US Bitcoin ETFs Record $338 Million Daily Inflows

Roman Storm's Retrial Delayed as Treasury’s Crypto Warning Looms "A frying pan doesn't hold the heat, but it transmits the heat": @valkenburgh's read on the DOJ's case against Roman Storm, whose Tornado Cash retrial just slid to April 2027. On Uneasy Money, @kain and @tayvano_ press him on whether Bessent's "economic D-Day" sanctions push reaches @Uniswap next. 🍳 Timestamps: 🎯 01:26 Bessent brands Iran sanctions 'economic D-Day', DeFi not exempt 🏦 11:15 Van Valkenburgh explains the freeze-and-seize rules coming for stablecoins 💰 15:18 Bessent claims a $1B Iranian crypto rug, but the receipts don't add up 🌊 25:08 1inch Aqua: back multiple liquidity positions with one wallet balance at https://t.co/2ZfndbOT6F ⚖️ 25:50 Roman Storm's retrial slips to April as an acquittal motion looms 🔐 38:24 Why Van Valkenburgh calls Tornado Cash's developer a hero, not a villain 📜 47:22 SEC's 'Reg Crypto' plan opens two new paths to raise ICO-like capital 🏇 58:07 Trump name-drops Hyperliquid, raising hard questions for the CFTC

🚨NEW: The @USOCC and @FDICgov are moving to finalize a rule that would define the term “unsafe or unsound practices” in relation to bank supervision. This term has been undefined for years, and has relied on the broad discretion of bank examiners. The rule would require supervisors to tie alleged unsafe or unsound practices to an actual violation of law or material financial risk, making it harder to use vague reputational or procedural concerns to pressure banks over lawful customers, including crypto companies. It marks another significant step toward unwinding “Operation Choke Point 2.0.”

Sgp-3 burn based on requested CUs is basically the same thing as we had a year ago, with 50% of the priority fees burned. Priority is priced per requested CU. If there were no side channel attacks, and 12 different teams weren’t building alternative tpu ports, it’s a super easy way to align incentives. It’s sgp-3 is just a static price per requested CU instead of a dynamic. The starting value is well below the 50% burn we had a year ago. It’s pretty close to the current signature base fee. A lot of complains are about an end state that I think is unrealistic. There is no way the validators will approve a static price that is more than the 50% burn of whatever the priority fees are because that will just take way too much off validator revenues.