Prediction market Kalshi filed a lawsuit against the Nevada Gaming Control Board and the New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement after both state regulators sent cease and desist orders for the firm to pause all sports-related contracts in the states.

Kalshi’s legal team argued that the contracts fall under the jurisdiction of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and, therefore, cannot be regulated by state-level authorities.

The team also contends that the cease and desist orders fail to recognize that Kalshi’s event contracts are two-sided markets that trade as swaps as opposed to the sports-betting book model where the house controls the market. Kalshi co-founder Tarek Mansour said:

“Prediction markets are a critical innovation of the 21st century, and like all innovations, they are initially misunderstood. We are proud to be the company that has pioneered this technology and stand ready to defend it once again in a court of law.”

Additionally, the Nevada Gaming Control Board sent Kalshi a cease and desist order for its election contracts, which a United States judge ruled were legal in September 2024 — allowing the contracts to trade freely in the US.

Kalshi lawsuit against Nevada Gaming Control Board. Source: Kalshi

Related: Massachusetts subpoenas Robinhood over sports prediction markets

CFTC commits to ending regulation by enforcement

On Feb 4, acting CFTC director Caroline Pham issued a notice signaling a major regulatory pivot at the CFTC and ending regulation through enforcement actions, choosing to focus on fraud instead.

“The CFTC is strengthening its enforcement program to focus on victims of fraud, as well as remaining vigilant for other violations of law,” Pham said

This major change at the CFTC was welcomed by industry firms as a breath of fresh air following a torrent of regulatory lawsuits and enforcement actions under the Biden administration.

The regulator also initiated a probe into Super Bowl event contracts offered by Kalshi and Crypto.Com on the same day the notice was sent out.

The goal of the CFTC’s probe was to ensure that the Super Bowl event contracts complied with existing derivatives laws in the US, and the CFTC ultimately took no action to ban the contracts.

Magazine: Train AI agents to make better predictions… for token rewards

Opinion by: Alisia Painter, chief operating officer of Botanix Labs

Without Ethereum, the industry wouldn’t be where it is today in terms of bringing decentralized finance (DeFi) to life, making programmability a key feature of blockchains and proving the value of smart contracts at scale. The Ethereum Virtual Machine has become the go-to platform for developers, with the largest ecosystem and tooling.

As DeFi matures, however, it’s worth asking: Is Ethereum the best foundation for the future of financial innovation? Well, the answer might just be Bitcoin.

With nearly $6 billion in total value locked as of March 2025, Bitcoin’s decentralization, liquidity and resilience position it as the natural home for the next era of onchain finance, and while Ethereum’s flexibility has enabled an explosion of experimentation, that same flexibility has come with trade-offs.

From vulnerabilities in smart contracts we’ve seen in big-name hacks to ongoing debates around scalability, Ethereum’s experimental ethos has left cracks in its foundation. By contrast, Bitcoin offers a solid, battle-tested infrastructure where DeFi can flourish sustainably and cross the chasm from degens into mainstream adoption.

Ethereum’s contribution and limitations

Ethereum was responsible for pioneering what we know to be DeFi today. This innovation and development served as a testing ground for what Bitcoin is capable of and can ultimately achieve. Its programmability has empowered developers to create everything from automated lending platforms to sophisticated derivatives. These products exist solely because of Ethereum’s smart contract capabilities.

With that flexibility came serious trade-offs, and we’ve seen them play out in real-time. The DAO hack in 2016 drained $50 million and nearly killed Ethereum in its infancy. The 2022 Wormhole exploit cost $325 million in recent years, and the Ronin Bridge hack took $620 million.

These weren’t just bad luck — they’re the predictable result of Ethereum’s open-ended programmability. Smart contracts are powerful, but they’re also complex. Complexity breeds vulnerability. Solidity simply wasn’t designed with security as the primary consideration.

Recent: Ethereum researcher pitches solution to fix centralization woes, eliminate MEV

At the same time, Ethereum’s scaling challenges have made it increasingly inaccessible. 

Network congestion and gas fees soaring to hundreds of dollars during peak periods have effectively locked out average users. Seasoned users will be very well accustomed to the eye-watering gas fees required just to make basic swaps during times of high network congestion. Layer-2 solutions like Optimism and Arbitrum have made great progress, but they fragment liquidity and introduce their own trust assumptions.

This isn’t to say Ethereum is failing. It’s not. As DeFi matures beyond its experimental phase and becomes more mainstream in global finance, we need to ask whether it makes sense to keep building on this foundation or to consider a more resilient alternative.

Why Bitcoin?

Bitcoin’s design philosophy is radically different. It isn’t a platform for unlimited experimentation; it’s a fortress of stability. Its conservative development ethos and proof-of-work consensus make Bitcoin the most secure blockchain in existence. This security translates into trust — a critical ingredient for DeFi applications handling billions of dollars in value.

