Popular crypto exchange Kraken has on Monday launched perpetual futures trading to eligible US users through Kraken Pro. The exchange will route the contracts through its recently acquired Bitnomial exchange, with full CFTC regulation.
The newly launched product helps to fulfill a deficit that has kept most U.S. traders on the sidelines of the global perpetual futures market. According to the exchange’s announcement, that market exceeded $60 trillion in trading volume in 2025, with the vast majority of activity running through offshore platforms beyond the reach of the U.S. regulatory bodies.
Kraken’s perpetual futures contracts
Perpetual futures allow traders to take leveraged long or short positions on an asset’s price without a specific expiration date. Perp positions continue to remain open as long as margin requirements are met.
Kraken plans to use a funding rate that resets every eight hours, particularly at 7 p.m., 3 a.m., and 11 a.m. CT. The company’s blog post explains that long holders would pay short holders when the price of the perpetual contract trades above spot, with the reverse happening when it trades below. The trading structure is designed to keep contract pricing firmly tethered to the underlying asset.
At launch, the cryptocurrencies covered by the product include Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Solana (SOL), Ripple (XRP), Cardano (ADA), Chainlink (LINK), Dogecoin (DOGE), Litecoin (LTC), and Avalanche (AVAX). The exchange also mentioned that it plans to add more assets and a bigger pool of collateral options over time.
Bitnomial and NInjaTrader importance
Payward, Kraken’s parent company, purchased derivatives exchange Bitnomial in May 2026. A year before, the company also bought NinjaTrader, the futures brokerage now revamped as Kraken Derivatives US and registered with the CFTC as a Futures Commission Merchant.
Perpetual contracts will be held in the same futures wallet as the exchange’s existing CME-listed products, so traders can manage both types of positions with the same funds.
“The most useful thing an exchange business can do for a serious trader is to put everything in one place,” Payward and Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi said. “Spot, margin, futures, and now perpetuals all live in the same account at Kraken.”
Darius Tabatabai, head of Kraken Pro, said in the company’s announcement that Bitnomial’s regulated infrastructure made a fast rollout possible. “Their work on the regulatory and market structure side, combined with Kraken’s distribution and technology, is what brings this to US traders at scale,” Tabatabai added.
CFTC increasingly open to perpetual futures
The launch follows signals from the CFTC in May that opened a path for regulated venues to list perpetual futures. The agency approved Bitcoin perpetual contracts from prediction market Kalshi that month, and also allowed for Coinbase to connect US customers to global options and perpetual markets. Kalshi recorded more than $1 billion in perpetual trading volume within its first week.
Kraken’s move is the latest in a string of derivatives releases platformed for its U.S. customers. It launched CME-listed crypto futures in July 2025 and added margin trading for eligible US clients earlier in June 2026.
Kraken’s head of derivatives, John Palmer, told CoinDesk that adoption could follow the pattern set by spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs), with sophisticated traders entering first and institutional funds following after internal compliance reviews.
As anger at the tech industry boils over, college students across the United States are using their graduation ceremonies as a forum to voice their discontent.
At Stanford University’s commencement over the weekend, hundreds of students staged a walk-out ahead of a graduation speech by Google CEO Sundar Pichai. The walkout, first covered by SF Gate, featured some 200 graduates who jeered, blew whistles, and unfurled banners as the billionaire tech exec took the podium. (Stanford only graduates about 2,000 undergrads per year, so the dissent was extremely visible.)
The protest was in response to Google’s numerous contracts with militaries and domestic police agencies like the Israeli Defense Forces and US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. While other commencement protests have focused on the more nebulous issue of AI and automation, the Stanford protest struck a different chord.
“Google has actively enabled and profited from Israel’s apartheid and genocide of Palestinians through Project Nimbus,” the protest organizers declared in a walk-out pledge. “It has also enabled ICE’s persecution of our neighbors. This year, Google DeepMind just greenlit a no‑red‑lines Pentagon AI contract, betraying its own researchers’ pleas to stop arming war.”
