MARKET Market fun

Seeker is in a retracement phase that could stretch another 40% southward.

Prediction-market traders assign the CLARITY Act only a 15% chance of becoming law in 2026. House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill continues to place the bill within a broader push for permanent financial rules. Prediction Markets Remain Skeptical of 2026 Passage Washington’s effort to establish national rules for crypto trading, custody, and market oversight

SEC reforms could clarify how blockchain and tokenized securities operate within regulated U.S. markets.

Grayscale says record U.S. household equity exposure and demanding stock valuations strengthen the case for crypto diversification. The crypto asset manager argues digital assets are emerging from a market reset with lower valuations and investor positioning. Record Equity Exposure Strengthens Diversification Case Record stock concentration has left household portfolios more exposed to an equity-market reversal,

Chainlink has highlighted its US government economic data feeds, which can support prediction markets and other automated financial products.

The US Justice Department told a Manhattan federal court Tuesday that OpenAI’s use of copyrighted writing at the training stage should be protected by fair use, a position that could reshape the economics of the global AI industry as worldwide investment is set to exceed $1 trillion this year. In the statement of interest it filed in the consolidated copyright lawsuit against OpenAI, the government warned that if developers were made to license training text, only wealthy corporations would be able to continue making cutting-edge AI technologies. The government argues that its argument has both legal and economic implications: mandatory licensing could create huge hurdles to entry, bolster incumbent tech firms, and transfer much of the resulting profits to existing publishers with the largest archives. Why Washington calls a licensing regime an entry barrier According to the Justice Department, imposing a cost on the information used to train AI may cause smaller developers to be marginalized by bigger players. This is in line with the OECD report that says that current AI market access to computing power, data, and expertise is already consolidated and will continue to benefit companies that are already well-established in the field. Washington argued that smaller creators can take advantage of inexpensive AI tools. Authors, in particular, can use models to generate images that they cannot afford otherwise or find sources and perspectives that they would otherwise miss out on. However, the US Copyright Office took a more nuanced stance in stating that some uses for training AI can be covered by fair use, while others may not, depending on the source of the material being used, the purpose of its usage, and the market impact. The transformative-use argument at the center The Justice Department leaned heavily on the first fair-use factor, describing AI training as “extraordinarily transformative.” It argued that training copies serve a different purpose from the original articles and that AI’s benefits “far outweigh any competitive harm.” Nonetheless, the filing does not provide total protection to AI creators. It differentiates between model training and its outcome that refers to copyrighted material, as well as issues regarding the process of obtaining the training data. The distinction can be seen in the California cases. A Copyright Alliance analysis of Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta states that, on one hand, both courts ruled training was transformative, while, on the other hand, reached different conclusions regarding piracy and the damage done to the market. According to Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., this filing represents a “historic statement of interest,” which links the administration’s stance on copyright law with the overall objective of keeping US position in the area of AI. National security and the race against foreign rivals The filing also casts copyright rules as an industrial-policy and national-security issue, arguing that higher development costs could put US companies at a disadvantage against foreign competitors. The stakes are substantial. Goldman Sachs Research projects more than $1 trillion in global AI-related investment in 2026, including $581 billion in the United States. The European Union has taken a different route. Its Digital Single Market Directive provides explicit text-and-data-mining exceptions, although rights holders can reserve their works from some forms of mining. What the publishers and the court say next The New York Times, which sued OpenAI and Microsoft in 2023 , rejected Washington’s position. Authors Guild CEO Mary Rasenberger was equally critical, telling WIRED : “Extremely disappointed” and “replete with faulty arguments and a gross misunderstanding of the fair use doctrine and copyright law.” — Mary Rasenberger, Authors Guild CEO, via WIRED Berkeley copyright scholar Pamela Samuelson described the government’s intervention more cautiously: “A significant development.” — Pamela Samuelson, Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, via WIRED Judge Sidney H. Stein is not required to follow the Justice Department’s position. A ruling in favor of OpenAI may still leave an important issue unresolved: the way that training data is procured. As noted by Cryptopolitan, Anthropic’s settlement with authors in the amount of $1.5 billion was based on the pirated copies of the training material and not the training itself. This difference may matter a great deal. Even if the training is considered to fall within fair use, AI creators still run into a major risk by illegally procuring the material used in their models. TLDR , and The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them .

Hyperliquid (HYPE) joined HashDex's NCIQ index ETF at a 3.4% weighting as treasury firm Hyperliquid Strategies lifted its equity facility to $2.5 billion.

Zcash has surpassed Dogecoin to become the 10th-largest crypto asset. The analyst highlighted opportunities that come with such market development.

New Jersey has petitioned the US Supreme Court to allow states to classify prediction markets like Kalshi and Polymarket as gambling. The fight has been going on for two years now, and it’s getting to the Justices of the Supreme Court for the first time. The petition came in on Wednesday, and a ruling by the apex court would settle the dispute as to whether this billion-dollar industry will be regulated by state gaming regulators or by a single federal agency. Davenport wants Congress read narrowly, not the CFTC The petitioners ask the justices to overturn a Third Circuit court based in Philadelphia, which ruled that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has exclusive powers to regulate platforms like Kalshi and Polymarket, overriding the gambling laws of the state of New Jersey. Jennifer Davenport, the State Attorney General, a Democrat, says the case is simply about stopping federal overreach. “We’re calling on the Supreme Court to resolve this issue and recognize that Congress did not silently make the sports-betting industry immune from state law,” she said in a statement. In the filing, her office makes the argument that the Commodity Exchange Act did not empower the CFTC to act as “the sole regulator of sports gambling in this country,” adding that matters pertaining to health and safety have always rested within the jurisdiction of the states. A circuit split the justices may not be able to overlook New Jersey has timed this suit to perfection. Its petition comes barely a week after the Ninth Circuit’s 3-0 ruling, allowing states to regulate prediction markets as sports betting, siding with Nevada. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit is at odds with that of the Third Circuit, which held that Kalshi’s “event contracts” are legally different from sportsbooks and should be under federal oversight. The crux of the matter has now divided the two appeals courts, and legal experts believe the split is enough reason for the apex court to step in. The justices are likely to reach a decision this fall as to whether or not they will hear the case, and if they do, a ruling is expected next summer. Kalshi happens to be the most popular prediction site in the country and is also named in New Jersey’s petition. The company says it expects to win the case. “Kalshi is an open, nationwide financial exchange. It cannot be regulated by 50 different regulators,” spokeswoman Dani Lever said. Casinos, tribes and 44 states join forces against the platforms The opposition is across the spectrum, covering both political parties. A coalition of 44 states has referred to the prediction sites as unlicensed sportsbooks that evade consumer-protection rules and tax obligations that traditional betting carries. Native American tribes and the OGs of the gaming industry have joined forces with the states. Operators like FanDuel and DraftKings consider the prediction sites as competitors cutting corners. At the moment, three states, Nevada, Michigan, and Washington, have secured court orders pausing Kalshi’s sports contracts. Sports wagers are the blood of the business and account for over 80% of weekly volume. Why the stakes keep increasing The money at stake has increased in time involved has grown fast. Cryptopolitan reported that total prediction-market volume jumped to $38.5 billion from $2 billion in August 2025, a 1,900% increase. Kalshi allows crypto deposits and withdrawals, and Polymarket focuses on on-chain stablecoin guarantees, so a state-by-state shutdown would affect the crypto markets. The CFTC Chairman Mike Selig, a Trump appointee, says his agency has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets and has pushed for them to grow. That sets a clash between the federal government and dozens of states. If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter .