A planned settlement between the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and crypto exchange KuCoin is now in limbo due to a reported policy shift within the CFTC. This change is attributed to the Trump administration’s new approach, which deprioritizes enforcement actions against crypto companies. As a result, a CFTC attorney told a New York federal judge that it is “unlikely that such authorization will be granted in the near term” regarding the settlement approval. Background and Case Status The CFTC charged KuCoin in March 2024 with multiple violations of the Commodity Exchange Act, including operating an illegal derivatives exchange and failing to implement necessary anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) procedures. KuCoin had previously agreed to a $297 million settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) in January 2025, which included exiting the U.S. market for at least two years. Although the CFTC and KuCoin reached an agreement in principle to settle the case in December 2024, the terms were not disclosed, and the settlement is now stalled due to the lack of a majority within the CFTC to approve it. Key Factors Affecting the Settlement The CFTC currently has an even split between Democratic and Republican commissioners, preventing a majority decision on settlements or dismissals. Acting CFTC Chair Caroline Pham announced in February 2025 that the agency would wind down its practice of “regulation by enforcement” in the crypto sector, making it harder to terminate active cases. Both the CFTC and KuCoin have requested additional time (60 days or until the Commission provides direction) to resolve the matter, but the court is pressing for more immediate updates. Implications and Outlook The delay in settlement approval reflects broader uncertainty in U.S. crypto regulation as the CFTC reconsiders its enforcement priorities under the Trump administration1. The outcome could change if the Senate confirms a new CFTC chair, potentially shifting the commission’s balance and policy direction. Meanwhile, KuCoin remains barred from operating in the U.S. and faces ongoing scrutiny over its past compliance failures and the handling of suspicious transactions. Summary Table: CFTC–KuCoin Case Timeline DateEventMarch 2024CFTC files civil enforcement action against KuCoin for CEA violationsDecember 2024CFTC and KuCoin reach agreement in principle to settleJanuary 2025KuCoin settles with DOJ for $297 million, agrees to exit U.S. market for 2+ yearsFebruary 2025CFTC signals shift away from enforcement-led crypto regulationApril 2025CFTC attorney tells judge settlement unlikely to be approved soon due to policy shift Conclusion The CFTC’s evolving stance on crypto enforcement has cast uncertainty over its prospective settlement with KuCoin, with agency attorneys indicating that approval is unlikely in the near term. This reflects both internal gridlock and a broader regulatory pivot, leaving the case unresolved for now1. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCFTCTagsKuCoin

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has entered a new chapter with the swearing-in of Paul S. Atkins as its 34th Chairman, a move widely anticipated to mark a dramatic pivot in how the agency approaches crypto and DeFi regulation. For years, the financial industry—especially the burgeoning digital asset sector—has bristled under the SEC’s “Regulation by Enforcement” strategy. Now, with Atkins at the helm, expectations are high for a more collaborative, innovation-friendly regulatory regime. Paul Atkins: A Crypto-Friendly Leader for a New SEC Paul Atkins, nominated by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the Senate on April 9, 2025, brings a wealth of experience from both traditional finance and the digital asset sector. His prior leadership at Patomak Global Partners, where he developed best practices for digital assets, and his tenure as a director at BATS Global Markets, signal a deep understanding of both market structure and technological innovation. Atkins has publicly pledged to move away from ambiguous, enforcement-driven tactics that have dominated the SEC’s approach under his predecessor, Gary Gensler. Instead, he promises a “rational, coherent, and principled” framework for digital assets, aiming to foster innovation and reduce regulatory uncertainty. This stance is a stark contrast to the Gensler era, which saw a surge in enforcement actions against major crypto players and a reliance on decades-old securities laws to police the sector. From Gensler’s Enforcement to Atkins’ Clarity: What Changes? ApproachGary Gensler (2021–2024)Paul Atkins (2025–)Core PhilosophyRegulation by EnforcementCollaborative, Guidance-DrivenCrypto RegulationOld TradFi rules (e.g., Howey Test) applyPush for clear, tailored frameworksEnforcement ActionsAggressive lawsuits, market intermediariesJudicious enforcement, focus on clarityIndustry FeedbackUncertainty, legal gray zonesWelcomed by crypto/DeFi as pro-innovationTask Force InitiativesExpanded Cyber & Crypto UnitNew Crypto Task Force for sensible policy Under Gensler, the SEC insisted that existing securities laws—such as the Howey Test—were sufficient for regulating crypto, often lumping tokens and NFTs with traditional stocks and bonds. This approach led to high-profile lawsuits, confusion, and a chilling effect on innovation. Critics argued that the Howey Test, designed for mid-20th-century investment schemes, was ill-suited for the complexities of decentralized finance and modern crypto assets. Atkins, by contrast, is expected to champion regulatory clarity and practical disclosure requirements. His leadership is likely to accelerate the SEC’s shift away from punitive enforcement and toward a framework that supports capital formation and investor protection without stifling innovation. Signals of Change: Crypto Task Force and Industry Optimism Even before Atkins’ swearing-in, the SEC had begun to pivot. Acting Chair Mark Uyeda launched a new Crypto Task Force in January 2025, focusing on crafting sensible regulations rather than ramping up enforcement. Commissioner Hester Peirce, known as “crypto mom,” was tapped to lead this initiative, further signaling the agency’s intent to embrace innovation while maintaining market integrity. Industry leaders and crypto advocates have welcomed Atkins’ appointment. Coinbase’s Chief Legal Officer and Paradigm’s VP of Government Affairs have both expressed optimism for a new era of regulatory clarity and constructive engagement. A New Era for Crypto and DeFi? With Paul Atkins at the helm, the SEC appears poised to end the era of “Regulation by Enforcement” and open the door to a more predictable and innovation-friendly environment for digital assets. The expectation is clear: Atkins will prioritize clear rules, practical registration processes, and a regulatory framework that recognizes the unique features of crypto and DeFi—potentially making the U.S. the best and most secure place in the world to invest and do business. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Compliance SEC tickerTagsGary GenslerPaul Atkins

Portrait of a Crypto Paradox As spring 2025 blooms and Easter’s themes of rebirth fill the air, Changpeng Zhao (CZ) emerges as one of the most controversial figures of startup mythology: a man who fell spectacularly, paid a price—then rose again, wealthier and louder than ever. Once the almighty architect of Binance, CZ now resides in Dubai, an opulent crypto haven, with a net worth that Forbes estimates at $63 billion. His wealth, influence, and platform are intact—even after pleading guilty to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws, even after a $4.3 billion fine that shook the industry, and even after a stint in prison. In our Startup on Trial series, we analyzed how Binance, under CZ’s leadership, thrived on regulatory arbitrage, lax compliance, and risk tolerance that bordered on recklessness. Yet here we are: while FTX’s Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) languishes in a U.S. prison, CZ basks in Dubai’s glittering skyline, tweeting about crypto recovery and new educational ventures.Is this justice? Or just the crypto version of “crime pays”? From Guilty Plea to Crypto Sage? Let’s remember: In November 2023, CZ admitted guilt. In April 2024, he was sentenced to four months (far less than prosecutors requested). By September 2024, he was free, fabulously wealthy, and still holding around 90% of Binance’s ownership stake. Although barred from holding an executive role at Binance until at least 2027, CZ’s influence lingers like an invisible hand over the exchange and its sprawling ecosystem, including the BNB Chain, which he continues to promote heavily on his X profile (formerly Twitter). He plays the humble ex-CEO on stage, but the strategy behind his social media presence suggests otherwise: CZ is carefully curating the narrative of a visionary wronged by the system, not a founder who endangered global financial systems through compliance failures. Read our Binance Case analysis here. Dubai: Safe Harbor or Strategic Outpost? Now based in Dubai—a city rapidly becoming the epicenter for crypto elites fleeing tighter Western regulations—CZ lives with his partner and children, far from the reach of U.S. enforcers. In October 2024, he returned to public life at Binance Blockchain Week in Dubai, to a hero’s welcome. He preaches about reflection, education, and decentralization, but his silence on Binance’s ongoing regulatory battles and unresolved investigations tells its own story. He claims to be “done” with the operational side, but remains the symbolic center of gravity for the Binance ecosystem.Is this genuine retirement—or simply the next phase of influence without accountability? Resurrection or Reputation Laundering? On X (where he commands nearly 9 million followers), CZ frames his downfall as a personal growth experience. He posts about recovering hacked funds and celebrating BNB Chain milestones. He teases a new educational platform intended to “democratize knowledge,” though no concrete details have emerged. He downplays his past, stating: “I didn’t do very much”—a casual dismissal of leading a platform once responsible for $100 billion in illicit transactions, according to U.S. authorities. To critics, CZ’s new persona is little more than reputation laundering: a billionaire rebranding himself as a crypto philosopher while sidestepping deeper questions about corporate responsibility and ethical leadership. To fans, he remains a misunderstood genius who—unlike others—never stole user funds. A Question for the Startup World In the spirit of our Startup on Trial series, CZ’s case forces us to ask: Is startup success enough to forgive regulatory sins? Are vision and wealth the ultimate shields against accountability? Can genuine transformation occur when the system rewards survival, not compliance? In the startup world—especially in crypto and DeFi—the myth of the fallen visionary rising anew is seductive. But what message does it send to the next generation of founders, investors, and regulators? Changpeng Zhao’s resurrection may be complete, but the moral trial is still ongoing. Startup on Trial will be watching. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesPeople Radar tickerTagsBinanceChangpeng ZhaoCZ

Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), the founder of the now-defunct cryptocurrency exchange FTX, has been transferred to the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Terminal Island in Los Angeles, California. This low-security facility is known for housing non-violent offenders and has previously held notable inmates such as Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, former COO of Theranos. Prior to this transfer, SBF was held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He was then moved to the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City, followed by a brief stay at a medium-security prison in Victorville, California, before arriving at Terminal Island. SBF is serving a 25-year sentence following his conviction on multiple counts of fraud and conspiracy related to the collapse of FTX. The exchange’s failure led to significant financial losses for investors and shook the cryptocurrency industry. As part of his sentence, he has also been ordered to pay $11 billion in restitution. This development is part of our ongoing “Startup on Trial” series, which examines the intersection of innovation and regulation in the tech startup world. For a comprehensive analysis of the FTX case and its implications, refer to our initial installment on Sam Bankman-Fried.​ If you have information about other tech startups operating in legal gray areas or engaging in questionable practices, we encourage you to share your insights through our whistleblower platform, Whistle42. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesPrison News United Kingdom

Port of the FinTelegram’s Startup on Trial Series Excerpt Celsius Network promised financial freedom through crypto, only to collapse into one of the most catastrophic failures in the DeFi sector. Founder Alex Mashinsky portrayed himself as the champion of the unbanked—yet behind the scenes, Celsius engaged in reckless trading strategies, misled customers, and operated more like a hedge fund than a lending platform. This case study shows how misplaced trust, regulatory gaps, and founder hubris fueled a $4.7 billion black hole. Key Points Celsius froze customer withdrawals in June 2022, citing “extreme market conditions.” Investigations revealed misleading claims about risk management and solvency. Alex Mashinsky was arrested and charged with multiple counts of fraud in 2023. Celsius operated largely unregulated, despite marketing itself as a safe alternative to banks. Bankruptcy revealed a $1.2 billion balance sheet hole and widespread mismanagement. Short Narrative Founded in 2017, Celsius Network promised users high-yield returns on crypto deposits—sometimes as high as 18% APY. Branding itself with slogans like “Unbank Yourself” and “Banks are not your friends,” Celsius attracted billions in customer deposits during the 2020-2021 crypto boom. But beneath the marketing gloss, Celsius was playing a dangerous game. It lent customer assets to risky DeFi protocols, participated in leveraged crypto trading, and made enormous unsecured loans to counterparties.Internal risk controls were virtually nonexistent. Celsius executives, including Mashinsky, repeatedly reassured users that deposits were safe—despite internal warnings and liquidity crises. In June 2022, Celsius froze all withdrawals. By July, it had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, citing a massive shortfall between its assets and liabilities—the end of the startup story, the beginning of the legal story. Legal & Regulatory Problems United States (SEC, DOJ, FTC, CFTC) DOJ Charges: Wire fraud, securities fraud, market manipulation, false statements to investors. On July 13, 2023, Mashinsky was arrested and indicted on seven counts, including securities fraud, commodities fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, and market manipulation. He pleaded guilty to two counts: commodities fraud and securities fraud. Mashinsky’s sentencing, originally scheduled for April 8, 2025, has not yet been officially rescheduled, but he has formally requested a one-month delay to May 8, 2025 SEC Civil Suit: Fraudulent misrepresentation of the risks and profitability of Celsius investments. CFTC Charges: Misleading users about financial stability and mishandling of customer funds. FTC Settlement: $4.7 billion fine against Celsius Network (suspended due to bankruptcy proceedings). Agency/CourtAction Against Mashinsky & CelsiusOutcome/StatusDOJ (Criminal)Fraud, conspiracy, market manipulationMashinsky pleaded guilty to 2 counts; sentencing May 2025; forfeiture of $48MSECSecurities law violations, fraud, manipulationPermanent injunction, penalties sought; Celsius cooperatedFTCDeceptive practices, consumer fraud$4.7B settlement; Celsius banned from handling assetsNY Attorney GeneralCivil securities fraudLawsuit seeking damages, restitution, business banGeorgia Dept. of BankingUnlicensed money transmissionCease and desist order issued Other Jurisdictions State Actions: Multiple U.S. states issued cease-and-desist orders (e.g., Texas, New Jersey) before collapse. Global Ramifications: Loss of trust in crypto lending platforms globally, stricter local regulations in Europe and Asia. Consequences Company: Celsius filed for bankruptcy with over $4.7 billion in liabilities. Restructuring efforts continue. Individuals: Mashinsky arrested, released on bail, and facing trial on multiple fraud charges. Customers: Many retail investors lost life savings, with recovery efforts still pending. Crypto Industry: The collapse contributed to a broader “crypto winter,” intensifying calls for stricter regulation. Multi-Jurisdictional Lens U.S. Federal and State Conflict: Federal authorities acted relatively late, while individual states issued earlier warnings. EU and UK: Post-collapse, both regions pushed for more aggressive regulation of crypto lending activities. Asia: Cautious regulatory stance towards DeFi and crypto lending emerged, especially in Singapore and Hong Kong. Lessons Learned & Recommendations High yields mean high risks: Retail investors must understand that outsized returns often mask systemic risks. Crypto lenders are financial institutions: They require the same regulatory scrutiny as banks and investment firms. Transparency is critical: Any startup managing third-party assets must disclose counterparty risks and trading strategies. Founders must be held accountable: Charismatic leadership cannot replace governance and compliance. Investors must demand proof, not promises: “Trust me, bro” is not a compliance framework. Call for Information Are there other crypto lenders or DeFi platforms misleading customers about their risk exposures or reserve holdings? Help us expose the next case before investors suffer the consequences. Submit information securely via Whistle42.com. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesStartup on Trial United StatesTagsAlex MashinskyCelsiusCelsius Network

Part of the Startup on Trial Series. Excerpt Binance, once celebrated as the world’s largest crypto exchange, fell from regulatory grace when founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in 2023. This case highlights how a tech behemoth grew rapidly by navigating around regulatory frameworks—and how global regulators, once slow to respond, eventually brought the empire to heel. A story of ambition, evasion, and the ultimate price of compliance neglect. Key Points Binance allowed illicit transactions worth over $100 billion, including trades for terrorist groups and sanctioned nations. Changpeng Zhao (CZ) personally pleaded guilty to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws and spent 4 months in US prision. Binance signed a plea agreement and agreed to a $4.3 billion settlement—one of the largest corporate penalties in U.S. history. A classic case of “jurisdiction shopping” and regulatory arbitrage. Sparks a regulatory crackdown on crypto exchanges worldwide. Short Narrative Founded in 2017, Binance rapidly became the largest crypto exchange by volume globally, eclipsing competitors with aggressive expansion, innovative products, and minimal compliance burdens.Its motto? “Better to ask for forgiveness than permission.” From offering leveraged crypto futures to retail investors, to servicing clients in sanctioned jurisdictions like Iran and North Korea, Binance exploited regulatory loopholes across dozens of jurisdictions while claiming to have no physical headquarters—thus evading clear national supervision. Behind the scenes, Binance lacked basic Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) protocols for years. Internal chats revealed that Binance executives, including CZ himself, acknowledged and joked about onboarding illicit actors. The final blow came when multiple U.S. agencies coordinated to take down Binance in 2023—forcing CZ to plead guilty and resign as CEO. He had to serve 4 months in prison. Zhao’s sentence was notably lighter than that of other high-profile crypto executives, such as Sam Bankman-Fried, who received 25 years for fraud related to FTX. Read our Startup on Trial report on FTX Legal & Regulatory Problems United States (DOJ, FinCEN, OFAC, CFTC, SEC) DOJ Charges: Failure to maintain an effective AML program, operating an unlicensed money services business. FinCEN and OFAC Violations: Enabling financial transactions for sanctioned countries and terror organizations. CFTC Action: Operating an illegal derivatives trading platform without CFTC registration. SEC Lawsuit (pending): Unregistered securities offerings and wash trading allegations. Global UK, Germany, Japan, and Singapore: Issued warnings or bans against Binance services. EU’s MiCA Regulation: Binance is a catalyst for stricter unified crypto rules in Europe. Consequences Company: Binance paid $4.3 billion in fines and agreed to monitor reforms overseen by U.S. authorities. Individuals: CZ personally paid $50 million and was sentenced to four months in prison in April 2024 after pleading guilty to failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program at the cryptocurrency exchange Reputation: Binance remains operational but under intense global scrutiny; institutional trust severely damaged. Crypto Industry: Exchanges worldwide rushed to strengthen compliance departments. Multi-Jurisdictional Lens U.S. Enforcement: Aggressively coordinated multi-agency action to impose fines and gain leverage over future crypto enforcement. Europe: New MiCA framework introduced mandatory licensing and consumer protections. Asia: Markets like Singapore distanced themselves from Binance, promoting regulated alternatives. Middle East: Dubai and Bahrain adopted a softer regulatory posture—highlighting a fragmented global crypto environment. Lessons Learned & Recommendations Compliance must scale with growth: Operating globally demands matching local regulatory requirements—not ignoring them. No “headquarterless” defense: Claiming no headquarters won’t shield companies from enforcement. AML is existential for crypto: Exchanges are financial institutions and must act accordingly. Founder behavior sets culture: CZ’s personal decisions (and public defiance) deeply shaped Binance’s regulatory fate. Regulatory arbitrage is dead: The era of hiding behind jurisdiction shopping is closing fast. Call for Information Do you know other crypto startups, fintechs, or exchanges exploiting regulatory gaps, offering shady products, or onboarding high-risk clients without proper controls? Submit your information confidentially via Whistle42.com – and be part of making the financial world more transparent. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesStartup on Trial ticker United StatesTagsBinanceChangpenz ZhaoCZ

Following FinTelegram’s recent investor alert warning of mounting legal and strategic risks for Alphabet Inc., the parent company of Google, a new U.S. court ruling has validated these concerns: U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema has found that Google unlawfully monopolized key markets in online advertising technology. In her ruling issued Thursday, Judge Brinkema concluded that Google illegally dominated both the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets—critical components of the online ad ecosystem. Although antitrust enforcers failed to prove monopoly power in advertiser networks, the implications of this ruling are severe: prosecutors may now push for a forced breakup of Google’s advertising empire, including a potential sale of its Google Ad Manager business. This development comes just as another major trial is set to begin next week in Washington, where the U.S. DOJ will seek to force Google to divest its Chrome browser to curb its dominance in online search. Context: FinTelegram’s latest investor alert warned that Google faces not only massive regulatory pressure but also strategic threats from emerging AI search alternatives. This new court ruling compounds the risks, increasing the probability of structural changes that could permanently impair Alphabet’s core business model. FinTelegram thus reaffirms its negative outlook on Google and the Alphabet stock. In our assessment, Google is caught in a dispersion trap fueled by AI advancements and shifting user behavior. While Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriestickerTagsAlphabetGoogle

Part of FinTelegram DeFi Series Excerpt: Liquidity Providers (LPs) are the silent engines that power DeFi markets, enabling decentralized exchanges, lending, and yield farming to function without intermediaries. But while LPs can earn trading fees and token rewards, they also expose themselves to risks like impermanent loss and smart contract exploits. In this third part of our FinTelegram DeFi Series, we explain who liquidity providers are, how liquidity pools work, and what dangers hide beneath the surface. Key Points: Liquidity Providers (LPs) deposit crypto assets into liquidity pools that enable decentralized trading and lending. In return, LPs earn fees (e.g., from swaps) and/or token incentives. Impermanent loss is a major hidden risk for LPs. DeFi’s flexibility means anyone can become an LP—but without protection or guarantees. Smart contract exploits can drain pools and LP funds without recourse. Short Narrative: Imagine walking into a marketplace where you provide the goods, set no prices yourself, and earn a fee every time someone trades. That’s the role of a Liquidity Provider (LP) in DeFi. At decentralized exchanges like Uniswap, Curve Finance, or Balancer, liquidity providers deposit token pairs (e.g., ETH and USDC) into automated liquidity pools. These pools allow users to trade instantly based on smart contract algorithms, not centralized order books. In return for supplying liquidity, LPs earn: A share of the trading fees (typically 0.3% per swap on Uniswap V2) Bonus rewards in governance tokens (e.g., UNI, CRV) The Catch: Impermanent Loss and Risks Impermanent loss happens when the price ratio of deposited tokens changes compared to when they were deposited. If a user provided ETH and USDC when ETH was worth $1,000, but ETH later rises to $2,000, they could end up with less ETH than if they had simply held it. Other major risks: Smart Contract Vulnerabilities – Bugs or exploits can drain entire pools. Oracle Manipulation – Wrong price feeds can create profitable attacks on pools. Protocol Bankruptcy – Poorly designed tokenomics (e.g., over-rewarding LPs) can cause collapses. Examples of Liquidity Pools: Uniswap V3: Concentrated liquidity lets LPs choose the price range they want to cover. Curve Finance: Specializes in stablecoin swaps with minimal impermanent loss. Balancer Pools: Allow for customizable token ratios beyond 50/50 splits. Key Concepts Introduced: Liquidity Pool Impermanent Loss LP Token (proof of deposit in a pool) Concentrated Liquidity Smart Contract Risk Actionable Insight for Readers: Before becoming a liquidity provider: Understand which tokens you’re pooling—and how volatile they are. Study the fee structure and expected volume of the platform. Check if the protocol is audited and actively maintained. Use impermanent loss calculators (example tool) to model outcomes. Providing liquidity isn’t passive income—it’s active risk-taking. Call for Information: Are you aware of hidden vulnerabilities, insider LP dumps, or liquidity mining programs that overpromise and underdeliver? Report anonymously at Whistle42.com! Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesDefi Series Investor EducationTagsUniswap

Alphabet, the parent company of Google, is under mounting legal and strategic pressure. With a $6.6 billion UK lawsuit alleging market abuse, regulatory headwinds tightening, and generational shifts in search behavior toward AI platforms like ChatGPT and Perplexity, FinTelegram is raising red flags. Can Google‘s own AI push save it from becoming the next “Facebook”—a once-dominant giant overtaken by tech evolution? FinTelegram views Alphabet as a less attractive stock for medium- to long-term investors. Key Points: UK Antitrust Lawsuit: Google faces a $6.6 billion class-action lawsuit for alleged abuse of dominance in the search market. AI Competition: Platforms like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Perplexity.ai are rapidly becoming search alternatives—especially for Gen Z. Erosion of Market Dominance: Users are bypassing Google Search, which could result in long-term declines in ad revenue. Alphabet’s AI Efforts: While Google is developing its own AI (Gemini), its effectiveness in retaining user loyalty remains questionable. Brand Aging: Google risks the “Facebook syndrome”—a generational brand stigma making it less relevant in an AI-first world. FinTelegram Outlook: Alphabet remains a tech heavyweight but faces long-term headwinds that may compromise its growth narrative. Narrative – From Dominance to Decline? For nearly two decades, Google has been the gatekeeper of the internet, monetizing global search traffic with unrivaled efficiency. But the ground is shifting—and fast. AI-native platforms like ChatGPT and Perplexity are redefining how people retrieve information. Instead of links, they offer instant, conversational answers. For a generation raised on immediacy and interactivity, that’s a game-changer. The implications are profound. Search is the heart of Google’s business model—and, by extension, Alphabet’s market valuation. If users move away from Google Search, the ripple effect on ad revenue could be massive. Even if Alphabet continues to dominate on Android and YouTube, its core engine is being challenged like never before. Alphabet is not sitting idle. Its Gemini AI aims to compete in this new paradigm. But the question remains: Can an incumbent truly reinvent the space it once monopolized? Or will it suffer the same fate as Facebook—still profitable, but culturally and strategically sidelined? Actionable Insight for Investors: The risk is no longer theoretical. Legal challenges are quantifiable. Behavioral shifts are observable. AI adoption is accelerating. As an investor, ask yourself:Is Alphabet still a long-term growth story—or a maturing tech stock entering its defensive phase? FinTelegram Rating: Alphabet Inc. (GOOGL) – Long-Term Attractiveness: ★★☆☆☆ (2/5)Strategically vulnerable. Legally embattled. AI-threatened. Call for Information: FinTelegram invites whistleblowers, tech insiders, and analysts to share insights on Alphabet’s internal response to the AI shift. Submit tips confidentially via Whistle42.com and help us bring truth to light. Share Information with FinTelegram Disclaimer: This report is not financial advice. It is intended for informational and investigative purposes. FinTelegram and its affiliated entities may hold positions in the mentioned securities. CategoriesInvestor BriefingTagsAlphabetChatGPTGooglePerplexity

Context and Background Google, a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., has long dominated the global search engine market, commanding around 90% of global market share and an even higher percentage on mobile devices. This dominance has made Google the default gateway to the internet for billions of users and a critical platform for advertisers. However, such market power has drawn increasing scrutiny from regulators worldwide, with multiple antitrust cases in the US, EU, and now the UK challenging the company’s business practices. The UK Lawsuit Recently, Google has been sued in the UK for $6.6 billion, accused of abusing its search engine dominance. The lawsuit alleges that Google’s practices have stifled competition and harmed both consumers and rival businesses by leveraging its dominant position to favor its own services and maintain its market lead. This legal action is part of a broader wave of global antitrust scrutiny targeting Google’s default search agreements, preferential treatment of its own products, and the structural barriers that limit the rise of alternative search engines. Situation Overview Market Share and Trends: Despite a slight dip, Google’s search market share remains formidable, hovering just below 90% globally as of early 2025, with competitors like Bing, Yandex, and Yahoo making only incremental gains. Even as AI-native search tools and regulatory pressures emerge, Google’s grip on search remains largely unchallenged in practical terms. Regulatory Climate: The UK lawsuit mirrors recent developments in the US, where a federal judge ruled in August 2024 that Google illegally maintained its monopoly in general search services and advertising, with remedies and potential divestitures under consideration for 2025. In the EU, Google has already faced over €8 billion in fines for similar antitrust violations. Business Implications: Google’s business model heavily relies on search-driven advertising revenue, which has so far remained resilient despite regulatory headwinds and minor market share erosion. However, sustained legal challenges and potential regulatory remedies—such as forced divestitures or restrictions on default agreements—pose material risks to Google’s future revenue streams and competitive positioning. Key Takeaways for Financial Analysts The $6.6 billion UK lawsuit adds to Google’s mounting legal liabilities and could set a precedent for further regulatory actions in other jurisdictions. Even small declines in market share are significant in the context of digital dominance, signaling potential long-term shifts if regulatory interventions succeed in lowering barriers for competitors. Investors should monitor the outcomes of ongoing remedies trials and regulatory proposals, as forced structural changes or limitations on default agreements could materially impact Google’s search and advertising business models. Despite current resilience, Alphabet’s valuation may face increased volatility as legal risks and competitive threats from AI-driven search alternatives evolve. Conclusion Google remains the dominant force in global search, but the $6.6 billion UK lawsuit reflects intensifying regulatory scrutiny and a shifting landscape. While the company’s core business remains robust, the cumulative effect of antitrust actions in the UK, US, and EU could reshape the competitive environment and create new financial risks for Alphabet and its stakeholders. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCourt Cases Investor Briefing Regulatory CasesTagsAlphabetGoogle

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has conducted a multi-year investigation into the revenue-sharing arrangement between Coinbase and Circle regarding the USD Coin (USDC) stablecoin. These inquiries began in 2023 under then-SEC Chair Gary Gensler, focusing on how stablecoin revenue was generated, the transparency of disclosures, and the formula used to determine Coinbase’s share of USDC revenue. The SEC requested clarifications on financial statements dating back to 2022, seeking greater transparency in how stablecoin revenue was recognized and split between the two companies. Coinbase, which manages USDC alongside Circle, has historically been guarded about the details of this relationship. However, recent filings and earnings statements have provided more robust explanations of the revenue model. Notably, Coinbase earns a significant portion of its revenue from assets backing USDC, such as cash and U.S. Treasuries, reporting $910 million in stablecoin revenue for 2024—a 33% increase from the previous year. Circle’s IPO filing revealed that Coinbase receives half of Circle’s residual revenue from USDC reserves after operational expenses. The SEC’s scrutiny coincided with a period when Coinbase sought to diversify its revenue streams beyond transaction fees, with stablecoin revenue temporarily surpassing transaction revenue in late 2023. The commercial relationship between Coinbase and Circle was further formalized in November 2024, allowing for third-party participation in USDC-related fees. Regulatory Shift Under the Trump Administration and SEC Chair Paul Atkins A significant regulatory shift is underway following the return of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency and the confirmation of Paul Atkins as the new SEC Chair in April 2025. Atkins, regarded as pro-crypto, has pledged to move away from the previous administration’s “regulation by enforcement” approach, which was characterized by aggressive legal actions against crypto exchanges, including Coinbase and Ripple. Instead, Atkins emphasizes the establishment of a clear, solid regulatory framework for digital assets, aiming to foster innovation and position the U.S. as a global leader in crypto markets. This change in regulatory philosophy is expected to resolve or dismiss many ongoing cases initiated under Gensler and to encourage a more collaborative relationship between the SEC and the crypto industry. The SEC has also signaled openness to regulatory sandboxes, allowing exchanges to experiment with new products, including tokenized securities, under defined guidelines. The Importance of Stablecoins and the Stablecoin Market Stablecoins are digital assets pegged to stable reserves such as fiat currencies (most commonly the U.S. dollar), designed to minimize price volatility and provide a reliable medium of exchange within the cryptocurrency ecosystem69. They have become indispensable for several reasons: Market Stability: Stablecoins offer a safe haven during periods of high volatility, enabling traders and investors to protect their assets and swiftly move between cryptocurrencies and stable assets. Liquidity and Efficiency: They enhance liquidity on exchanges and decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms, facilitating quick, low-cost transactions and conversions. Global Financial Access: Stablecoins simplify cross-border payments, remittances, and payroll, reducing costs and processing times compared to traditional banking systems. Reference Asset: They serve as a benchmark for pricing in the crypto market and underpin a wide range of DeFi applications, from lending to yield farming. Financial Inclusion: By providing a stable digital alternative, stablecoins offer access to financial services for unbanked populations worldwide. The stablecoin market is now a cornerstone of the digital asset economy, with USDC and Tether’s USDT representing the largest dollar-pegged stablecoins. Their combined market capitalization is in the tens of billions, and they account for the majority of on-chain transaction volume globally9. As regulatory clarity improves under the new SEC leadership, the stablecoin sector is expected to see further growth, innovation, and competition, with new entrants and products likely to emerge. Conclusion The SEC’s longstanding probe into Coinbase and Circle’s USDC revenue-sharing arrangement highlights the critical intersection of regulatory scrutiny and financial innovation in the stablecoin market. With the Trump administration and Paul Atkins at the helm, the SEC is poised to adopt a more constructive regulatory approach, potentially unlocking new growth opportunities for U.S.-based digital asset firms and reinforcing the pivotal role of stablecoins in the global financial system. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesCrypto Compliance SECTagsCircleCoinbaseGary GenslerPaul Atkins

Part of: Startup on Trial series Executive Summary FTX, once hailed as the gold standard of crypto exchanges, imploded in November 2022, revealing a multi-billion-dollar fraud orchestrated by founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF). What began as a scrappy crypto derivatives exchange turned into a house of cards built on customer fund misuse, opaque affiliate structures, and a startling absence of regulatory oversight. This case is not only a cautionary tale of startup hubris but also a regulatory failure across jurisdictions—especially the Bahamas and the U.S. The Case: The Rise and Fall of FTX Founded in 2019 by SBF and Gary Wang, FTX quickly positioned itself as the compliant face of crypto. It attracted top venture capital, celebrities, and regulators alike, with offices in the Bahamas and a U.S. arm, FTX US. But behind the scenes, FTX was routing billions in customer deposits to its affiliated hedge fund, Alameda Research, which used the funds for high-risk trading, political donations, venture investments, and even luxury real estate. FTX’s governance was nonexistent, and internal records were described as “worse than Enron.” SBF projected the image of an effective altruist-genius, while running one of the most reckless frauds in financial history. Read our FTX reports here. The Legal and Regulatory Conflict United States (DOJ, SEC, CFTC) Criminal charges (DOJ): Wire fraud, securities fraud, money laundering, campaign finance violations (link to DOJ announcement of SBF sentencing). Civil charges (SEC, CFTC): Misrepresentation to investors, customer asset misuse, unregistered securities. Key ruling: In 2023, SBF was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 25 years in federal prison. SBF‘s former partner, Caroline Ellison, cooperated with the prosecutors and received a 2-year prison sentence. The former FTX manager Ryan Salame received a 7.5-year prison sentence for his involvement in the FTX fraud, including campaign finance violations Bahamas Regulatory arbitrage: FTX exploited weak local oversight while claiming to be well-regulated offshore. Local seizure of assets: Conflicting legal battles over who controls FTX assets—U.S. vs. Bahamian liquidators. Global Regulatory shockwaves: The FTX collapse led to calls for global crypto frameworks (e.g., MiCA in Europe, the UK’s new FCA crypto regime). Impact on counterparties: BlockFi, Genesis, and others filed for bankruptcy due to FTX exposure. The Consequences Company: FTX filed for Chapter 11. Its liabilities exceeded $8 billion. Restructuring continues under John Ray III. Individuals: SBF convicted. Caroline Ellison (Alameda CEO), Gary Wang, and Nishad Singh took plea deals and testified. Investors: Sequoia, SoftBank, and others wrote down their FTX investments to zero. Regulators: U.S. authorities criticized for failing to act earlier despite red flags. Political donations added pressure. Multi-Jurisdictional Takeaways Regulatory gaps enabled cross-border fraud: Bahamas lacked effective oversight; the U.S. failed to enforce early. Compliance theatre: FTX claimed to be regulated but had no independent board or proper segregation of funds. Different jurisdictions, different priorities: U.S. focused on criminal liability; Bahamas on asset protection. Lessons Learned & Recommendations Substance over form: Regulatory claims must be independently verified—not accepted at face value. Segregation of funds is non-negotiable: Any startup handling customer assets must enforce strict internal controls. Governance must grow with valuation: No startup is “too young” for a board, compliance function, or audit trail. Don’t mistake lobbying for legitimacy: SBF’s political connections delayed scrutiny. Founders aren’t infallible: Personality cults cloud judgment—investors and regulators alike must stay critical. Call to Action Is there another startup operating with cult-like secrecy, no governance, or risky fund flows?Submit tips via Whistle42.com. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesStartup on Trial tickerTagsAlameda ResearchCaroline EllisonFTXGary WangRyan SalameSam Bankman-FriedSBFSequoiaShishad SinghSoftbank

Published by FinTelegram, April 14, 2025 Executive Summary The Mantra (OM) token, native to the MANTRA Chain—a Layer 1 blockchain focused on real-world asset (RWA) tokenization—suffered a catastrophic 90% price collapse on April 13, 2025, erasing over $5.5 billion in market capitalization within hours. Rumors have circulated within the crypto community, particularly on platforms like X, suggesting that a hack of the Founders Wallet may have triggered the crash. This report examines the latest findings, on-chain data, and official statements to assess the validity of these claims and provide clarity on the collapse’s root causes. Background MANTRA Chain, founded by John Patrick Mullin, Rodrigo Quan Miranda, and Will Corkin, is a Cosmos SDK-based blockchain designed for compliant RWA tokenization. The OM token powers its ecosystem, facilitating staking, governance, and trading of tokenized assets. Prior to the collapse, OM had seen significant growth, reaching a peak price of $6.33 and a market cap of approximately $6 billion, bolstered by high-profile partnerships, including a $1 billion tokenization deal with Dubai’s DAMAC Group and a $108 million ecosystem fund. On April 13, 2025, the token plummeted to below $0.50, sparking widespread speculation. Among the theories, a rumored hack of the Founders Wallet gained traction, fueled by allegations of insider dumping and market manipulation. This update analyzes the evidence to separate fact from speculation. The Collapse: What Happened? Price Movement: On April 13, OM dropped from $6.33 to under $0.50 within an hour, wiping out over 90% of its value. By April 14, the price stabilized around $0.83, reflecting a partial recovery but still an 87% loss from its pre-crash value. Market Impact: The crash triggered $68.86 million in liquidations, with long positions losing $49.68 million and shorts losing $19.18 million. The market cap fell from $6 billion to approximately $485 million at its lowest. Community Reaction: Posts on X and Reddit accused the Mantra team of orchestrating a “rug pull,” with some claiming the team dumped 90% of the circulating supply and temporarily shut down their Telegram channel. Others speculated about a Founders Wallet hack as the catalyst. Investigating the Founders Wallet Hack Rumors The theory that a hack of the Founders Wallet caused the collapse stems from community speculation rather than verified evidence. Here’s what the latest findings reveal: No Evidence of a Hack: Blockchain analytics platforms like Lookonchain, SpotOnChain, and Arkham Intelligence have not reported any unauthorized access or unusual outflows from the Founders Wallet (publicly verifiable at address: mantra1yejpacug78zuqkzwwuc94c0a2al4mz4yfqquam). Mantra’s co-founder, John Patrick Mullin, stated on April 13 that team tokens remain locked and subject to vesting schedules, with no movement detected during the crash. The team’s wallet addresses are transparent and show no signs of compromise. Unlike high-profile hacks (e.g., the $1.4 billion Bybit incident in 2025), no security breach alerts or irregular transaction patterns have been flagged by on-chain investigators like ZachXBT or Wu Blockchain. Alternative Explanations: Forced Liquidations: Mantra’s official narrative attributes the crash to “reckless forced closures” by centralized exchanges (CEXs). Mullin claimed that an unnamed exchange initiated sudden account position closures without warning, triggering a cascade of liquidations during a low-liquidity period. Pre-Crash Token Movements: On-chain data shows significant OM token deposits to exchanges in the days leading up to the crash: Lookonchain reported 17 wallets depositing 43.6 million OM ($227 million, 4.5% of circulating supply) to exchanges starting April 7. Two wallets were linked to Laser Digital, a strategic investor. SpotOnChain noted a group of whales moving 14.27 million OM ($91 million) to OKX three days prior, with these whales holding 69.08 million OM now valued at $62.2 million post-crash. A wallet possibly associated with the team deposited 3.9 million OM to OKX, raising suspicions, though no direct link to the Founders Wallet was confirmed. These movements suggest coordinated selling or hedging rather than a hack, though the exact intent remains unclear. Community Allegations: Critics on X and Reddit have pointed to Mantra’s control of nearly 90% of the token supply as a red flag, arguing it enables price manipulation. However, no evidence confirms the Founders Wallet itself was compromised. Claims of a Telegram channel shutdown were debunked by Mullin, who clarified that a spam-detection bot temporarily restricted access, not a deliberate closure. Official Response and Exchange Involvement Mantra’s Stance: The team denies any rug pull or insider selling, emphasizing that OM’s tokenomics remain intact and team tokens are locked. They are investigating the role of CEXs and have called for better oversight of exchange practices. Exchange Reactions: OKX: CEO Star Xu labeled the collapse a “big scandal” and promised a full report on on-chain data, including deposits and liquidations. OKX confirmed no internal security breaches but noted public data availability for scrutiny. Binance: Implemented risk controls on OM since October 2024, reducing leverage on trading pairs. Binance distanced itself from direct responsibility, suggesting insider activity as a possible cause. No exchange has confirmed a hack or security failure related to Mantra’s wallets. Analysis and Implications The absence of concrete evidence supporting a Founders Wallet hack points to other factors driving the collapse: Market Dynamics: The rapid sell-off, amplified by forced liquidations, suggests a liquidity crunch exacerbated by large pre-crash deposits. The concentration of OM tokens among a few holders (30% held by the top 10 wallets) increases vulnerability to sharp price swings. Trust Erosion: Allegations of insider dumping and past controversies (e.g., a lawsuit from RioDeFi shareholders and false FTX investment claims) have fueled skepticism, damaging investor confidence. RWA Sector Impact: The crash raises questions about the stability of RWA tokenization projects. Incidents like this could deter institutional adoption unless transparency and risk management improve. While a hack is unlikely based on current data, the significant token movements prior to the crash warrant further investigation. The Mantra team’s control over a large portion of the supply remains a point of contention, highlighting systemic risks in centralized token governance. Conclusion As of April 14, 2025, no credible evidence supports the rumor that the Mantra Founders Wallet was hacked. Instead, the collapse appears tied to a combination of forced liquidations by exchanges and large-scale token deposits, possibly by strategic investors or whales, triggering panic selling. The Mantra team’s assurances of locked tokens and ongoing investigations are steps toward transparency, but rebuilding trust will require detailed disclosures and accountability. FinTelegram advises investors to exercise caution with OM and similar high-concentration tokens. The crypto community should monitor upcoming reports from OKX and Mantra for clarity on the crash’s mechanics. This incident underscores the need for robust tokenomics and decentralized governance to mitigate risks in the volatile RWA sector. Share Information with FinTelegram Disclaimer: This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice. The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, and investors should conduct their own due diligence. CategoriesRug PullTagsDAMAG GroupJohn Patrick MullinMantraMantra ChainRodrigo Quan MirandaWill Corkin

Introducing a Series on Legal Reckonings in the Startup World FinTelegram is proud to announce the launch of its latest investigative series: “Startup on Trial” – a deep dive into some of the most high-profile legal, regulatory, and ethical failures in the tech startup ecosystem. This series examines the point at which innovation, ambition, and disruption collide with hard legal realities. In an era where tech founders are lionized as visionaries and compliance is often seen as a hurdle to scale, “Startup on Trial” brings much-needed scrutiny to the legal missteps, governance gaps, and regulatory evasions that have brought billion-dollar companies to their knees. Why This Series Matters The startup world has long operated under the mantra of “move fast and break things.” But what happens when what gets broken are laws, fiduciary duties, or public trust? From fraudulent investor pitches to crypto money laundering, and from unregulated tech platforms to insider trading in NFTs, we are witnessing a new wave of legal cases that are reshaping the compliance landscape. These aren’t just isolated scandals—they are symptomatic of deeper structural risks in today’s tech industry. The consequences have been staggering: Investors losing billions in imploded ventures Founders going from TED Talks to federal prison Regulators scrambling to catch up with innovation Our new series takes a bold step toward accountability and education by breaking down these cases for what they really are: compliance failures dressed up as innovation success stories. What to Expect: Structure of Each Report Each report in the “Startup on Trial” series follows a clear, research-driven structure: Case IntroductionA concise summary of the startup, founder(s), and the meteoric rise that led to public acclaim—or regulatory scrutiny. Legal and Regulatory ProblemsAn in-depth look at the specific violations involved—ranging from securities fraud and wire fraud to AML breaches and deceptive business practices. We analyze U.S. and international perspectives, often highlighting jurisdictional blind spots. The ConsequencesWho got indicted? Who paid the price? How were customers, investors, or counterparties affected? We unpack the collapse of companies, sentencing of individuals, and ripple effects on the ecosystem. Multi-Jurisdictional AnalysisHow did various regulatory authorities (SEC, DOJ, CFTC, FCA, BaFin, MAS, etc.) react—or fail to react? What lessons can we draw from differences in international regulatory frameworks? Conclusion & RecommendationsEach report ends with practical lessons for founders, investors, and compliance officers on how to avoid repeating history. First Cases in Focus The series will begin with coverage of the following landmark cases: FTX & Sam Bankman-Fried – The crypto golden boy turned criminal mastermind (link to DOJ) Binance & Changpeng Zhao – A global empire under regulatory siege Charlie Javice & Frank – Selling a student finance startup built on lies Theranos & Elizabeth Holmes – Medtech fraud that fooled Silicon Valley Tornado Cash – When open-source code collides with sanctions law Further installments will examine cases like Wirecard, OneCoin, Celsius, OpenSea insider trading, and more. Call for Whistleblowers and Tipsters We believe in crowdsourced compliance intelligence.If you know of a tech startup operating in legal gray zones, engaging in deceptive practices, or avoiding regulatory scrutiny, we want to hear from you. Share Information with FinTelegram Final Thoughts “Startup on Trial” is not just a series—it’s a wake-up call.As tech continues to disrupt finance, healthcare, media, and governance, the cost of ignoring compliance has never been higher. We invite you to follow each chapter closely and help FinTelegram expose the risks behind the innovation hype. Let the trials begin. CategoriesStartup on Trial ticker

The Decentralized Finance (DeFi) sector faces escalating regulatory scrutiny, with recent cases highlighting tensions between innovation and compliance. While frameworks like MiCA (EU) and U.S. tax rules aim to standardize oversight, they also risk undermining decentralization. Investors must navigate risks like operational disruptions and compliance costs while leveraging opportunities in institutional adoption and asset tokenization. Key Regulatory Challenges EU’s MiCA and DORA Frameworks MiCA: Mandates reserve transparency for stablecoins and disclosure requirements for tokenized assets (e.g., real estate, bonds). Non-compliant projects risk exclusion from EU markets. DORA: Enforces cybersecurity protocols, including stress testing and incident reporting for DeFi platforms reliant on third-party infrastructure (e.g., cloud APIs). U.S. Tax Reporting Rules The IRS now classifies DeFi front-end providers as “brokers,” requiring transaction reporting via Form 1099-DA. Compliance costs are estimated at $260 billion annually, with lawsuits pending over constitutional concerns. Global AML/KYC Standards FATF’s “travel rule” pressures DeFi platforms to identify transaction parties, challenging privacy-focused protocols. Recent Legal and Regulatory Cases IRS Broker Definition Lawsuit Case: The Blockchain Association sued the U.S. IRS, arguing that treating DeFi interfaces as brokers violates the Fourth Amendment (privacy) and Fifth Amendment (due process). Implications: A ruling against the IRS could exempt decentralized platforms from reporting rules, while a loss may force U.S. projects offshore. Tornado Cash Sanctions Overturned Case: A U.S. court reversed OFAC sanctions against Tornado Cash, ruling that immutable smart contracts cannot be treated as legal entities. Status: Delisted by OFAC in March 2025, but Treasury reserves the right to re-sanction similar platforms. European Compliance Pressures Example: A MiCA-compliant stablecoin issuer increased reserve transparency, attracting institutional investors but reducing margins by 15%. Investor Implications Risks Operational Disruptions: Legal battles (e.g., IRS case) could destabilize U.S.-based DeFi projects. Smart Contract Exploits: Over $1.3B lost to hacks in 2024, including API breaches and liquidity pool vulnerabilities. Privacy Erosion: Regulations targeting mixers like Tornado Cash may limit anonymity tools. Opportunities Institutional Adoption: JPMorgan and BlackRock are exploring tokenized collateral and blockchain-based ETFs. Real-World Asset Tokenization: Projected to grow to $16T by 2030, enabling fractional ownership of assets like commercial real estate. AI-Driven Solutions: Platforms like SingularityNET use AI to optimize trading and risk management. Conclusion DeFi’s regulatory landscape in 2025 is a double-edged sword: frameworks like MiCA enhance legitimacy but impose centralized compliance costs, while legal victories (e.g., Tornado Cash) protect software autonomy. Investors should prioritize platforms with audited contracts, clear compliance roadmaps, and institutional partnerships. Monitoring ongoing litigation—particularly the IRS case—will be critical to assessing sector stability. Share Information with FinTelegram FinTelegram Advisory: Diversify exposure to jurisdictions with balanced regulations (e.g., Switzerland, Singapore) and avoid projects lacking transparency in governance or cybersecurity. CategoriesDefi Series Investor EducationTagsIRS BrokerTornado Cash