After walking out, the organizers invited graduates to an alternative ceremony held directly across from the official venue, featuring Mahmoud Khalil as the headline speaker. A prominent Algerian-Palestinian activist and former student organizer at Columbia University, Khalil was arrested by plainclothes ICE agents in March of 2025, spending 104 days in detention despite never having been convicted or even charged with a crime.
“We don’t need another tech billionaire to tell us how to get rich off the killing and surveillance of Palestinians and US immigrants,” the pledge exclaimed. “Take a stance against war profiteering. Tell the Google CEO that he is not welcome. Walk out with your peers of conscience, and join our People’s Commencement instead of listening to the empty words of a Google CEO.”
For his part, Pichai seemed prepared for a different protest. Learning from the dozens of examples of college commencement speakers who’ve been jeered into oblivion for mentioning AI, Pichai made sure not to even broach the topic, choosing instead to highlight his own life story, SF Gate reported.
Still, the fact that he was so prominently rebuffed regardless reveals the sheer scale of frustration with the tech industry: that discontent has grown too broad and too deep to be sidestepped by any one speech, no matter how carefully it’s crafted.
Charles Hoskinson said that a disputed stash of 1,096 BTC from Cardano’s early crowdfunding days was used to pay for an audit in 2016/2017.
The Cardano founder made the revelation during a recent livestream AMA, in which he talked about governance, Discord, and community management.
Hoskinson Clarifies Questions in AMA
Cardano’s crowdsale, which ran from October 2015 to January 2017, raised around 108,844 BTC, with 1,096 of this allocated to an Isle of Man Foundation entity that did some early legal and operational work for the project.
The organization has since been dissolved, but Thomas Braziel, founder of 117 Partners, recently questioned the value of the transaction and demanded a full account of where the BTC went and why they received it.
Hoskinson said during the weekend AMA that the funds date back to a March 2026 email from Michael Parsons, the project’s Chairman at the time, in which he asked to be compensated for auditing the crowdsale. He also clarified the value of the BTC, claiming that the bill was much smaller than what critics imply.
“The closing price of Bitcoin March, 13 2016, was $414. That’s about $400,000 for three auditors,” said Hoskinson.
According to him, the money was used to pay three independent reviewers, namely Michael Parsons, John McGuire, and Bruce Milligan.
Meanwhile, Hoskinson argued that the repeated calls for transparency are being made to start controversy as opposed to actually resolving anything, saying that any response leads to another round of accusations and ends up draining resources that could be used to grow the ecosystem.
Braziel Still Has Doubts
However, Braziel wasn’t satisfied with his response, arguing that the session created more questions than it resolved. He asked on social media how IOHK came to control roughly 95% of the BTC raised and got billions of ADA, while the Foundation received only a fraction of the total.
“If that’s the explanation, then the next step is simple: publish the invoices, agreements, and approvals, and payment records.”
The investor also believes the figure is inaccurate, saying that if an audit did happen, it likely took place later, when the OG cryptocurrency was already worth much more than it was during the early fundraising years. In his view, “the numbers just don’t seem to add up.”
The development comes as Cardano is in the midst of a raging debate about its treasury, governance, and engagement, with the co-founder revealing that the project is working on a plan to move its ADA community to Discord.
At the same time, the Cardano Foundation’s budget has come under public scrutiny, with only a third of the proposals approved under the new process. Organizers have also canceled their planned 2026 Singapore Summit after a $7.8 million ADA treasury request linked to the event was rejected.
Something big just happened in US crypto trading. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has cleared the way for a brand new kind of crypto product to be sold inside the country, and one trading platform has already jumped in to offer it.
According to a cryptopolitan report, Kalshi, a platform best known for letting people bet on real-world events, started selling Bitcoin perpetual futures to American customers on June 3.
These are called BTCPERP, and Kalshi is now the first company to sell this kind of product after getting the green light from the CFTC.
Perpetual futures are financial contracts tied to Bitcoin’s price that do not have a set expiration date.
Rather than expiring and settling on a specific day, they use a funding-rate mechanism to keep the contract price closely aligned with the underlying market.
Profits and losses are paid in cash, meaning traders do not take delivery of actual Bitcoin.
These products are widely traded around the world, with offshore platforms recording more than $90 trillion in volume last year.
The official launch of Kalshi’s strategic integration with Haruko, a digital markets risk and portfolio management platform, marks a significant milestone in bringing regulated Bitcoin perpetual futures to the U.S. market.
In addition to traditional asset classes, this framework is intended to provide institutions with an instantaneous, compliant solution to handle their new onshore perpetual positions.
How risk software opens the door to Kalshi’s new crypto perps
Getting approval from regulators is only part of the story.
Big investors and institutions follow strict rules about how they manage money and risk, and that’s a much bigger hurdle than just having a legal product to trade. This is where a company called Haruko comes in.
Large institutional investors in a variety of asset classes employ Haruko’s portfolio and risk management software.
By integrating its platform with Kalshi’s recently established perpetual futures market, the business enables customers to trade the new Bitcoin contracts while using the same interface to track their exposure and risk in real time.
Haruko partners with Kalshi to elevate institutional crypto risk management. Source: Haruko
This connection allows companies like Galaxy Digital to monitor Kalshi’s perpetual futures on the same platform as their other holdings, which include traditional assets, spot cryptocurrency positions, and investments in decentralized finance.
Because of this, investors can integrate these regulated contracts into their current processes without having to create new infrastructure or redesign their current systems.
Shamyl Malik, who runs Haruko as CEO, said the CFTC’s approval marks a big moment for institutions trading crypto derivatives in the US.
He pointed out that perpetual futures have been hugely popular in crypto markets around the world for a long time, but until now, there was no way for US based institutions to access them through a regulated channel.
He said that with Haruko, firms adding Kalshi’s perpetuals don’t need new infrastructure and don’t have to give up any of their existing oversight or standards.
What institutions are saying about the new market
Michael Harvey, Galaxy’s head of trading, said the lack of a regulated U.S. market for perpetual futures had been a major challenge.
With Kalshi’s new offering, Galaxy can now manage these positions using the same risk management system it already relies on for the rest of its portfolio, without changing its existing processes.
Andy Ross, who oversees institutional business at Kalshi, described perpetual futures as a natural extension of the company’s prediction market products.
He said the goal is to give traders a way to bet on price movements without having to predict exactly when something will happen.
Ross added that a regulated marketplace serving both institutional and retail traders is the next logical step for the industry, and said Kalshi is pleased to work with Haruko and Galaxy to make the product easily accessible to institutional investors.
Industry participants expect this development to encourage greater trading activity and pave the way for additional products, especially as trading, compliance, and reporting become more integrated and easier to manage.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It’s free.
Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy) added another $100 million of Bitcoin to its balance sheet last week, extending a buying campaign that has made the company the world’s largest corporate holder of the digital asset while sharpening a debate over what its common shareholders actually own.
On June 15, Michael Saylor, the company’s chairman, said Strategy bought 1,587 BTC at an average price of $63,024 per token, which lifted its total holdings to 846,842 BTC.
That position is equal to more than 4% of Bitcoin’s fixed 21 million supply cap, a level that has turned Strategy from a software company into one of the market’s most closely watched Bitcoin financing vehicles.
However, the latest purchase landed at a more difficult moment for the company’s equity story. Bitcoin has fallen sharply from recent highs, Strategy’s stock has come under increased pressure, and the company’s preferred per-share metric for tracking Bitcoin ownership moved lower following the transaction.
That decline has reopened a question that has followed Strategy through several rounds of capital raising: Is the company still increasing value for common shareholders, or is it asking them to accept a smaller claim on its Bitcoin stack in exchange for a larger and more complex balance sheet?
Bitcoin stack grows, BTC yield falls
According to the SEC filing, Strategy financed the latest purchase through sales of its Class A common stock.
The company said it sold 1.7 million MSTR shares last week for about $209 million. It used roughly $100 million to buy Bitcoin and allocated another $100 million to its dollar reserve, lifting that reserve to about $1.1 billion.
The company still has $25.75 billion of MSTR shares available for sale under its at-the-market program. It has also expanded its capital markets platform to include up to another $21 billion of common stock, $21 billion of STRC preferred stock, and $2.1 billion of STRK preferred stock.
The scale of those programs has made each new transaction a test of how investors should measure dilution.
Strategy’s BTC Yield, which tracks the change in Bitcoin holdings per assumed diluted share, slipped from 13.0% on June 1 to 12.8% on June 8. It fell again to 12.5% after the latest purchase. The decline came even as Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings rose from 843,706 BTC to 846,842 BTC over the same period.
Strategy’s Bitcoin Per Share (Source: Strategy)
For critics, that is the core issue. Strategy bought more Bitcoin, but common shareholders appear to own less Bitcoin per share when measured using the company’s own Bitcoin-per-share framework.
Matthew Kratter, a Bitcoin advocate and frequent Strategy critic, argued that the drop in BTC Yield showed the transaction was dilutive. He wrote on X:
“Congratulations to Saylor and Strategy for diluting MSTR shareholders once again over the weekend! Bitcoin per share dropped yet again, and the Saylor simps are too st#pid to understand what’s happening to them.”
Saylor defends Strategy against dilution arguments
Saylor has rejected the view that the latest transaction should be judged only by BTC Yield, arguing that the metric captures Bitcoin per share but does not account for the cash Strategy added to its balance sheet.
His defense rests on a broader framework built around common equity Bitcoin exposure (CEBE).
Under that approach, investors distinguish between Bitcoin per share before senior claims and Bitcoin exposure available to common shareholders after accounting for debt, preferred stock, and cash reserves.
Saylor has described BPS as the growth metric for common equity, while CEBE BPS is the more conservative risk measure because it adjusts for senior claims. BTC Yield, in his view, measures execution on the BPS side of the equation but does not fully capture the company’s residual equity value.
That distinction matters more as Strategy’s capital structure becomes more layered. If obligations are short-dated or expensive, CEBE becomes more important because those claims can quickly weigh on common shareholders.
However, when liabilities are longer dated, and Bitcoin appreciates faster than the company’s financing costs, Saylor argues that BPS better reflects the upside available to common equity.
In view of this, he described the gap between BPS and CEBE BPS as “amplification.” Without debt or preferred stock, the two measures would be the same, and a Bitcoin treasury company would more closely track Bitcoin itself. As liabilities increase, the measures diverge, creating both the possibility of outperformance and the risk of underperformance.
For Saylor, that means Strategy’s liabilities should not be treated as a single risk category. Short-duration, high-cost obligations can turn leverage into a drag, while long-duration, low-cost financing can increase common equity upside if Bitcoin’s annual return exceeds the company’s cost of capital.
In that framework, the latest transaction can look dilutive under a Bitcoin-per-share measure while still appearing accretive when cash reserves and senior claims are included.
On this basis, Saylor argued that a well-capitalized Bitcoin treasury company can outperform Bitcoin over time, provided the asset appreciates faster than the cost of financing the structure.
Market analysts remain split over the balance sheet
Despite Saylor’s detailed defense of the capital structure, institutional analysts remain sharply divided on whether Strategy is creating or destroying value.
Quinn Thompson, chief investment officer at Lekker Capital, criticized the continued equity issuance, arguing that Strategy should strengthen its balance sheet rather than use new capital to buy more Bitcoin.
Thompson said MSTR common trades at about 0.8 times net asset value after accounting for debt and preferred equity liabilities.
He wrote:
“They’re selling MSTR shares that are worth 80 cents on the dollar to buy $1 bills.”
In his view, the issue is not whether common equity issuance can improve the capital structure for creditors. It is whether common shareholders benefit when a company with negative cash flow relies on capital markets to service debt and preferred equity obligations while continuing to buy Bitcoin.