Liquidity is another advantage Bitcoin offers. With a market capitalization that dwarfs Ether’s (ETH), Bitcoin (BTC) is the most liquid cryptocurrency, making it an ideal base layer for DeFi. The rise of technologies like Bitcoin’s Lightning Network and sidechains like Spiderchain are already unlocking Bitcoin’s potential for smart contracts, offering the programmability developers need without sacrificing security or scalability.

Not all Bitcoin projects are created equal 

Many so-called Bitcoin L2s and sidechains claim to be “Bitcoin native,” offering applications the promise of leveraging Bitcoin’s intrinsic security properties.

Let’s set the record straight: Many aren’t truly Bitcoin-native.

Without pointing fingers, these projects often rely on custodial multisig setups, bridge Bitcoin to Ethereum or another chain, and then build rollups on top. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with this approach, and there will be use cases that work with this set of trust assumptions, it’s not the same as being natively built on Bitcoin.

True Bitcoin L2s are designed directly on Bitcoin, tapping into its liquidity, security and resilience — qualities that have withstood the test of time. If we want to expand DeFi capabilities, we must build them on Bitcoin. It’s a straightforward ask, but one worth reiterating as we see major players exploring paths that may not fully align with Bitcoin’s potential.

The path forward

The debate shouldn’t be framed as Ethereum versus Bitcoin. That’s a false binary. Ethereum’s innovation-first approach has been crucial in proving what’s possible, and it remains an essential hub of DeFi experimentation. Bitcoin offers something Ethereum doesn’t: a foundation that has already earned the trust of the broader financial world.

Users shouldn’t have to choose between security and functionality. Bitcoin’s resilience is combined with sophisticated financial tools similar to those pioneered by Ethereum. Some of the most exciting work happening now is at this intersection.

For DeFi to fulfill its promise of creating a fair, open and inclusive financial system, it must move beyond its experimental phase. It must be secure enough that average people can use it without fear of losing everything to an exploit. It needs liquidity deep enough to support real-world financial activity. And it requires the kind of institutional trust that only Bitcoin has achieved.

The future of finance will be built on Bitcoin not because Ethereum failed but because Bitcoin provides the foundation that finance demands.

Opinion by: Alisia Painter, chief operating officer of Botanix Labs

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Institutional adoption of Bitcoin in the European Union remains sluggish, even as the United States moves forward with landmark cryptocurrency regulations that seek to establish BTC as a national reserve asset.

More than three weeks after President Donald Trump’s March 7 executive order outlined plans to use cryptocurrency seized in criminal cases to create a federal Bitcoin (BTC) reserve, European companies have largely remained silent on the issue.

The stagnation may stem from Europe’s complex regulatory regime, according to Elisenda Fabrega, general counsel at Brickken, a European real-world asset (RWA) tokenization platform.

“European corporate adoption remains limited,” Fabrega told Cointelegraph, adding:

“This hesitation reflects a deeper structural divide, rooted in regulation, institutional signaling and market maturity. Europe has yet to take a definitive stance on Bitcoin as a reserve asset.”

Bitcoin’s economic model favors early adopters, which may pressure more investment firms to consider gaining exposure to BTC. The asset has outperformed most major global assets since Trump’s election despite a recent correction.

Asset performance since Trump’s election victory. Source: Thomas Fahrer

Despite Trump’s executive order, only a small number of European companies have publicly disclosed Bitcoin holdings or crypto services. These include French banking giant BNP Paribas, Swiss firm 21Shares AG, VanEck Europe, Malta-based Jacobi Asset Management and Austrian fintech firm Bitpanda.

A recent Bitpanda survey suggests that European financial institutions may be underestimating crypto investor demand by as much as 30%.

Related: Friday’s US inflation report may catalyze a Bitcoin April rally

Europe’s “fragmented” regulatory landscape lacks clarity

The EU’s slower adoption appears tied to its patchwork of regulations and more conservative investment mandates, analysts at Bitfinex told Cointelegraph. “Europe’s institutional landscape is more fragmented, with regulatory hurdles and conservative investment mandates limiting Bitcoin allocations.”

“Additionally, European pension funds and large asset managers have been slower to adopt Bitcoin exposure due to unclear guidelines and risk aversion,” they added.

Related: Bitcoin ‘more likely’ to hit $110K before $76.5K — Arthur Hayes

Beyond the fragmented regulations, European retail investor appetite and retail participation are generally lower than in the US, according to Iliya Kalchev, dispatch analyst at digital asset investment platform Nexo.

Europe is “generally more conservative in adopting new financial instruments,” the analyst told Cointelegraph, adding:

“This stands in stark contrast to the deep, liquid, and relatively unified US capital market, where the spot Bitcoin ETF rollout was buoyed by strong retail demand and a clear regulatory green light.”

iShares Bitcoin ETP listings. Source: BlackRock

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, launched a Bitcoin exchange-traded product (ETP) in Europe on March 25, a development that may boost institutional confidence among European investors.

Magazine: Bitcoiner sex trap extortion? BTS firm’s blockchain disaster: Asia Express