by at least 10–15 % until post-Hamblin controls are independently validated. Share Information with FinTelegram

NameJeff Yan (a/k/a chameleon_jeff)Social MediaX, Key RolesCo-Founder & CEO, Hyperliquid; ex-Founder, Chameleon Trading; ex-HFT Engineer, Hudson River Trading (Source: IQ.wiki)Known AffiliationsHyperliquid Labs (Singapore); Hyper Foundation; Chameleon Trading (NY); Harvard alumni networkLegal Exposure Active regulatory dialogue with CFTC over perpetuals; Chinese police action citing Hyperliquid in laundering schemes; Unlicensed for U.S. retailJurisdictionPrimary operations in Singapore; dev nodes scattered globally; U.S. nationality unconfirmedRisk LevelMedium-High — rapid growth + leverage + thin compliance buffer 1 Why Jeff Yan Is Suddenly on the Radar Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange (DEX), vaulted from “nobody” to $2.48 trn monthly perp volume in May 2025—10.5 % of the global pie, beating many CEXs. Hyperliquid‘s market share relative to Binance reached a historic high of 10.54% in May, signaling a notable shift in the perpetual contract trading landscape. Decentralized platforms like Hyperliquid are increasingly challenging established centralized exchanges, as evidenced by this growing market share. That explosive climb, achieved without VC money and (initially) without a native token, earns applause—and regulatory side-eye. Yan, the platform’s secret-sauce quant, is now a magnet for watchdogs, investors, and money-laundering rings alike. 2 Career Path & Affiliations Olympiad Gold & Harvard Prodigy — Physics medalist, dual Math/CS degree, 2017. Hudson River Trading — Cut teeth building HFT systems. Google (short stint) — Brief engineering spell before plunging into crypto. Chameleon Trading — Prop desk turned market maker during the 2020 bull run. Hyperliquid (2022-today) — Bootstrapped DEX, architected its own L1 to outrun dYdX latency. 3 Yan’s Hand in Hyperliquid Design Choices: bespoke L1 chain, closed-source nodes (for now), single–binary validator model. Token Twist: vowed “no token,” then launched HYPE via November 2024 airdrop—75 % to users. Growth Metrics: daily perp volume broke the $1 bn mark within 100 days; market share above 60 % on multiple June sessions. Revenue Recycling: 100 % fees funnelled to buybacks—fuel for HYPE’s 70 % rally above $40. 4 Legal & Financial Risk Exposure ConfirmedSuspected / Under Scrutiny• May 2025: Hyperliquid Labs filed comment letters to the CFTC backing 24/7 perp trading and lobbying for principle-based DeFi rules. (Source: cointelegraph.comcomments.cftc.gov)• Chinese police identified three laundering rings exploiting Hyperliquid’s 125× leverage to “wash” illicit funds. (Source: ccn.com)• Platform flagged for “suspicious $5.2 m whale trades” by SpotOnChain; investigations ongoing. (Source:yellow.com)• Validator centralisation & closed-source code trigger decentralisation-washing allegations—potential securities angle if control remains tight. (Source: yellow.com)• Not licensed for U.S. retail derivatives; VPN users report fund freezes. (Source: reddit.com)• No clarity on AML/KYC procedures; risk of future FinCEN or MAS action. (Gap) 5 Network & Power Links Name / EntityRoleConnection to YanIliensincCo-Founder, HyperliquidHarvard peer & technical lead. (Source: research.tokenmetrics.com)Hyper FoundationEcosystem treasuryImplements HYPE buybacks, validator policy. CFTCU.S. derivatives regulatorReceives Yan’s policy advocacy letters. Chinese Public Security BureauLaw-enforcementInvestigating laundering via Hyperliquid. (Source: ccn.com)Hudson River TradingEx-employerHFT pedigree—basis for exchange engine.Chameleon TradingMarket-making outfitYan’s prior firm; liquidity source for Hyperliquid launch. (Source: youtube.com) 6 FinTelegram Verdict Jeff Yan is a brilliant outlier who turned a shoestring codebase into a trillion-dollar liquidity machine. But the very traits that built Hyperliquid—speed, opacity, jurisdictional arbitrage—are the same traits regulators and bad actors adore. Watch closely: the next move by the CFTC or Asian law-enforcement could flip Hyperliquid’s “no-VC fairy-tale” into a cautionary case study. Share Information via Whistle42

Our network partner FinCrime Observer recently outlined how the June 9, 2025, DOJ “Guidelines for Investigations and Enforcement of the FCPA” slash half of all pending bribery probes and restrict new ones to four scenarios that “vindicate U.S. interests.” However, the truly interesting aspect of international bribery activities is the widespread use of cryptocurrencies. 2. Why Crypto Is Becoming the Go-To Bribe Vehicle Frictionless, border-agnostic transfers. Unlike cash or wires, stablecoins and privacy coins move invisibly across jurisdictions and can be routed through mixers within minutes. Layer-2 obfuscation. Cross-chain bridges and decentralized exchanges strip provenance faster than traditional layering techniques. Off-balance-sheet accounting. Wallet addresses rarely appear in ERP systems; auditors must triangulate on-chain data to catch illicit flows. 3. Evidence Trail – Recent Crypto-Bribery Cases DateCaseModus OperandiReferenceMar 2023Sam Bankman-Fried $40 mn Tether/Bitcoin sent from Alameda account to Chinese officials to unfreeze > $1 bn in cryptoreuters.comOct 2024Marat Tambiev (Russia)2,718 BTC accepted to quash cyber-crime probe—largest BTC bribe on recordcointelegraph.comJan 2025Evita Pay (U.S./RU)$500 mn laundered via wallets; DOJ links funds to sanctioned state entitiesft.comft.comApr 2025“Ending Regulation by Prosecution” memoDOJ vows to chase bad actors using digital assets, not compliant platformsnatlawreview.com Chainalysis corroborates the macro-trend: illicit crypto volumes hit $40.9 bn in 2024, with stablecoins now 63 % of all dirty flows. 4. Impact of the New Guidelines on Crypto-Driven Bribery Narrower Jurisdictional Hook – If a crypto-bribe doesn’t harm a specific U.S. firm or national-security interest, prosecutors may decline the case. Higher Bar for Corporate Charges – The Guidelines steer DOJ toward individual prosecutions, dovetailing with April’s digital-asset memo that de-emphasises platform liability. Compliance Paradox – Companies might interpret the policy shift as de-risking small-value facilitation payments made in tokens—just as regulators abroad (UK SFO, French AFA) prepare to fill the gap. Regulatory Arbitrage Risk – Crypto-native bribe payers could route payments through mixers in “non-strategic” sectors, betting DOJ will sit out while local authorities lack tracing expertise. Read our Evita Pay report here. 5. FinTelegram Hypothesis U.S. multinationals operating in high-growth digital markets will face a two-tier world:At home, the leaner FCPA may reduce headline exposure unless the crypto-bribe demonstrably blocks an American competitor or implicates national security. Abroad, enforcement “white space” invites tougher action by EU and UK counterparts—and higher debarment risk with multilateral lenders. Bottom line: Token-denominated inducements that once triggered an automatic FCPA review may now skate past DOJ—only to boomerang as SEC civil penalties, foreign criminal actions, or World Bank blacklists. 6. What CISOs & Compliance Leads Should Do Next On-Chain Risk Mapping – Tag every hot wallet touching high-risk counterparties; integrate blockchain analytics into third-party due diligence. Stablecoin Controls – Treat outbound stablecoin transfers > $2,000 like cash: require dual sign-off and KYC on recipient. Whistle-blower Safe Channels – Expanded DOJ reward program will amplify insider tips—build internal crypto-incident hotlines before regulators get the call. Share Information via Whistle42

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced a new approach for the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). However, the indictments against the former Austrian banker Peter Weinzierl and other foreign bankers in the Odebrecht case are not based on violations of the FCPA. Instead, the DOJ charged Weinzierl and his co-defendant, Alexander Waldstein, with multiple counts of money laundering and related financial crimes under U.S. money laundering statutes (18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957). Why Not the FCPA? The DOJ did not pursue FCPA charges against Weinzierl and Waldstein because, as foreign bank executives who are neither U.S. citizens nor employees or agents of U.S. companies, they fall outside the FCPA’s jurisdiction. The FCPA primarily covers: U.S. citizens and residents, Officers, directors, employees, or agents of U.S. companies, Individuals who commit acts in furtherance of corrupt payments while in the U.S. Since Weinzierl and Waldstein are Austrian citizens and their alleged misconduct occurred outside the U.S., they do not fit these categories. Therefore, the DOJ used money laundering statutes to prosecute them for their roles in facilitating the movement and concealment of bribe payments through the U.S. financial system. The Charges Against Peter Weinzierl Peter Weinzierl, the former CEO of Meinl Bank (Austria) and a director at Meinl Bank Antigua, is accused of: Conspiring to launder over $170 million in bribe payments for Odebrecht, Facilitating sham transactions and fraudulent contracts to move illicit funds through U.S. bank accounts, Helping Odebrecht create off-book slush funds used to pay bribes to government officials in Brazil, Panama, and Mexico. Read our Odebrecht reports here. The indictment details how these