Nic Puckrin, CEO of Coin Bureau, made a similar point, saying Strategy has few clean options left if its common stock trades below the value of its Bitcoin holdings.
According to him, issuing more stock can dilute Bitcoin per share, while issuing more preferred shares would add to future cash obligations. At the same time, selling Bitcoin could damage market confidence, while suspending dividends could drive preferred holders away.
However, Dylan LeClair, director of Bitcoin strategy at Metaplanet, pushed back on that view. He argued that once debt and preferred stock are deducted, the common equity can still trade at a premium because Strategy’s enterprise value exceeds its Bitcoin net asset value.
From that perspective, issuing common stock can be positive for the capital structure. LeClair said the move can increase US dollar net asset value per share and reduce leverage, even if it puts some pressure on Bitcoin per share.
Adam Livingston, an independent market analyst, also supported Saylor’s broader framework. He argued that the latest transaction was accretive once Strategy’s new Bitcoin and larger cash reserve were both included.
By Livingston’s calculation, the 1,587 BTC purchase and roughly $100 million reserve increase added about 3,146 BTC-equivalent to the common residual. That lifted common equity Bitcoin exposure from 145,142 satoshis per share to 145,319 satoshis per share.
He said:
“BTC-only looked dilutive. BTC plus cash was accretive.”
His argument mirrors Saylor’s broader case: Common shareholders do not own only the latest Bitcoin purchase. They own the residual claim on Strategy’s entire balance sheet after debt, preferred stock, and other senior claims are considered.
MSTR’s harder test is investor confidence
The dispute reflects a broader shift in how investors are judging Strategy. During Bitcoin rallies, the company’s model was easier to defend: raise capital, buy Bitcoin, and trade at a premium to the value of its holdings.
However, the current market has been less forgiving. Bitcoin’s decline has compressed that premium, while preferred dividends, debt, and future financing needs have become a larger part of the investment case.
That is why today’s $100 million purchase has drawn attention beyond its size. BTC Yield fell, reinforcing the dilution argument. Cash reserves rose, supporting Saylor’s claim that Strategy’s broader residual value improved.
The next test is whether investors continue to accept that framework. Strategy can keep buying Bitcoin as long as capital markets remain open. The harder question is whether common shareholders will continue to treat the strategy as accretive when their direct per-share Bitcoin claim is declining.
Nearly all of the top 100 cryptocurrencies have recorded substantial gains over the last 24 hours, boosted by news of the peace deal between the United States and Iran.
Hyperliquid (HYPE) stands out among the top performers, with its price spiking by 12%. Some analysts believe it may jump even more in the following days, while others cautioned that the bears may soon regain control.
Going Higher?
In early June (when the broader crypto market was bleeding heavily), HYPE exploded to an all-time high of around $75. However, the historic peak was short-lived, and the price headed south to around $53 in the following days, influenced by bearish factors such as Arthur Hayes’s decision to dump all his positions in the asset.
Currently, though, the asset trades at around $68, representing a 28% increase from the local bottom. Moreover, its market capitalization has surged past $15 billion, and thus HYPE re-entered crypto’s elite top 10 club after surpassing the OG meme coin Dogecoin (DOGE).
According to some analysts, the recent pump to almost $70 simply marks the early stages of a much larger upward move. X user Cozy the Caller thinks that HYPE “just goes straight to $100 from here.”
KNIGHT and Owl Prints were also optimistic. The former projecteda rise above $110 in the coming months, while the latter argued that reclaiming $64.60 (which, for the moment, seems to be the case) “opens up a clean run toward previous cycle peaks.”
The Bearish Outlook
Last week, many market observers spotted the formation of a head-and-shoulders pattern on HYPE’s chart, which has historically been a precursor to a pullback.
Several hours ago, Ali Martinez opined that the recent price action has seemingly shaped the right shoulder of that structure, labeling $65 as the key resistance level. He also warned that losing $54 could trigger a major correction down to $40.
HYPE’s current Relative Strength Index (RSI) raises the possibility of a sudden price drop. The technical analysis tool runs from 0 to 100, and ratios above 70 signal that the asset is overbought and due for a potential pullback. As of this writing, it stands at 93, showing that the valuation has surged in an unhealthy manner.
HYPE RSI, Source: RSI Hunter
The next bearish element worth mentioning is HYPE’s exchange netflow. Over the past three days, investors have moved some of their holdings from self-custody to centralized platforms, with inflows outpacing inflows. This increases immediate selling pressure.
Bitcoin’s quantum-risk debate is no longer just a theoretical developer conversation.
TL;DR
A Coinbase-linked quantum-risk discussion has put Bitcoin address reuse and legacy cold wallets back in focus.
The issue is not an immediate break of Bitcoin, but a long-term custody and migration problem.
Large holders, exchanges, and institutions have the strongest reason to care because old exposed public keys could become future risk points.
Why Address Reuse Matters
A Coinbase-linked advisory discussion has reportedly flagged address reuse and legacy Bitcoin wallets as long-term exposure points if quantum computing advances far enough to threaten today’s signature assumptions. That does not mean Bitcoin is suddenly unsafe. It does mean custody practices that look acceptable today may need a migration plan before the risk becomes urgent.
The most important word here is “future.” This is not a panic story. It is a preparation story.
Bitcoin users are generally encouraged not to reuse addresses. The reason is privacy, but there is also a security angle.
When coins are spent from an address, the public key becomes visible on-chain. Under today’s cryptographic assumptions, that does not create an immediate problem. But in a future where powerful quantum computers can attack certain public-key systems, exposed public keys could become more sensitive.
That is why old wallets and reused addresses matter. They may represent a class of coins that would require special attention in a future post-quantum migration.
This is especially important for large custodians and exchanges. A retail wallet with a small balance is one thing. A cold wallet holding large institutional balances is another.
The Institutional Custody Problem
Bitcoin is becoming more institutional every year.
Banks, ETFs, custodians, public companies, and large asset managers are all part of the market now. That makes long-term custody assumptions more important. Institutions do not just need Bitcoin to be secure today. They need confidence that their custody model can adapt over time.
That is where quantum migration becomes complicated.
If the ecosystem eventually needs to move to quantum-resistant signatures, users, exchanges, wallets, developers, and custodians will all need clear paths. The harder question is what happens to dormant coins, old addresses, and funds controlled by entities that no longer exist or cannot respond.
That is not an easy problem to solve quickly.
Not Immediate, But Not Ignorable
The mistake would be to frame quantum risk as either an emergency or nothing at all.
It is not an emergency today. Bitcoin is not being broken by quantum computers in the current market. But it is also not a topic serious custodians can ignore forever.
Good security planning happens before a threat becomes active. That is why these discussions matter now. If the industry waits until quantum risk becomes obvious, migration will be more stressful, more political, and more technically difficult.
What The Market Should Take From This
For traders, this is unlikely to move Bitcoin’s price today. It is not like ETF flows, miner selling, or a macro shock.
But for the long-term investment case, it matters. Bitcoin’s value proposition depends partly on credible long-term security. If large institutions are going to keep building Bitcoin vaults, they need confidence that those vaults can adapt to future cryptographic threats.
The address-reuse warning is useful because it turns a vague quantum debate into a practical custody question: which coins are exposed, which wallets need to migrate, and how early should the process begin?
Bitcoin does not have a quantum crisis today. But it does have a planning challenge, and the larger the asset becomes, the more important that challenge gets.
Anthropic has had a class action lawsuit filed against the company by a Washington, D.C.-based customer, with claims that the AI provider’s Claude Max subscription tiers delivered far less usage than was advertised, and offered less value for money than expected.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Claude user and subscriber Karl Kahn, is based on alleged fraud in Anthropic’s Claude Max 5x and Max 20x plans, priced at $100 and $200 per month. Both tiers promised multiples of the base Claude Pro plan’s usage, however, Kahn claims the actual limits were not as distinct and shifted without adequate notice, according to reporting by the WSJ.
The lawsuit seeks class-action certification covering subscribers who have used the Max plans since April of last year.
Difference in promised features and delivered product
The lawsuit filed by the Claude user focuses directly on the gap between the language used in marketing of these Anthropic products, and the actual service received.
Anthropic has widely marketed the Max 5x and 20x tiers of its standard Claude Code Pro subscription as direct scaling options and multipliers of base usage limits for the product. However, a lot of heavy users, particularly developers who rely on Claude for coding and technical solutions, are said to have raised complaints about the actual amount of usage they received from the premium service.
The suit alleges the advertised limits were not adhered to, and that Anthropic altered them without giving subscribers any clear notice.
Usage caps have become a major topic of conversation across users and providers of subscription-based AI services. Unlike traditional software subscriptions, where the marginal cost of serving additional users is relatively low, every interaction with an artificial intelligence model requires the use of computing resources that carry real operational costs. Each prompt and response consumes processing power, driving expenses tied to data centers, chips, and energy usage.
That economic reality has pushed AI providers toward implementing stricter usage controls, including throttling mechanisms, rate limits, and daily message caps designed to manage infrastructure demand and maintain profitability.
Google now publishes fixed daily prompt limits for its Gemini service, while Anthropic has taken steps to block third-party tools that allowed subscribers to run high-volume workloads through consumer-tier plans at flat subscription rates.
Anthropic and its power-user cost problem
According to PYMNTS, heavy users on Anthropic’s $200/month Claude Code plan can consume between $600 and $1,500 worth of compute for a flat fee. Lower prices attract more subscribers, but the premium tier customers tend to be the most expensive to serve due to their heavy usage.
That dynamic makes AI subscriptions structurally different from other plans like Netflix or Spotify, where one more viewer or listener adds almost nothing to the bill. For AI companies, each heavy user is a direct cost center for the service.
The pricing pressure is also intensifying from the other AI companies and competitors, with Google dropping its entry-level AI Plus plan from $7.99 to $4.99 per month and cutting its top-tier offering from $250 to $200. OpenAI is also reportedly weighing its own reductions, while Meta has started testing paid AI subscriptions for the first time.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It’s free.
Geneva, Switzerland, June 15, 2026 — TRON DAO, the community-governed DAO dedicated to accelerating the decentralization of the internet through blockchain technology and decentralized applications (dApps), participated in ETHConf, held June 8–10 in New York, organized by ETHGlobal. TRON DAO also extended its presence throughout the week with a dedicated TRON Academy Happy Hour alongside the ETHGlobal New York 2026 hackathon, held between June 12–14. Supporting developer education and student-led blockchain innovation through TRON Academy, whose university network now spans across leading institutions like Princeton University, Imperial College London, Yale University, Columbia University, Harvard University, MIT, Cornell University, the University of California, Berkeley, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, Dartmouth College and more.
At ETHConf, one of Ethereum’s premier ecosystem conferences, the TRON DAO team connected with builders, founders, and technologists shaping the next wave of decentralized applications, policy regulations, and real-world blockchain adoption.
Alongside ETHGlobal New York, TRON Academy powered by niTROn co-hosted a Happy Hour with Princeton Blockchain Club at Anytime Billiards NYC, supported by a coalition of leading student blockchain organizations: Blockchain Chicago, Blockchain at Columbia, Blockchain at Emory, Blockchain & Fintech at Fordham, NYU Blockchain Lab, and Penn Blockchain. The session drew more than 70 participants from across the student and developer communities.
The happy hour also featured a panel, “Campus to Mainnet: How Student Builders Will Shape the Future of Blockchain,” moderated by TRON DAO’s ecosystem development team, with student panelists representing Blockchain Chicago, Blockchain & Fintech at Fordham, Penn Blockchain, and NYU Blockchain Lab. The discussion explored how stablecoins and digital dollars are unlocking real-world use cases across payments, cross-border settlement, and how campus clubs are moving from learning to launching real projects. Panelists also weighed the skills and career paths shaping the next wave of Web3, including the emerging role of AI agents and onchain payments.
By meeting students and developers where they build, TRON DAO continues to widen access to the people, resources, and hands-on exposure that turn early curiosity into lasting contribution across the decentralized economy. For more information about TRON’s initiatives and upcoming events, please visit TRON DAO’s official website.
About TRON DAO
TRON DAO is a community-governed DAO dedicated to accelerating the decentralization of the internet via blockchain technology and dApps.
Founded in September 2017, the TRON blockchain has experienced significant growth since its MainNet launch in May 2018. Until recently, TRON hosted the largest circulating supply of USD Tether (USDT) stablecoin, which currently exceeds $89 billion. As of June 2026, the TRON blockchain has recorded over 387 million in total user accounts, more than 14 billion in total transactions, and over $25 billion in total value locked (TVL), based on TRONSCAN. Recognized as the global settlement layer for stablecoin transactions and everyday purchases with proven success, TRON is “Moving Trillions, Empowering Billions.”
Coinbase Derivatives announced 24/7 gold and silver futures contracts for US traders.
The products are positioned as regulated commodities exposure through Coinbase’s derivatives arm.
Coinbase also indicated that oil futures are planned as a later expansion.
Coinbase Pushes Further Into Regulated Futures
Coinbase Derivatives is expanding its regulated futures lineup with 24/7 gold and silver contracts aimed at US retail and institutional traders. The announcement adds another layer to Coinbase’s push beyond spot crypto trading and into broader market-structure products that operate around the clock.
The move is notable because gold and silver are not crypto assets, but Coinbase is presenting the products through the same always-on trading logic that helped define digital asset markets. That could appeal to traders who are used to crypto-style access but want exposure to traditional commodities through a regulated venue.
Coinbase Derivatives said the contracts are CFTC-regulated. The company also pointed to oil futures as a planned next step, suggesting the platform is building a wider suite of around-the-clock commodity products rather than treating gold and silver as a one-off launch.
Why 24/7 Commodity Futures Matter
Traditional commodity futures trade for long sessions, but they are not truly available in the same always-on rhythm as crypto markets. By offering 24/7 access, Coinbase is attempting to bring a crypto-native trading experience to assets that have historically sat inside more conventional market hours and venue structures.
That matters because the exchange has been trying to position itself as more than a spot crypto marketplace. Futures, derivatives, and regulated market infrastructure are now a major part of the company’s long-term strategy, particularly as US institutions look for compliant ways to access digital and adjacent markets.
Why This Matters
For crypto traders, the product expansion may also blur the line between digital asset platforms and traditional brokerage-style venues. Coinbase can use its existing brand and regulatory footprint to compete for traders who want commodities, crypto, and eventually other products in the same ecosystem.
The story is also a reminder that the next phase of crypto exchange competition may not be only about listing tokens. It may be about which platforms can build regulated, multi-asset trading rails that look familiar to institutions while still retaining the speed and accessibility of crypto markets.
What To Watch Next
The key details to watch are contract specifications, margin requirements, launch dates, and whether the products attract meaningful volume after going live.
Regulatory filings and official Coinbase Derivatives contract pages should be checked for precise margin and leverage details before publishing those figures.
Market Context
The broader market context is important because traders are no longer reacting only to token-specific news. Institutional flows, filings, regulated derivatives, custody terms, and policy changes now feed directly into how Bitcoin and large-cap crypto assets are priced. That makes primary-source developments useful even when they do not immediately produce a sharp price move.
For NewsBTC, the practical question is whether the development changes liquidity, risk appetite, compliance pathways, or institutional confidence. Those are the signals that can influence market structure over time, especially when they come from official filings, regulator notices, exchange announcements, or widely followed data sources.
