SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce Defends Crypto Privacy Tools – Signals Regulatory Debate Over Surveillance and Compliance

Key Takeaways

Peirce Calls Financial Privacy an Undervalued Principle in US Regulation

US Securities and Exchange Commission Commissioner Hester Peirce has publicly defended the role of privacy-enhancing technologies in crypto markets, warning against a regulatory approach that equates privacy tools with illicit activity.

Speaking at Georgetown Law on May 28, Peirce described cryptographic privacy technologies as legitimate components of modern financial infrastructure. According to a transcript published on the SEC’s website, she said that financial privacy is becoming increasingly undervalued in US regulation.

Peirce emphasized that the ability of authorities to investigate and prosecute wrongdoing does not require weakening privacy protections for law-abiding individuals. “Empowering government to be able to identify, pursue, and punish the bad guys is important to the security of the nation and its people, but so too is empowering people to protect information about their lives, including their financial lives,” she said.

Her remarks position privacy as a parallel objective alongside enforcement, rather than as an obstacle to it.

Privacy Technologies Framed as Investor Protection Tools

In her speech, Peirce stated that privacy-enhancing technologies can strengthen investor protection. She noted that such tools can help individuals shield sensitive financial information from hackers, scammers and other malicious actors.

She cautioned regulators against viewing privacy technologies primarily as instruments for surveillance expansion. According to her remarks, privacy tools should not be treated as “an opportunity for the government to watch more of what its citizens do.”

For users of crypto platforms, including those engaged in trading or using digital assets for online services, the regulatory framing of privacy technologies can influence how platforms design wallets, transactions and compliance systems. Peirce’s comments indicate that at least some US regulators see a role for privacy tools within compliant financial systems.

Engagement With SEC Crypto Task Force on KYC and AML

Peirce also addressed compliance concerns directly. She encouraged developers building privacy-enhancing technologies to engage with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force, particularly where such tools could support Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering requirements.

This invitation signals that the SEC is open to discussions on how privacy-preserving systems can coexist with regulatory obligations. KYC and AML rules remain central to oversight of crypto exchanges, custodians and other service providers. For platforms operating internationally, the ability to reconcile privacy features with compliance standards is often a determining factor in market access.

Peirce’s comments suggest that the regulatory debate is shifting from whether privacy tools should exist to how they can be structured in a way that satisfies enforcement expectations.

Renewed Focus on Privacy Coins and Blockchain Applications

Privacy has long been one of the foundational use cases of cryptocurrency. Projects such as Monero and Zcash were built specifically to shield transaction data and user identities. Over the past year, the role of privacy technologies has returned to the spotlight as regulators and developers have clashed over their use.

Advocates argue that privacy tools protect users from surveillance, hacking and data exploitation. Critics raise concerns about potential use in illicit finance. The tension between these positions continues to shape regulatory discussions in multiple jurisdictions.

According to the source material, growing interest in privacy-focused cryptocurrencies has helped drive Zcash prices sharply higher over the past year. At the same time, companies are developing new privacy-focused blockchain applications. Aptos unveiled a privacy-focused coin designed to allow businesses to transact onchain without exposing treasury movements, payment flows or trading strategies to competitors. Polygon has rolled out private stablecoin payments for institutions, presenting the feature as a way to support broader adoption of onchain transactions.

These developments show that privacy features are being integrated not only in retail-oriented coins but also in enterprise and institutional blockchain solutions.

European Union AML Rules Add Regulatory Pressure

The debate over privacy in crypto is not limited to the United States. In the European Union, regulators and blockchain industry participants are weighing new AML rules scheduled to take effect in 2027.

Under the planned framework, credit institutions and crypto asset service providers would be prohibited from maintaining anonymous accounts or supporting privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies. According to Anja Blaj, a legal consultant at the European Crypto Initiative, maintaining access to privacy-focused digital assets has been a constant battle between the crypto industry and regulators.

For international users and operators, especially those active across multiple jurisdictions, differing regulatory approaches to privacy tools can affect which assets are available and how platforms structure compliance procedures.

Our Assessment

Hester Peirce’s remarks highlight an ongoing regulatory debate over the role of privacy-enhancing technologies in crypto markets. She framed privacy as compatible with investor protection and national security, while encouraging engagement with the SEC on compliance solutions. At the same time, the European Union is preparing AML rules that would restrict anonymous accounts and privacy-preserving cryptocurrencies. Together, these developments show that privacy tools remain central to discussions about regulation, market access and platform design in the global crypto sector.

UK Gambling Commission Extends Deposit-Limit Deadline to September 2026 – Remote Operators Receive Additional Time for Compliance Changes

Key Takeaways

Deadline for Second Phase Moved to 30 September 2026

The UK Gambling Commission has granted licensed remote gambling operators an additional three months to implement the second phase of its updated deposit-limit framework. The original compliance date of 30 June 2026 has been extended to 30 September 2026.

According to the regulator, the decision follows feedback from stakeholders. The extension is intended to give operators more time to complete technical development work and ensure full compliance with the revised standards. The measures form part of broader changes to the Remote Technical Standards, which were updated in October 2025.

For operators serving customers in the United Kingdom, this adjustment affects system configuration, interface design, and internal reporting processes. While the regulatory requirements themselves remain unchanged, the revised timeline provides additional implementation time.

Revised Remote Technical Standards Introduced in October 2025

The deposit-limit changes are rooted in updates to the Remote Technical Standards that came into effect in October 2025. These revisions were designed to strengthen customer-led tools that allow individuals to manage their gambling activity.

The first phase of the updated standards introduced several measures. Operators were required to provide new types of financial limits and to standardize self-exclusion and cooling-off periods. New customers must be prompted to set financial limits when opening an account. In addition, existing customers must receive reminders every six months to review their account activity and transaction history.

Licensees were also required to enable financial limits at the account level using free text. This allows customers to define parameters that reflect their individual preferences rather than relying solely on predefined options.

The deposit-limit measure itself was first raised in February 2025 as part of the response to the Gambling Act review white paper. At that time, the Commission stated that the aim was to provide players with more effective tools to manage their gambling.

Gross Deposit Limits Become the Only “Deposit Limits”

Under the second phase, which will now take effect on 30 September 2026, operators must offer gross deposit limits to customers. In cases where such limits had previously been removed from the available options, they must be reintroduced.

The Commission has specified that only gross deposit limits may be labeled as “deposit limits”. No other form of financial limit may use that terminology. This clarification is intended to create consistency across the industry and reduce potential confusion among customers.

In addition, gross deposit limits must be displayed with at least equal prominence as other types of financial limits offered by the operator. This requirement affects how limits are presented within customer accounts and during the registration or deposit process.

To further standardize implementation, the regulator has clarified that gross deposit limits must be offered over fixed time frames from the new implementation date. Other types of financial limits may continue to use either rolling or fixed time frames, depending on the operator’s system design.

Operational Adjustments Required for Licensees

The updated rules require more than simple terminology changes. Operators must review and revise customer communications to ensure that references to deposit limits comply with the new definitions. Help pages and responsible gambling sections must also reflect the restricted use of the term “deposit limit”.

Compliance reporting procedures will need to be adjusted to align with the updated standards. Because the Commission requires equal prominence for gross deposit limits, user interface elements and account dashboards may need technical modifications.

The second phase is intended to refine definitions, increase the visibility of deposit limits, and improve consistency across the customer journey. The regulator has stated that these changes support broader efforts to reduce consumer harm.

In October, Helen Rhodes, Director of Major Policy Projects at the Gambling Commission, said that the changes would bring consistency and clarity for consumers who choose to set deposit limits, while still supporting gambling businesses in offering different forms of financial limits.

Our Assessment

The three-month extension to 30 September 2026 provides remote gambling operators with additional time to implement technical and compliance updates linked to the revised Remote Technical Standards. The core regulatory requirements remain unchanged: operators must offer gross deposit limits, label only these as deposit limits, ensure equal prominence, and apply fixed time frames to this specific limit type. The measure forms part of a broader regulatory framework introduced in October 2025 to standardize financial limit tools, strengthen customer prompts, and enhance consistency across licensed remote gambling services in the United Kingdom.

UK Gambling Commission Extends Deposit Limit Deadline to 30 September 2026 – Operators Receive Three-Month Compliance Extension

Key Takeaways

New Compliance Deadline for Remote Gambling Operators

The UK Gambling Commission has granted licensed remote gambling operators an additional three months to comply with updated deposit limit requirements. The new deadline for implementation is 30 September 2026, replacing the previous date of 30 June 2026.

The extension applies to the second phase of changes linked to the Commission’s Remote Technical Standards. According to the regulator, feedback from industry stakeholders indicated that operators required more time to complete technical updates, adjust customer-facing tools, and finalize compliance processes.

For online casinos, betting sites, and other remote operators licensed in the United Kingdom, this means that system updates and product adjustments tied to deposit limit terminology and functionality must now be completed by the end of September 2026.

Clarification: “Deposit Limit” Must Mean Gross Deposit Limit

The central element of the rule change concerns the definition of a deposit limit. Under the updated requirements, the term “deposit limit” must refer exclusively to a gross deposit limit.

A gross deposit limit caps the total amount a customer can pay into their online gambling account over a defined period. From the new implementation date, operators must offer this type of limit and ensure that it is clearly presented as the primary deposit limit tool.

Operators may continue to provide other types of financial controls, including net limits. However, these alternative tools cannot be labeled as “deposit limits.” The Commission has made clear that only gross deposit limits may use this terminology.

If operators previously removed gross deposit limits from their account management interfaces, they may need to reintroduce them. The option must also be displayed with at least equal prominence compared with other financial limit tools.

Fixed Time Frames Required for Gross Deposit Limits

In addition to clarifying terminology, the Commission has specified how time frames must be applied. Gross deposit limits must operate using fixed time periods across the industry.

By contrast, other financial limits may use either fixed or rolling time frames. This distinction allows operators to maintain flexibility in offering additional tools, while ensuring that the definition and operation of the main deposit limit remain consistent for all customers.

For operators, this requirement affects system configuration, user interface design, and compliance reporting. All references to deposit limits in account menus, onboarding flows, responsible gambling pages, and help documentation must align with the updated standards before the September deadline.

Background: First Phase Introduced in October 2025

The revised deposit limit framework forms part of a broader set of changes introduced in phases. The first phase took effect in October 2025.

That stage expanded customer-led gambling controls. It included the introduction of new limit types, account-level free-text financial limits, and prompts encouraging new customers to set financial limits. It also established six-month account review reminders and more standardized approaches to self-exclusion and cooling-off periods.

The proposal to redefine deposit limits was first raised in February 2025 following the Gambling Act review white paper. At the time, the Commission stated that the objective was to provide players with more effective tools to manage their gambling activity.

Helen Rhodes, Director of Major Policy Projects at the Gambling Commission, commented in October that the changes were intended to bring consistency and clarity for consumers choosing to set deposit limits, while still allowing businesses to offer different forms of financial limits.

Operational Impact for UK-Licensed Online Platforms

For UK-licensed remote gambling operators, the extension shifts the immediate focus from the original June deadline to the end of September 2026. The delay does not alter the policy direction or the substance of the requirements.

Operators must still ensure that gross deposit limits are properly implemented, clearly labeled, and supported by fixed time frames. They must also review how financial limit tools are displayed to customers, ensuring that gross deposit limits receive at least equal prominence.

The compliance process is expected to involve technical development, updates to internal reporting systems, revisions to customer communication materials, and adjustments to onboarding and account management interfaces.

For customers using UK-regulated betting sites and online casinos, the change is primarily procedural. From 30 September 2026 onward, any feature described as a deposit limit will, by definition, refer to a cap on total deposits within a fixed period.

Our Assessment

The UK Gambling Commission’s decision extends the compliance timeline for the second phase of its deposit limit reforms to 30 September 2026. The regulator maintains the requirement that “deposit limit” must mean a gross deposit limit and that such limits operate on fixed time frames. The delay provides licensed remote operators with additional time to implement technical, customer-facing, and compliance changes without altering the underlying regulatory objectives established following the Gambling Act review process.