funds were routed through New York bank accounts and offshore entities to disguise their origins and purposes. Weinzierl faces multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit money laundering, international promotional money laundering, and spending criminally derived funds. Odebrecht’s FCPA Plea It is important to note that Odebrecht S.A. and its subsidiary Braskem did plead guilty to violating the FCPA in 2016, admitting to paying hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes to foreign officials and agreeing to pay approximately $3.5 billion in penalties to U.S., Brazilian, and Swiss authorities. However, these FCPA charges were directed at the companies themselves, not at foreign individuals like Weinzierl. Summary Table: Charges Basis Defendant(s)Charges BasisFCPA Involved?Statutes UsedOdebrecht, BraskemFCPA violationsYesFCPAPeter Weinzierl, et alMoney laundering, fraudNo18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 Conclusion The indictments against Peter Weinzierl in the Odebrecht case are not based on the FCPA. Instead, they rely on U.S. money laundering statutes, as Weinzierl is outside the FCPA’s reach. The charges focus on his alleged role in facilitating the laundering of bribe payments through the U.S. financial system for Odebrecht’s benefit. Share Information via Whistle42

Bullish, the crypto exchange founded by Block.one and backed by Peter Thiel, has confidentially filed for a U.S. IPO with the SEC—likely aiming to ride the current wave of bullish sentiment in digital assets, especially amid expectations of looser crypto regulation under a Trump admin. 5 Key Points Confidential SEC Filing: Bullish has submitted IPO paperwork under confidentiality, signaling imminent intent to go public. Heavyweights in the Fold: Founded by EOS originator Block.one and backed by Thiel, the exchange merges deep pockets with infrastructure pedigree. Regulatory Wind at Its Back: Bullish is positioning itself ahead of potential easing of crypto rules under a future Trump administration—potentially unlocking expanded market access. Coindesk Acquisition Boosts Profile: With its 2023 acquisition of crypto-media Coindesk, Bullish enhances visibility, user reach, and brand trust. Strategic Timing: Launching its IPO bid now suggests Bullish is capitalizing on rising institutional and retail interest in crypto, and seeking to pre-empt competitors. Short Narrative (Core Facts) Bullish, a crypto exchange launched by Block.one—creators of EOS—has filed a confidential registration statement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for an initial public offering. The move is strategically timed during a surge in interest across digital assets, entwined with expectations of a pro-crypto policy pivot under a prospective Trump presidency. Adding to its appeal, Bullish acquired the crypto news outlet CoinDesk in 2023, integrating media reach with technical capabilities. With heavyweight backing from Peter Thiel, the firm appears primed to stake out a public-market presence. Extended Analysis (Market or Legal Consequences) Legally and geopolitically, Bullish’s SEC filing signals growing confidence in the regulatory trajectory of U.S. crypto markets. Should Trump return to office, deregulation may unlock greater market access—but that carries reputational, compliance, and oversight risks. Market-wise, a Bullish IPO could be a major inflection point: incumbents might see shifts in liquidity as capital reallocates to crypto-native platforms. Traditional exchanges will watch closely as this new entrant enters public scrutiny—and possibly disrupts valuations and trading volumes across the asset class. Investment Implications (Risks & Opportunities) Opportunities: Early-market Access: IPO investors could gain from first-mover valuation appreciation in a burgeoning crypto infrastructure segment. Regulatory Upside: A favorable ruling from the SEC or regulatory relief under a crypto-leaning administration may act as strong upside catalysts. Risks: Regulatory U‑turns: Should political winds shift or regulatory scrutiny stiffen, Bullish’s model may face serious setbacks. Execution Risk: Transitioning from private to public markets brings operational, cost, and transparency pressures. Market Sentiment Volatility: Crypto’s inherent price swings may impact both Bullish’s valuation and investor sentiment. Recommendation or Warning Clear Takeaway: While an IPO from Thiel‑backed Bullish could ignite a next wave of mainstream crypto exposure, investors should brace for volatility and regulatory uncertainty. Position carefully—favoring staged entry with hedging strategies until the regulatory landscape stabilizes. Share Information with FinTelegram

