Cena SuperRareRARE

The crypto community has definitely seen some failure stories. Stories about bankruptcy and legal ruin are common in the crypto landscape. The latest addition to the list is the FTX bankruptcy case. The latest court records in the FTX case proceedings show that the firm has nearly paid $948 million out of the $952 million in legal fees. Bloomberg reports that despite the hefty cost, most customers will receive at least 118% of their claims. This is a rare case of phenomena in a bankruptcy proceeding. The high fees are due to the massive legal effort that the company had to bear to collect funds spread across the globe. In other words, the legal aid is what pushed this case forward. As a result, FTX had to pay such high legal aid. Sources suggest that the company used up all of its hedge funds. At press time, the company started playing the creditors while the legal team pinpointed other assets. Scale Of The Case As of now, the FTX case’s cost has exceeded some of the other similar cases like the Celsius, Genesis, Voyager, and BlockFi bankruptcy cases. All of these cases have incurred a total cost of about $502 million. This shows the magnitude of the FTX case. While The FTX case is one of the biggest crypto bankruptcy cases, it is still well below the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy case, which amounted to $6 billion. In fact, Bloomberg suggests that the Lehman Brothers case is the biggest bankruptcy case in the history of the US. The post FTX’s bankruptcy nears $1B in costs, ranking among the most expensive in history appeared first on Coinfomania.

Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial. The web3 gaming industry has long been touted as a key driver for blockchain adoption, but web3 gaming itself needs new development ideas to remain attractive to both the existing user base and new web2 users. You might also like: The gaming industry can finally solve its biggest problem | Opinion One potential step for blockchain-based gaming could be the source traditional gaming once explored—movies. Taking movies to gaming used to be a powerful and time-proven formula: think about Dune, Robocop, The Matrix, Spider-Man, The Lord of the Rings… Yet, despite the explosive growth of web3, this powerful connection remains largely unexplored by both blockchain gaming projects and the film industry. The gap between studios and game developers must be bridged once again. This time—with new frontiers for fan engagement, interactive storytelling, and next-gen gaming economies—with web3. And this synergy is something that the movie industry needs back as well. Amid the rise of streaming and the post-COVID-19 decline in cinema-goers, the industry’s revenue model has shifted to alternative sources like merch, licensing, and integration. Bringing IP licensing to web3 gaming is a win-win-win strategy: millions of new users into the users for blockchain, revitalized interest in gaming, and an additional revenue source for movie studios. Integration in gaming is not a novel concept—think about all the digital concerts and brand placement in Fortnite or Roblox, the game that effectively became a metaverse of its own. From Netflix opening its playable worlds in Roblox to Marvel Rivals solidifying its position in Steam’s Top 3, such titles have been extremely successful in merging cinema and gaming. Taking the traction and revenue generation just one step further is an intuitive concept, but it’s complicated by licensing. Licensing IP is still a major roadblock Licensing IP for games has always been a slow, costly, and opaque process. Traditional licensing is a multi-stage negotiation game: from accumulating reputation and establishing a lasting relationship to navigating the nuances of cross-jurisdictional complex contracts. Despite the obvious mutual benefits, this IP licensing still remains a bespoke procedure with extreme barriers to entry. The World Intellectual Property Organization attempts to standardize intellectual property usage, but its guidance is limited by the lack of enforcement practices. Even the well-examined and regulated jurisdictions fail to address the fringe copyright violation cases. What is to be said of developing regulations and ambiguous contract interpretations? Putting implementation vagueness aside, even straightforward and universally understood contracts remain a bane: prolonged negotiations significantly delay the products’ time to market, and the legal and administrative fees cut into the profits for both studios and developers. Disputes over revenue sharing and rights management, capped royalty payments, advertisement — the list can go on and on. Can blockchain help? Theoretically speaking, blockchain can easily solve these pain points. From standardized audited smart-contract licensing to immutable and transparent revenue tracking and automated payments, monetizing intellectual property becomes simple when taken on-chain. Think about unlocking the administrative resource that is currently chained by the necessity for constant supervision—isn’t this efficiency optimization in pure form? The problem is that while the technology is ready, the regulatory environment is lagging behind. Yes, blockchain will eventually become the readily available solution for streamlining intellectual property management, but only when the entire legal system is overhauled to support it. This also requires a global enforcement system and a set of court precedents in major jurisdictions as a foundational interpretation textbook. It is a very complex issue with numerous moving parts, so, at least in the near future, I don’t see IP licensing leaving its off-chain contractual domain. This doesn’t mean, however, that we shouldn’t get ready for the take-off: its time will certainly come. There is another virtue that blockchain can bring to gaming besides IP management: ownership of in-game assets. Would Counter-Strike be this massively popular had it had no tradeable skins? I doubt so. This is a multimillion-dollar economy with its own high-frequency traders, market-makers, collectors, appraisals, and third-party platforms. Now, think about all the slippages and lack of liquidity. Full non-custodial ownership is the solution. This non-custodial digital ownership can extend past the limits of a single game or a platform. Imagine a world where skins, weapons, avatars, in-game progress, or even entire game worlds can be transferred seamlessly from one game to another. This may become a reality sooner than you think, with Epic Games CEO touting Unreal Engine 6 as a potential way to connect Fortnite, Roblox, and Minecraft into one interoperable metaverse. Take the Marvel Universe games. Unite them through web3 ownership. What you get is a universe akin to Marvel’s cinematic blockbuster, the Infinity War. Synergy is the only solution GameFi can revitalize gaming, and IP licensing can attract new audiences, tired of the same repetitive gaming franchises and yearning for a new but recognizable plot and gaming experience. IP licensing on web3 can do both. It is a rare symbiosis opportunity, currently ignored by all stakeholders—the movie industry, the gaming industry, and blockchain. Prepare to expect more partnerships between gaming developers and film studios as they explore shared IP opportunities, especially when more legal precedents will trace out the basic game rules in this field. Furthermore, as crypto regains its widespread acceptance and popularity, the stigma of crypto partnerships, once established by FTX, is gradually fading. Trump memecoins onboarded millions of non-crypto people to the digital assets sphere—and movies can do the same. Finally, the growing recognition of blockchain by mass audiences means that blockchain will likely appear in movies as tangential mentions or even a plot-centering concept—think Ready Player One remade in 2025. Read more: Building the next-gen creator economy with AI agents | Opinion Author: Kin Wai Lau Kin Wai Lau is the CEO of ZKcandy, the first mobile-gaming-focused Layer-2 ZKsync chain resulting from a collaboration between Matter Labs (inventors of zkSync) and iCandy Interactive Ltd. In addition to that role, he is also the executive chairman of iCandy, the largest game developer in Australia and Southeast Asia, featuring a portfolio of 300+ mobile games and world-class award-winning AAA titles such as The Last of Us, Diablo III, and others. Kin Wai is an entrepreneur at the forefront of web3 gaming and other tech ventures.

The foreign policy of the United States may be on the verge of a major shift. As diplomatic tensions between Washington and Moscow have continued to escalate in recent years, Donald Trump appears ready to rewrite the rules of the game. The American president, a favorite in the race for the White House, is considering an economic rapprochement with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, thereby breaking somewhat with the sanctions strategy imposed under Joe Biden. Is this a maneuver aimed at weakening the BRICS alliance? Vladimir Putin has expressed readiness to reopen cooperation channels with the United States by putting several key sectors on the table. The aluminum industry is at the center of discussions. Moscow proposes the export of 2 million tons per year to the United States , an initiative that could stabilize a market disrupted by sanctions and the global energy crisis. A return of Boeing to Russia is also being considered, with the possibility for the American aircraft manufacturer to resume its purchases of titanium, an essential material for aeronautics, of which Russia is one of the main global suppliers. Access to rare earths, essential resources for the technology and military industries, represents another major leverage. Thus, American companies could invest in the extraction and processing of these metals in Russia, a market that remains largely dominated by China, a member of the BRICS bloc. This economic opening, if realized, would mark a significant change of course after years of restrictions and financial sanctions aimed at isolating the Russian economy. Meanwhile, energy remains a central topic of negotiations. According to several sources, American oil companies are considering reinvesting in Russian offshore exploration, particularly in the Arctic, where Moscow has significant deposits. These advances, although discussed in a still informal framework, reflect a mutual desire to reactivate economic exchanges between the two powers. Beyond purely economic aspects, discussions also extend to the scientific and technological fields. Elon Musk, known for his long-term vision and willingness to explore new markets, is expected to collaborate with Russian researchers in several strategic sectors. Exchanges are anticipated around artificial intelligence, nuclear technology, and microbiology, all areas where Russia has recognized expertise. The space sector is not to be left out. Moscow is working on a project for an autonomous orbital station, and discussions are underway for American participation. In parallel, Russia could join the Martian mission programs that SpaceX plans to launch by 2026. Such a partnership would mark a turning point in the relationship between the two nations, placing scientific cooperation at the center after years of diplomatic freeze. Other more unexpected areas are also being explored, particularly in disaster management. Russia proposes to make its Be-200 water bombing planes available, recognized for their effectiveness in fighting fires, to assist in combating wildfires in California. This initiative, although anecdotal at first glance, illustrates a change of tone in the relationship between the two countries, where pragmatic collaboration could replace systematic confrontation. Although the rapprochement between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin may worry some observers, it would be an exaggeration to claim that their alliance would suffice to put an end to the BRICS . This organization, which encompasses major emerging economies, is based on deep strategic interests, particularly in trade, finance, and geopolitics. The strength of the BRICS lies not only in their relations with Russia but especially in their common desire to provide an alternative to the financially Western-dominated system. Even if Moscow were to strengthen its ties with Washington, it would not challenge the entire dynamics that bind these countries, especially since Beijing and New Delhi have distinct objectives that do not solely depend on Russia’s position.