Puerto Rico Joins National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program – Centralized System to Expand Responsible Gaming Controls

Key Takeaways

Puerto Rico Integrates Into National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Framework

Puerto Rico has formally joined the National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program, a system designed to simplify how individuals restrict their access to gambling services across participating jurisdictions. The program is scheduled to launch in June and will allow users in Puerto Rico to enroll in a centralized exclusion list.

Once enrolled, individuals will be blocked from accessing casinos, sports betting platforms, and other regulated gaming services covered by the system. The framework replaces what has historically been a fragmented approach, where users were often required to register separately with multiple operators or regulatory bodies.

For users, this means that a single registration will apply across participating operators connected to the system. For operators, it introduces a unified process for receiving and implementing exclusion data.

Role of the Puerto Rico Gaming Commission

The move aligns with the stated policy goals of the Comisión de Juegos del Gobierno de Puerto Rico, which oversees gambling regulation in the territory. According to Executive Director Juan Carlos Santaella Marchán, the initiative strengthens public policy objectives centered on responsible gaming.

He stated that providing accessible tools and resources for individuals seeking support for gambling related issues has been a consistent priority. The integration into the national self-exclusion framework complements the Commission’s ongoing Responsible Gaming educational campaign and broader oversight efforts.

By joining the centralized program, the Commission aims to modernize regulatory processes while expanding the availability of formal exclusion tools. The system is intended to make it easier for individuals to take preventative action without navigating multiple administrative procedures.

How the NVSEP System Works

The National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program is structured as a centralized registration platform. Individuals who choose to participate can voluntarily enroll their information in a single system rather than applying separately across different gambling providers.

After enrollment, participant data is distributed securely to participating operators through the idPair platform. Operators connected to the system receive the relevant exclusion data and are responsible for enforcing the restrictions in accordance with regulatory requirements.

The system is designed to streamline both user enrollment and operator compliance obligations. Instead of maintaining separate databases or manually reconciling exclusion lists, operators can process exclusion data through the integrated platform.

Jonathan Aiwazian, CEO of idPair, stated that many operators already process exclusion data via the idPair platform in other jurisdictions. According to him, the expansion into Puerto Rico is intended to simplify self-exclusion for individuals while also standardizing operational processes for gaming providers.

Implications for Casinos and Sports Betting Operators

For licensed casinos, sportsbooks, and other regulated gaming platforms operating in Puerto Rico, participation in the system means receiving exclusion data through a centralized channel. This may affect onboarding procedures, account monitoring, and access controls.

Because the exclusion list covers multiple forms of regulated gaming, operators must ensure that enrolled individuals are prevented from accessing applicable services. The system aims to streamline reporting obligations and reinforce regulatory compliance by using a standardized data distribution process.

For users who engage with crypto enabled betting platforms or digital sportsbooks in Puerto Rico, the program introduces an additional layer of formalized oversight. Although the system applies to regulated operators, it reinforces the broader framework under which licensed gaming services are expected to operate.

The emphasis remains on voluntary participation. Individuals must actively enroll in the system for restrictions to take effect, and the structure is described as preserving individual choice and privacy protections.

Centralization as a Response to Fragmented Exclusion Processes

Historically, self-exclusion mechanisms have often required separate registrations across different jurisdictions or operators. This fragmentation can create administrative barriers for individuals seeking comprehensive restrictions.

The National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program addresses this issue by consolidating enrollment into one platform. By distributing exclusion data to participating operators through a single technical infrastructure, the system reduces duplication and aims to improve enforcement consistency.

In Puerto Rico’s case, joining the program reflects an effort to align local oversight mechanisms with a broader, coordinated model. The stated objective is to simplify user experience while maintaining secure data handling and regulatory compliance standards.

Our Assessment

Puerto Rico’s decision to join the National Voluntary Self-Exclusion Program establishes a centralized mechanism for voluntary gambling exclusion across casinos, sports betting platforms, and other regulated services. The system, launching in June, will allow individuals to register once and have their exclusion status distributed to participating operators via the idPair platform. For regulators and operators, the initiative introduces a unified compliance process. For users, it provides a single access point for restricting gambling activity within the regulated market.

DDC Buys 331 Bitcoin in One Week – Treasury Grows to 2,714 BTC Without Issuing New Shares

Key Takeaways

DDC Expands Bitcoin Treasury With Second Purchase in Seven Days

DDC Enterprise Limited announced on May 27 that it had acquired 131 Bitcoin, bringing its total treasury holdings to 2,714 BTC. The transaction follows a 200 BTC purchase completed on May 21. Combined, the two acquisitions added 331 BTC to the company’s balance sheet within a single week.

According to the company, the latest transaction increased total Bitcoin holdings by approximately 13.9%. DDC stated that no new common shares were issued to finance either of the recent purchases. The company described the 131 BTC transaction size as determined by available liquidity and existing balance sheet capacity.

DDC is listed on the NYSE American and operates as a global Asian food platform alongside its digital asset treasury activities. The company said its approach involves measured, incremental Bitcoin purchases rather than allocating capital at a single price point.

Average Cost and Per Share Metrics

Following the latest acquisition, DDC reported an average purchase cost of $79,135 per Bitcoin across its total holdings. The company also disclosed that its Bitcoin yield year to date stands at 43.5%.

In addition, DDC reported that its BTC per 1,000 shares metric increased by 5.1% to 0.057053. The company has emphasized per share Bitcoin growth as a key metric and stated that recent purchases were completed without shareholder dilution.

Norma Chu, Founder, Chairwoman, and Chief Executive Officer of DDC, said the company deployed previously raised capital for the latest purchase and did so without issuing new shares.

Position Among Public Bitcoin Treasury Holders

DDC stated that it ranks among the top 30 publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders globally. The cohort of companies pursuing similar treasury strategies includes Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, which holds more than 580,000 BTC.

The model of pairing an operating business with Bitcoin accumulation on the balance sheet was pioneered by Strategy and has since been adopted by a growing number of smaller public companies. These companies combine core operational revenue with direct exposure to Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset.

DDC operates a portfolio of Asian food brands. The company reported $39.2 million in fiscal year 2025 revenue and positive Adjusted EBITDA for the first time. It has described its strategy as a dual mandate of expanding its operating business while increasing Bitcoin holdings.

Broader Corporate Bitcoin Activity This Week

Other publicly traded companies have also disclosed treasury activity this week. Strategy announced that it paused its weekly Bitcoin purchases to focus on balance sheet management. The company completed a $1.5 billion convertible debt buyback at an 8% discount while maintaining holdings of roughly 843,738 BTC. According to the report, shares of MSTR rose following the announcement as investors reacted to the debt reduction.

Strive also disclosed that it added 1,109 Bitcoin, increasing total holdings to about 16,500 BTC. The company continues expanding its Bitcoin treasury strategy through SATA and other capital market initiatives. Shares of ASST have risen in recent months alongside the firm’s accumulation strategy and fundraising exploration.

Within this environment, DDC’s back to back purchases highlight continued participation by smaller public companies in the corporate Bitcoin treasury segment. Unlike Strategy, which temporarily paused acquisitions to address debt, DDC indicated it intends to continue deploying capital in incremental purchases.

Capital Allocation Strategy and Shareholder Impact

DDC stated that its objective is to compound value across both its food business operations and its balance sheet. The company framed each share as representing both operating business exposure and a proportional claim on its Bitcoin holdings.

By stating that no new equity was issued for the two recent transactions, DDC underscored its focus on avoiding dilution. The company indicated that protecting per share Bitcoin value is a central element of its capital allocation approach.

The decision to base the latest purchase size on available liquidity and balance sheet capacity suggests that acquisitions are linked to internal funding conditions rather than fixed schedules or predetermined volumes.

Our Assessment

DDC Enterprise Limited increased its Bitcoin treasury to 2,714 BTC through two purchases totaling 331 BTC within one week. The company reported a 13.9% increase in holdings, an average acquisition cost of $79,135 per Bitcoin, and a year to date Bitcoin yield of 43.5%. Both transactions were completed without issuing new common shares. DDC positions itself among the top 30 publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holders while continuing to operate its Asian food business, which generated $39.2 million in fiscal year 2025 revenue and reported positive Adjusted EBITDA for the first time.

New York Senate Bill 10470 Seeks to Ban Sports Betting on College Campuses – Lawmakers Review Limits on Student Wagering Access

Key Takeaways

Bill 10470 Introduced in the New York Senate

New York lawmakers are reviewing new legislation that would restrict where online sports wagers can be placed within the state. Senate Bill 10470 was introduced last week by Senator Andrew Gounardes. The proposal focuses on limiting sports betting activity on college campuses.

According to the bill description, the measure would prohibit sports betting operators from accepting wagers from individuals who are located on school property. The restriction applies specifically to online sports betting and targets physical location at the time a wager is placed.

After its introduction, the bill was referred to the Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee. This committee is responsible for reviewing legislation related to gambling and wagering activities before it can advance further in the legislative process.

Scope of the Proposed Campus Betting Ban

The central provision of Senate Bill 10470 is a ban on accepting sports wagers from people who are physically present on college campuses. The language referenced in the bill summary indicates that sports betting operators would be prohibited from processing online bets if the bettor is located on school property.

The proposal specifically addresses college students placing online sports wagers while on campus. It does not describe a broader statewide prohibition on sports betting, nor does it suggest changes to general eligibility requirements for wagering outside school grounds. Instead, the focus is on geographic restrictions tied to campus property.

If enacted, the measure would require sports betting operators to ensure that wagers are not accepted from individuals located within designated school areas. As described, the responsibility would fall on operators to prevent such transactions when the bettor is on campus.

Legislative Process and Committee Review

Following its introduction, Senate Bill 10470 was referred to the Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee. Referral to committee marks the initial stage of formal legislative review.

At this stage, lawmakers in the committee evaluate the proposal, consider its language, and determine whether it should proceed further in the Senate. The committee may hold discussions or recommend amendments before deciding whether to advance the bill.

The referral indicates that the proposal is under consideration but has not yet been approved or enacted. Additional legislative steps would be required before the measure could become law.

Implications for Sports Betting Operators

As outlined in the bill summary, sports betting operators would be directly affected if the measure becomes law. The prohibition would prevent operators from accepting wagers from people located on school property.

The proposal therefore introduces a location based restriction tied specifically to college campuses. Operators would need to ensure compliance with any such rule by preventing wagers placed from these locations.

For users of online sports betting platforms in New York, the measure would create a clear distinction between wagering permitted off campus and wagering restricted while physically present on school grounds.

Relevance for College Students and Online Bettors

The bill is framed around college students placing online sports wagers while on campus. By targeting wagers made from school property, the legislation addresses access within educational environments.

If passed, individuals located on college campuses would not be able to place online sports bets during their time on school grounds. The restriction would be based on physical location rather than user status alone.

For students and other individuals who use online sports betting services, the proposal highlights the importance of understanding where wagers can legally be placed. The measure focuses on campus property as a restricted zone for online betting activity.

Our Assessment

Senate Bill 10470 represents a targeted legislative effort to restrict online sports betting activity on college campuses in New York. Introduced by Senator Andrew Gounardes and referred to the Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee, the proposal would prohibit operators from accepting wagers from individuals located on school property. At this stage, the bill is under committee review and has not yet advanced further in the legislative process. If enacted, it would establish a location based limitation on online sports betting within college environments.

Spain Blocks Polymarket and Kalshi – Regulators Investigate Alleged Unlicensed Gambling Operations

Key Takeaways

Spain Orders ISP Blocks While Investigation Proceeds

Spain’s Ministry of Consumer Rights has announced a temporary block on prediction market platforms Polymarket and Kalshi. The measure was published in the Official State Gazette and instructs internet service providers to restrict access to both platforms within the country.

According to the ministry, Spain’s gambling regulator, the Dirección General de Ordenación del Juego (DGOJ), has initiated sanctioning proceedings against the two US based operators. The regulator alleges that the companies have been offering services in Spain without obtaining the mandatory administrative authorization required under national gambling law.

The access restriction is expected to remain in place for three to four months while the investigation continues. During this period, users attempting to visit the affected websites are expected to receive warning notices stating that they are trying to access an unlicensed gambling operator.

Spanish authorities stated that previous attempts to notify the companies at known foreign addresses were unsuccessful. As a result, the regulator issued formal notices through publication in the state gazette.

Why Spain Classifies Prediction Markets as Gambling

The DGOJ has clarified that it considers prediction markets to fall within Spain’s gambling framework. The regulator’s position is that these platforms involve placing bets on uncertain future outcomes, which brings them under the scope of existing gambling legislation.

Under Spanish law, operators offering gambling services must obtain specific licenses before serving customers in the country. This requirement applies regardless of whether the products resemble traditional sports betting or alternative formats such as event based contracts.

Polymarket and Kalshi allow users to trade positions on the outcomes of future events rather than place conventional sportsbook or casino wagers. Markets listed on these platforms have included elections, geopolitical developments, economic events, and political leadership changes.

Examples cited include markets related to whether Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez would leave office early and which global political leaders might depart their posts during the year. Spanish authorities argue that these types of contracts meet the definition of gambling because they involve staking funds on uncertain outcomes.

Consumer Protection Requirements Under Spanish Law

In outlining its position, the DGOJ emphasized that unauthorized operators do not provide several consumer protection mechanisms required under Spanish regulation.

These include identity verification systems designed to confirm the age and identity of users, controls to prevent minors from accessing gambling services, and safeguards for individuals who have self excluded or are otherwise banned from gambling. Spanish law also mandates additional oversight mechanisms aimed at protecting consumers.

According to officials, platforms operating without a local license are not subject to these requirements. The regulator’s enforcement action therefore addresses both licensing compliance and the application of consumer protection standards.

For users in Spain, this means access to Polymarket and Kalshi is restricted until the investigation concludes or the regulatory status changes.

Growing European Scrutiny of Prediction Markets

Spain’s decision adds to a broader pattern of regulatory scrutiny across Europe. Polymarket was blocked in France in 2024 after authorities concluded that its activities were likely incompatible with French law.

Other European jurisdictions that have restricted access to the platform include Germany, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Romania, the Netherlands, and Poland. These actions reflect a shared regulatory concern about how prediction markets fit within existing legal frameworks.

At the same time, approaches differ across jurisdictions. Malta has publicly stated that it is examining the prediction market sector and potential regulatory options. Earlier this year, Gibraltar granted a license to its first prediction market operator.

These contrasting measures illustrate an ongoing debate about classification. Some regulators treat prediction markets as gambling because participants stake money on uncertain outcomes. Others are assessing whether such products could fall under financial market, securities, or commodities rules.

Prediction markets have grown from a niche online activity into a multibillion dollar sector, particularly after increased visibility during the 2024 US presidential election cycle. As the sector has expanded, regulators have intensified their focus on licensing requirements, legal classification, and consumer protection standards.

Possible Next Steps for the Operators

Once the Spanish investigation concludes, several formal outcomes are possible within the regulatory process. Polymarket and Kalshi could seek to obtain the necessary local licenses, challenge the regulatory classification applied to their services, or adjust their offerings to align with Spanish requirements.

A final ruling is expected within three to four months. Until then, the ISP block remains in effect and Spanish users are prevented from accessing the platforms.

Our Assessment

Spain’s decision formally places prediction market platforms within its gambling regulatory framework and subjects them to the same licensing and consumer protection standards as other gambling operators. For users and operators, the case highlights how different European jurisdictions are addressing the legal status of event based trading platforms. The outcome of the Spanish proceedings will determine whether Polymarket and Kalshi can operate under local authorization or remain restricted in the market.

Ethereum Treasury Firms Increase Staking Revenue as Spot ETFs Reshape Public Market Exposure

Key Takeaways

Staking Becomes Core Revenue Source for ETH Treasury Companies

Ethereum treasury companies are increasingly relying on staking and other yield-generating strategies as pressure builds from spot crypto exchange-traded funds. This shift is outlined in a new report by staking infrastructure provider Everstake, which analyzed 15 publicly listed firms pursuing ETH treasury strategies.

Among six companies that separately disclosed staking-related income, staking accounted for an average of 60% of reported revenue. These companies include BitMine Immersion Technologies, SharpLink, Bit Digital, Forum Markets, BTCS and FG Nexus. Everstake excluded companies that did not break out staking rewards in their financial reporting or had pending annual results.

The figures suggest that staking has moved from a supplementary activity to a central revenue component for a subset of ETH treasury firms. In practice, this means that companies holding Ether are deploying part of their holdings to generate yield rather than relying solely on price appreciation.

Losses Highlight Financial Pressure Across the Sector

The Everstake report also highlights the financial strain facing parts of the sector. Companies in its sample that reported losses for 2025 posted about $1.41 billion in combined net losses.

Separately, BitMine Immersion Technologies reported a $9.02 billion net loss for the six months ended Feb. 28. According to the report, this figure was driven largely by unrealized losses on digital assets rather than operating losses. This distinction reflects the impact of digital asset price movements on balance sheets, particularly for firms with significant crypto holdings.

The reported losses underline that staking income alone does not shield companies from broader market volatility or accounting impacts linked to asset revaluations.

Spot ETFs Reduce the Appeal of Passive ETH Holding Models

Everstake frames the increased focus on staking within a broader repricing of digital asset treasury companies. These firms previously offered one of the few regulated pathways for public market investors to gain exposure to crypto assets.

According to the report, the introduction and expansion of spot crypto ETFs have weakened the premium previously attached to companies that simply hold Ether on their balance sheets. Spot ETFs provide investors with more direct exposure to crypto assets, which may reduce the relative appeal of equity vehicles that rely on passive holdings as their core strategy.

Everstake co-founder Bohdan Opryshko stated in the report that digital asset treasury companies relying on passive exposure are being structurally repriced. He added that asset deployment is no longer limited to standard protocol staking and now includes liquid staking, decentralized finance lending and validator-level strategies.

Opryshko clarified that the study does not argue staking revenue alone can support every ETH treasury model or offset all associated risks. He noted that ETH price volatility, share dilution, net asset value discounts, financing costs and operating expenses can outweigh staking yield, particularly for companies with weaker capital structures or less efficient treasury management.

He described the report’s central conclusion as narrower in scope: passive ETH accumulation is becoming harder to justify as a standalone public market strategy in an environment where spot crypto ETFs provide cleaner access to passive exposure. In that context, staking and other forms of active asset deployment may become necessary, though not sufficient, to sustain ETH treasury models.

ETFs as a Pressure Point, but Not the Only Factor

Ignacio Aguirre, chief marketing officer at crypto exchange Bitget, also commented on the competitive dynamics between ETH treasury companies and spot ETFs. He said that spot ETFs have made it more difficult for treasury companies to justify a valuation premium based solely on ETH exposure.

However, Aguirre cautioned against attributing the repricing entirely to ETFs. He emphasized that ETH treasury companies are equity vehicles, meaning investors evaluate them based not only on crypto exposure but also on balance sheet quality, dilution risk, treasury strategy, execution and broader market sentiment.

Aguirre stated that staking can strengthen the ETH treasury model by creating a recurring revenue stream. At the same time, he noted that the practical impact depends on whether the generated yield is sufficient to offset operating costs, dilution and asset price volatility.

He added that staking-enabled ETH ETFs could represent a future competitive factor for treasury companies. Nonetheless, he described such products as more complementary than existential threats in the current landscape.

For investors and market participants, including users monitoring the broader crypto ecosystem, these developments indicate that public companies holding Ether are adapting their strategies in response to changing access routes and investor expectations.

Our Assessment

The Everstake report documents a measurable shift in revenue composition among selected ETH treasury companies, with staking representing 60% of disclosed revenue for six firms. At the same time, significant reported losses across the sector highlight continued exposure to digital asset price movements and structural costs. The findings show that as spot crypto ETFs expand access to passive ETH exposure, treasury companies are increasingly turning to active yield strategies to support their financial models, while still facing market and balance sheet risks.