Part of: FinTelegram DeFi Series The DeFi ecosystem is not a monolith—it’s a fast-moving network of protocols, developers, investors, and platforms. In this second installment of our FinTelegram DeFi Series, we break down the key actors shaping decentralized finance, from the code-writing builders and liquidity providers to governance DAOs, oracles, and blockchain infrastructures. Understanding the roles of these players is crucial for identifying risks and opportunities in the space. Key Points: The DeFi ecosystem is modular and permissionless, made up of smart contracts, protocols, and DAO governance. Core participants include: Developers & Protocol Founders (builders) Liquidity Providers (capital sources) DAOs & Governance Token Holders (voters) DeFi Aggregators (navigators) Oracles (data feeders) Auditors (watchdogs) Yield Farmers & Traders (users) Infrastructure players like Chainlink, Ethereum, and Layer 2 networks provide the foundation. Short Narrative: DeFi isn’t run by institutions—it’s run by code and communities. That said, it still needs builders, capital, rules, and data to function. Here’s a breakdown of the key players in the DeFi landscape: 1. Developers & Protocol Founders The architects of DeFi—often pseudonymous—design and deploy the smart contracts that run platforms like: Uniswap (DEX) Aave (lending) Curve Finance (stablecoin DEX) Synthetix (synthetic assets) Some founders, like Andre Cronje (Yearn Finance), become DeFi celebrities. Others disappear after launch. 2. Liquidity Providers (LPs) Users who deposit tokens into liquidity pools to facilitate trading or lending. In return, theyAave,Curve Fi earn: Trading fees Governance tokens Yield farming rewards But beware: LPs are exposed to impermanent loss and smart contract risks. Learn more: FinTelegram DeFi Decoded Part 1 3. DAOs & Governance Token Holders DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) are the governing bodies of many DeFi protocols. Token holders vote on proposals about: Fee structures Treasury spending Protocol upgrades Example:MakerDAO Governance PortalDAO health depends on community participation and transparency. 4. DeFi Aggregators & Interfaces Platforms that simplify DeFi for users by aggregating services: Zapper – Portfolio tracker & DeFi dashboard 1inch – DEX aggregator Yearn Finance – Yield optimization Aggregators boost efficiency but rely on underlying protocols’ security. 5. Oracles Blockchains can’t fetch external data on their own. Oracles solve this. Chainlink is the market leader. Oracles feed price data, weather info, or event outcomes into smart contracts. Oracle manipulation has led to multi-million dollar DeFi exploits. 6. Auditors & Code Reviewers DeFi projects often undergo audits from firms like: CertiK Trail of Bits OpenZeppelin But audits are not guarantees.Many rug pulls and exploits happened in “audited” protocols. 7. Users, Traders, and Yield Farmers Retail users are the lifeblood of DeFi. They: Provide liquidity Trade tokens Farm new tokens Join DAOs But most are underinformed, and many get rekt. FinTelegram aims to change that. Key Concepts Introduced: DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) Oracle Aggregator Governance Token Audit Firm Actionable Insight for Readers: Before engaging with any DeFi project, ask: Who built it—and are they doxxed? Who governs it—and is governance active? Is it audited—and by whom? Is the data reliable—or oracle-dependent? Understanding who’s behind the protocol is the first step to avoiding scams. Call for Information: Are you aware of anonymous founders, insider token allocations, fake audits, or compromised oracles? Share your info confidentially via Whistle42.com. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesDefi SeriesTags1inchAaveCertiKChainlinkCurve FinanceOpenZeppelinSynthetixTrail of BitsUniswapYearn FinanceZapper

Part of: FinTelegram DeFi Series Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is reshaping how money works—without banks, brokers, or centralized authorities. From lending and trading to passive income through liquidity provision, DeFi opens up the global financial system to anyone with an internet connection and a crypto wallet. But with great freedom comes great risk. In this first part of our FinTelegram DeFi Series, we dissect what DeFi really is, how it works, and why it’s both revolutionary and dangerous. Key Points: DeFi = Finance without intermediaries, enabled by smart contracts on blockchains like Ethereum. It includes decentralized exchanges (DEXes), lending platforms, yield farms, and synthetic assets. Total Value Locked (TVL) is a key metric: over $70 billion is currently locked in DeFi protocols (2025). DeFi is powered by open-source code, often unaudited and vulnerable. Anyone can use, build on, or exploit DeFi. No KYC, no gatekeepers. Short Narrative: At its core, DeFi (Decentralized Finance) is a movement to recreate traditional financial systems—banking, lending, trading, insurance—using decentralized blockchain technology. Instead of banks or brokerages, DeFi platforms run on smart contracts: self-executing programs coded on public blockchains like Ethereum or Solana. These contracts allow users to: Trade tokens without intermediaries (via DEXes like Uniswap) Earn interest on crypto assets (via lending platforms like Aave) Become market makers and earn fees (via liquidity pools) Take out loans using crypto as collateral Buy synthetic stocks or assets Unlike centralized finance (CeFi), there’s no application process, no middleman, and often no customer support. With a crypto wallet, users become their own bank—but they also bear the risks. Risks and Realities: DeFi’s promise of open access and high yields is seductive—but often deceptive. Smart contract bugs, rug pulls, and exploit vulnerabilities are common. A user mistake, like sending funds to the wrong address, is usually irreversible. Regulators are watching closely. The blurred line between code and financial product raises legal and compliance challenges, especially for platforms offering derivatives or unregistered securities. The collapse of Terra (LUNA/UST) in 2022 showed how even billion-dollar DeFi systems can vaporize overnight. Key Terms Introduced: Smart Contract – Code that self-executes on the blockchain. DEX (Decentralized Exchange) – Peer-to-peer trading protocol without a central authority. TVL (Total Value Locked) – The total assets locked in a DeFi protocol, used as a proxy for adoption. Liquidity Pool – A pool of funds provided by users to enable trading or lending. Actionable Insight for Readers: Before investing or interacting with DeFi: Understand the protocol’s smart contract logic (or rely on trusted audits). Research the team, tokenomics, and historical performance. Never trust high yields without asking: Where does the yield come from? If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Call for Information: Have you worked with or been affected by a DeFi project?Are you a developer, auditor, or insider with knowledge about questionable DeFi practices? Reach out confidentially via Whistle42.com — and earn $TCO (TarCasso Coins) for relevant disclosures. Share Information with FinTelegram CategoriesDefi Series Investor Education ticker