The Fear and Greed Index has plummeted into the "Extreme Fear" range, signaling a palpable wave of investor panic and uncertainty rippling through the market. Historically, such profoundly low sentiment levels have frequently coincided with significant market bottoms, presenting tantalizing opportunities for savvy investors to scoop up undervalued assets at bargain prices. These moments of extreme pessimism often attract contrarian buyers, who view the downturn as a chance to capitalize on fear-driven sell-offs before a potential rebound. However, the reliability of this pattern wanes in the grip of a prolonged bear market, where despair can linger, and recovery remains elusive despite the low readings. Nevertheless, with technical chart patterns and market structures still hinting at latent bullish potential—such as key support levels holding firm or emerging reversal signals—this downturn warrants close attention. The confluence of extreme fear and these promising structural developments could mark a critical juncture, offering a rare window for strategic accumulation, even amidst the challenges of a bearish environment. As of February 2025, this alignment underscores the importance of monitoring broader market dynamics, including trading volume, on-chain activity, and macroeconomic shifts, to fully assess the opportunity this moment presents.

FTX’s bankruptcy costs are approaching $1 billion, making it one of the most expensive Chapter 11 cases in U.S. history. Court records show that nearly $948 million has been paid to legal and financial firms working on the case, with over $952 million in fees approved so far. Despite the hefty costs, most customers are expected to recover 118% of their claims, a rare outcome in bankruptcy proceedings , according to Bloomberg . The high fees stem from efforts to recover billions of dollars in assets spread across a complex web of accounts. Lawyers and financial advisers have played a crucial role in this process, with hedge funds that purchased FTX claims at steep discounts among the beneficiaries. FTX began initial distributions to creditors last week, though legal teams continue to track additional assets. FTX’s lead law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, has been paid over $248 million, while financial adviser Alvarez & Marsal has received approximately $306 million, according to Bloomberg. The firm overseeing customer claims and other creditor matters has charged about $110 million. Sullivan & Cromwell played a key role in guiding the U.S. Treasury and major financial institutions during the 2008 financial crisis. The firm assisted with JPMorgan Chase’s acquisition of Bear Stearns and the government bailout of AIG. Additionally, the firm provided legal and financial counsel in the aftermath of the Enron bankruptcy, one of the most significant corporate fraud cases in history. The FTX case’s costs have far exceeded those of other crypto bankruptcies, including Celsius , Genesis, BlockFi, and Voyager Digital, which together incurred about $502 million in expenses. The bankruptcy still faces ongoing litigation, including a lawsuit against Binance seeking $1.8 billion. While FTX’s costs are significant, they remain well below those of Lehman Brothers’ $6 billion bankruptcy—the most expensive in U.S. history, according to Bloomberg.