I'm convinced people would be 100x happier if they just lived in Italy 🇮🇹

I spent the past few days in Washington with @hyperliquidpc meeting with policymakers during the historic advancement of the Clarity Act. We discussed Hyperliquid, the benefits that it offers to American consumers, and the regulatory path to bring onchain derivatives markets into the United States. Some conversations were technical with an impressive baseline understanding of Hyperliquid. Discussions included how onchain trading is a financial innovation that has clear global user demand. Other conversations focused more on a first principles introduction to defi and the promise of onchain markets. It was encouraging to see bipartisan support for thoughtful regulation of crypto. I look forward to continuing discussions in DC and working hard to make American access to Hyperliquid a reality.

I am surprised more people are not paying attention to this update from Anthropic on its stock policy. This seems like a potential bombshell. There is an active secondary market purportedly in Anthropic stock or derivatives including on fairly reputable (or at least well-known) platforms like Forge. Anthropic is calling them out *specifically*, by name, and essentially *saying* 100% of these are illegal. Some may be frauds (people selling Anthropic stock or interests in Anthropic stock that they don't truly own), but more likely many are legit attempts at transferring Anthropic equity (directly, as SPV shares, or as some type of 'beneficial interest' or future, etc.) Anthropic appears to be saying it will treat all these transfers as void. I don't have access to their terms, but it's very interesting to think what this could mean. Do the 'first purported sellers' in the chain potentially have an opportunity to do a double-dip? Does the first seller and all downstream buyers get the entire entitlement nuked? Anthropic is threatening that--are they just bluffing? If they're not bluffing, what litigation is likely to ensue? This can get into really esoteric areas of corporate law that depend on exactly how the transfer restrictions are drafted as well as the language around how violations of transfer restrictions are treated--for example, if they are merely voidABLE then downstream buyers can assert various equitable claims/defenses, but if they are VOID ab initio then in some jurisdictions that forecloses equitable defenses.

Register now with Hollywoodbets and claim your R25 sign-up bonus as well as 50 bonus spins on Habanero 💜

Today, we are filing a lawsuit against Justin Sun for defamation. Sun has launched a coordinated media smear campaign against World Liberty Financial and refused to stop even when confronted with the truth. Here's the story.🧵

Aave LLC has filed an emergency motion to vacate a restraining notice served on Arbitrum DAO on May 1, 2026 that attempts to seize approximately $71 million in ETH belonging to victims of the April 18 exploit. A thief does not gain lawful ownership of stolen property simply by taking it, and the law is clear on this. Those assets were recovered to be returned to users victimized in the April 18, 2026 exploit. Freezing them harms the very people this recovery effort is designed to protect. We’ve asked the court for an expedited hearing and a temporary vacatur, and we are continuing to work alongside the Arbitrum community and DeFi United to make affected users whole.

what did megaeth "pay" binance? i dug into the MEGA listing announcements on binance and did some sleuthing to figure out whats going on firstly, understand that binance's official policy is zero listing fee. they have not charged "listing fees" on any token listing since 2018 however, most operators in this space know that a binance listing is never "free". they ask for a portion of the token supply and give out 100% of it to their users in a number of different ways: - airdrop for BNB holders - marketing campaigns (trading-related) - binance earn products (boosted yield on holding tokens on binance) in the case of megaETH they did not do the airdrop or marketing campaigns (yet) .. but there is a binance earn product thats currently live the binance app shows that the earn product is currently offering a 12.19% APR on MEGA deposits with a personal subscription limit of 33,668 MEGA ($4.6k) however, the binance announcement of this product skips on important details that are usually always mentioned in such binance announcements: total deposit cap, promotion period/duration, etc (you can compare binance's announcement for MEGA vs SIGN or SLF) but interestingly the binance api reveals more details on the product itself, notably that the pool has a 50m MEGA cap which is currently 6.7% subscribed (link to api in next tweet) that brings us to the million dollar question: where is the 12.19% APR on binance's simple earn product for MEGA coming from if megaeth really did not give them tokens? binance's own docs mention that boosted APRs on binance earn products are funded by projects themselves so did binance make a first-time exception for this megaeth earn product and decided to give users yield to deposit their MEGA out of binance's pockets? or were the binance listing announcements carefully crafted to ensure that it respects megaeth's public stance on not paying exchanges while binance still getting what they asked for? i'll let you be the judge fwiw, based on my napkin math, megaeth's negotiation with binance was good and they likely gave binance MUCH less than 99% of projects whose tokens get listed (this obv assumes that there aren't more activities yet to be announced between binance and megaETH that use MEGA tokens) -- coming back to the original point though, binance never lists a token for "free" and the biggest example here is pumpfun's TGE from last year. binance refused to list the most hyped TGE of the year until one month later when alon finally caved and gave binance 350m PUMP tokens for a trading competition no free lunch with the biggest crypto exchange in the world