Regulation
EU Commission Denies Pre-Warning On Donald Trump And Elon Musk Interview
The EU Commission has noted that a letter that was sent from Thierry Breton, the EU Internal Market Commissioner to Elon Musk, owner of the social media platform X was not green-lit by Ursula von der Leyen the commission’s president.
Subsequently, the letter threatened Musk with legal action under the Digital Services Act (DSA) if content on X endangered EU citizens. It was published on the platform shortly before Musk’s interview with the US presidential candidate Donald Trump.
EU Commission Denies Pre-Warning on Trump Musk Interview
According to a Financial Times report, the EU Commission has denied giving any prior approval to Thierry Breton’s letter to Elon Musk. The letter, shared on X, addressed Musk to the platform’s adherence to the Digital Services Act, including the removal of content with adverse effects on EU citizens.
The Commission also said that neither the timing of the letter, nor its content was cleared with or by the president of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen or other commissioners.
BREAKING: EU accused its internal market commissioner of going rogue by sending a letter to Elon Musk threatening punishment hours before Elon interviewed US presidential candidate Donald Trump on X.
— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) August 13, 2024
One of the EU officials who wished to remain anonymous stated that Breton has been known to work autonomously at times, sometimes without the input of other top officials in the Commission. The timing of the letter, which came following Musk’s meeting with Donald Trump, was questioned within the Commission. The letter focused on Musk’s obligation to censor negative content on X because the platform has many users, and one-third of them are in the EU.
Investigation into X’s Compliance with DSA
As of now, the EU Commission is probing X for possible violation of the Digital Services Act, which was enacted in 2022 in response to increasing dependence on social media. This case is linked to the handling of the illegal content and the spreading of the disinformation which are the concerns that are emerging in the EU. The Commission has noted that X’s approach to addressing the issue of problematic content will be crucial in the further investigation.
In his letter, Breton provided specific examples of how content found on X was related to some recent protests and expressed concerns regarding the role of the platform in ensuring that freedom of speech does not lead to public threats. The letter also brought to mind that Musk has certain legal obligations under the DSA, with regards to the measures which need to be taken proportionately to address the issue of amplification of harmful content.
Nonetheless, if the platform is considered to have violated the Digital Services Act, it may be subject to severe sanctions, including fines of up to 6% of the company’s global turnover. Initial revelations of the probe have also accused X of not being clear on its marketing strategies and of deceiving its consumers through the paid subscription-based blue tick verification process.
Elon Musk’s X Probed in Austria and Pushes Antitrust Case
However, the platform has also faced other legal challenges in Europe apart from the scrutiny of the EU commission. Recently, the Austrian privacy organisation NOYB complained against X to the Irish DPAs claiming that the platform uses personal data for AI training without valid consent from the users. The complaint filed by the privacy activist Max Schrems has led to X being investigated for possible breaches of data protection laws in Austria.
Concurrently, the platform is currently involved in an antitrust lawsuit against several big names and an advertising industry body, accusing them of conspiring to cause harm to the platform.
As reported by Coingape, X’s CEO Linda Yaccarino stated that the lawsuit is against companies such as CVS Health, Mars, and Unilever, all of which are accused of colluding to damage Elon Musk platform and other conservative media organisations.
Kelvin Munene Murithi
Kelvin is a distinguished writer specializing in crypto and finance, backed by a Bachelor’s in Actuarial Science. Recognized for incisive analysis and insightful content, he has an adept command of English and excels at thorough research and timely delivery.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Polymarket, a crypto-based prediction market, is likely to be prohibited by France’s gambling regulator, the ANJ, after a huge amount of bets were placed on the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Since the global audience engaged in prediction platforms, Polymarket experienced a record jump, with $450 million expected to be distributed to users following the victory of Donald Trump.
This increase of betting volume and large stakes has become a matter of concern for the French regulator because the platform offers unlicensed gambling services.
$450 Million in Payouts Expected After U.S. Election Bets
Prediction markets, which are expected to increase their payout to election bettors to around $450m following Donald Trump’s projected win, are attracting increasing attention.
Although conventional polls pointed to a closer contest, prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi recorded a steep rise in Trump’s chances in the last few days, indicating a strong divergence with poll-based expectations.