Jeffrey Epstein’s Hidden Fortune: The Thiel Connection Exposed A bombshell New York Times investigation has detonated in the heart of Silicon Valley, revealing that the late Jeffrey Epstein, notorious sex offender and financier, secretly invested $40 million in Valar Ventures—a venture capital firm co-founded by none other than Peter Thiel, the billionaire PayPal co-creator and tech kingmaker. That investment, made in 2015 and 2016, has since ballooned to a staggering $170 million, now the single largest asset in Epstein’s estate. This financial link between Epstein and Thiel’s firm was concealed from public view for nearly a decade. The New York Times, which obtained confidential estate documents and statements from Valar Ventures, reports that the Epstein estate is now reaping the rewards of this investment—while hundreds of Epstein’s victims are unlikely to see a cent from these returns. The Oligarchs’ Web: Thiel, Musk, and the Rise of JD Vance Peter Thiel is no ordinary investor. Alongside Elon Musk, he stands atop the U.S. tech oligarchy, wielding immense influence not just in Silicon Valley but also in Washington. Thiel’s money and connections have shaped the careers of politicians and tech titans alike. Most recently, Thiel played a pivotal role in installing JD Vance—his longtime protégé and former venture capital associate—as Donald Trump’s vice president. Thiel personally lobbied Trump to select Vance, and his financial and ideological backing has been instrumental in Vance’s meteoric rise from venture capitalist to the White House. Epstein’s Tech Ambitions and the Elite’s Silence Epstein’s investment in Valar Ventures was part of a broader campaign to rehabilitate his image and entrench himself among the tech elite after his 2008 conviction. He funneled money into technology and science ventures, positioning himself as a financial fixer for billionaires. Epstein’s web included not just Thiel, but also Google’s Larry Page and Sergey Brin, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, and LinkedIn’s Reid Hoffman—all of whom have faced scrutiny for their ties to Epstein. Despite Thiel’s public musings about Epstein as a “cultural symbol,” the revelation of their direct financial ties now raises explosive questions. Why did Thiel’s firm accept Epstein’s money? Why was this connection hidden for so long? And why are the victims of Epstein’s crimes being shut out from the windfall now benefiting his estate and inner circle? Musk, Trump, and the Epstein Files: The Scandal Reignites The Epstein affair has erupted anew in the public consciousness thanks to a dramatic twist involving Elon Musk. Just days ago, Musk posted—and then deleted—a sensational claim on X (formerly Twitter): “Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!” Musk’s posts, which accused the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) of withholding Epstein files to protect Trump, were swiftly erased, but not before they ignited a firestorm of speculation and political intrigue. The White House and Trump’s allies have dismissed Musk’s claims as baseless, but the controversy has only intensified demands for the full release of the Epstein files. Despite Trump’s campaign promises to disclose all Epstein-related documents, only a heavily redacted tranche has been published so far, leaving the public—and Epstein’s victims—clamoring for answers. Who Profits from Epstein’s Legacy? Six years after Epstein’s death, his estate has dwindled from $600 million to about $200 million, with the Valar Ventures stake representing the lion’s share. Yet, due to legal settlements, most of Epstein’s victims are barred from further claims, and the remaining fortune is set to benefit his former romantic partner and two longtime advisers. Valar Ventures, for its part, claims it “hopes the eventual distribution of these investments can be used for good—particularly to help Epstein’s victims rebuild their lives,” but the reality is that the victims are unlikely to see any of these funds. Conclusion: The Tech Elite’s Unanswered Questions The New York Times exposé has ripped the veil from the secret financial ties binding Epstein to the very heart of the American tech and political establishment. As the Epstein case gains fresh traction, the world is left to wonder: How deep does the rot go? Who else in the elite circles of Silicon Valley and Washington has secrets buried in Epstein’s ledgers? And will the promised transparency ever arrive—or will the oligarchs continue to protect their own? For now, one thing is clear: The Epstein scandal is far from over. With Thiel, Musk, and Trump locked in a high-stakes game of influence and accusation, the American public—and the victims—deserve the truth. Share Information with FinTelegram