Among the active users of Polymarket, a French trader called “Theo” made a $26 million bet on Trump’s win and won $49 million. This big bet made Polymarket popular, as the French authorities paid attention to the platform and its popularity among French residents, which led to concerns about the compliance of the platform with French gambling legislation.
France’s ANJ Considers Blocking Access to Polymarket
The ANJ has claimed that Polymarket is involved in gambling which is only allowed in France by licensed operators. According to local media, the regulator has the power to ban access to unlicensed gambling sites and is expected to restrict access to Polymarket soon.
An ANJ insider said: “Polymarket is just betting on something that is completely uncertain, which is exactly what gambling is.”
If put in place, the ban would prevent the usage of the application in France, despite the fact that users can still try to avoid the restriction by connecting to VPN. The ANJ could also try to influence media outlets and directories to stop advertising or linking to Polymarket and, thus, limit its audiences even more.
Regulatory Concerns Over Market Manipulation
The high level of activity on Polymarket has led to speculations that the platform may be used for market manipulation. Two blockchain analysis firms, Chaos Labs and Inca Digital, recently revealed that there was potential wash trading within Polymarket’s U.S. presidential betting market where the same assets are bought and sold to simply create a fake market. This type of trading is rather manipulative and can lead to the distortion of signals on the market and mislead other participants.
The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission also has concerns about prediction markets and put forward a rule in May aiming at stricter regulation of such markets due to the potential for manipulation.
Although no final decision has been reached, regulatory actions could impact Polymarket’s ability to operate freely in other markets, including the U.S.
Kelvin Munene Murithi
Kelvin is a distinguished writer with expertise in crypto and finance, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Actuarial Science. Known for his incisive analysis and insightful content, he possesses a strong command of English and excels in conducting thorough research and delivering timely cryptocurrency market updates.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
FTX co-founder Gary Wang has requested a federal judge not to send him to prison. He noted that he is testifying against the former business partner, Sam Bankman-Fried, someone he has known for a long time in a fraud case.
The lawyer for Wang submitted a sentencing memo in Manhattan federal court wherein he claimed that his client should not be incarcerated as he provided assistance to the prosecutors as well as his role in the scheme was comparatively less.
Wang, who pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy when FTX went bankrupt in 2022, is to receive his sentencing on the 20th of November.
FTX Co-Founder Gary Wang Appeals for No Jail Time
The defense counsel for FTX co-founder Gary Wang highlighted his client’s early cooperation with the federal prosecutors as one of the key reasons why the court should consider him for mercy. According to Graff, Wang was one of the first FTX executives to meet with the authorities and share information on the FTX and Alameda Research. Wang gave a testimony in the trial that led to the recent conviction of Bankman-Fried who was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Speaking at the trial, Wang described how he was ordered to change the code of FTX in order to enable Alameda Research to use the assets of the company’s clients, which is one of the key points of Bankman-Fried’s fraud.
FTX co-founder’s lawyer noted that his involvement in the fraud was less than some of the other former executives, including Caroline Ellison, former CEO of Alameda Research, and Nishad Singh, FTX’s former head of engineering. Wang, his lawyer said, did not start or operate the scheme and was not personally involved in the provision of false information to the investors.
“Gary was not involved in the scheme at its inception, was never provided with details of the scheme, and, in contrast to Bankman-Fried, Ellison and Singh, never engaged in any affirmative action of deception,” Graff wrote.
Sentencing Comparisons to Other Executives
Wang’s attorney argued that a prison sentence would create an “unwarranted sentencing disparity” with Nishad Singh, who avoided jail time after pleading guilty and cooperating with the government. Singh, who faced potential decades-long sentences, was ultimately sentenced to time served and three years of supervised release.
Ellison, another major cooperator, received a two-year prison sentence. FTX co-founder Gary Wang contended that Wang’s level of involvement was even lower than Singh’s, supporting a non-custodial sentence for Wang as well.
Graff also noted Wang’s personal circumstances, stating that Wang is expecting the birth of his first child shortly after his sentencing date. Wang’s attorney suggested that allowing him to remain with his family would align with the court’s treatment of other cooperators in the case.
“Gary wants nothing more than to be a good husband and father and to continue his work to facilitate FTX victims’ recovery,” Graff wrote.
Separately, the U.S. government is working to reclaim approximately $13.25 million in political donations made by FTX executives, including Bankman-Fried and Singh. Judge Lewis Kaplan however granted the government additional time to negotiate the return of these funds, extending discussions with the PACs until January 15, 2025.
Kelvin Munene Murithi
Kelvin is a distinguished writer with expertise in crypto and finance, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Actuarial Science. Known for his incisive analysis and insightful content, he possesses a strong command of English and excels in conducting thorough research and delivering timely cryptocurrency market updates.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has filed a motion seeking judgment in its case against cryptocurrency exchange Kraken, focusing on defenses such as “fair notice” and the “major questions doctrine.”
This move, led by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler’s team, aims to limit further discovery into the agency’s regulatory policies, particularly those affecting the crypto sector. The timing of the filing has drawn attention, as some in the industry view it as a strategic attempt to shield the SEC’s methods from closer examination.
US SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken
The SEC’s motion seeks to dismiss defenses put forward by Kraken that include the fair notice defense and the major questions doctrine. The fair notice defense argues that Kraken did not receive adequate regulatory guidance regarding its crypto-related activities.
Meanwhile, the major questions doctrine suggests that regulatory agencies, such as the SEC, should not make major policy decisions without clear direction from Congress.
Subsequently, the US SEC’s motion appears intended to prevent further discovery into its policies, which Kraken and other crypto advocates have criticized as inconsistent and unclear. A similar motion was filed in Ripple case, where the US SEC failed to secure a judgment. Michael O’Connor, an attorney representing Kraken expects a similar outcome in the Kraken case, though Kraken has indicated that it has additional defenses should this motion proceed.
This Is A Breaking News, Please Check Back For More
Kelvin Munene Murithi
Kelvin is a distinguished writer with expertise in crypto and finance, holding a Bachelor’s degree in Actuarial Science. Known for his incisive analysis and insightful content, he possesses a strong command of English and excels in conducting thorough research and delivering timely cryptocurrency market updates.
Disclaimer: The presented content may include the personal opinion of the author and is subject to market condition. Do your market research before investing in cryptocurrencies. The author or the publication does not hold any responsibility for your personal financial loss.
Ethereum Foundation Launches Pectra Tesnet ‘Mekong’, ETH Price Set For $4000
Polymarket Faces Ban in France as US Election Betting Ends
Trump and Lummis Unite on $76 Billion National Bitcoin Reserve
MrBeast faces allegations of crypto insider trading
Why Bitcoin Users Are Moving to Altcoins? As Ethereum Price Jumps 11%
XRP Price Ready to Rally? Signs Point to a Bullish Move
2.52 Million Altcoins Are Ruining Crypto’s Future
Animoca Brands Valuation Tanks 75% In Two Years, Here’s Why
Crypto exchange BingX hacked for $43 million
Are The Big Players Losing Interest?
Coinbase cbBTC Set to go Live on Solana
Hong Kong’s Securities Association Tips Authorities On Crypto Self-Regulation
2.52 Million Altcoins Are Ruining Crypto’s Future
Animoca Brands Valuation Tanks 75% In Two Years, Here’s Why
Crypto exchange BingX hacked for $43 million
Are The Big Players Losing Interest?
Coinbase cbBTC Set to go Live on Solana
Hong Kong’s Securities Association Tips Authorities On Crypto Self-Regulation
-
Altcoin21 hours agoXRP Price At Risk As Ripple Moves $250M?
-
Ethereum14 hours agoEthereum Analyst Sets $3,400 Target Once ETH Breaks Key Resistance – Details
-
Market12 hours agoBitcoin Price Pushes Rally Further: Bulls in Full Force
-
Altcoin23 hours agoShiba Inu Burn Rate Rockets 3,700% Sparking Optimism, SHIB To Hit $2?
-
Market10 hours agoSolana (SOL) Rallies Strongly, Setting Sights on $200
-
Altcoin22 hours agoRipple CLO Reveals How Donald Trump Can Make US The Crypto Capital
-
Regulation19 hours agoUS SEC Files Motion for Judgment Against Kraken, Challenges Key Defenses
-
Ethereum6 hours agoMrBeast faces allegations of crypto insider trading
✓ Share: