AI has already become one of the most talked-about topics in crypto, with top industry-specific and financial events, as well as leading analytics companies discussing its impact and potential in compliance, fraud detection, and operational efficiency. As regulators increase scrutiny and illicit actors grow more sophisticated and fast, digital assets businesses are considering integrating AI. 

Can AI really help streamline compliance, detect hidden threats, and secure businesses? The reality is more nuanced than simply “plug and play.” AI can’t replace human oversight or responsibility, but it’s a tool that, when implemented thoughtfully, can help maintain the best industry standards. Let’s explore its possibilities.

Finding hidden risks that traditional methods miss

Traditional methods are good at catching known patterns, but they are not as effective at picking up on new or unexpected tactics. AI stands out here, analyzing large volumes of data and flagging anomalies that might fly under the radar of simpler models. 

The main advantage of using it in transaction monitoring and detecting illicit activity is in identifying ‘unknown unknowns,’ which traditional scenario-based methods are unable to detect. Additionally, advanced AI tools can adapt to new criminal techniques, letting compliance teams remain proactive rather than reactive.

Meanwhile, verifying data quality and addressing bias are significant for reliable outcomes. AI-based systems still produce false positives, but usually their numbers are lower compared to scenario-based systems. The case study published by Deloitte and United Overseas Bank showed a 5% increase in true positives and a 40% decrease in false positives in transaction monitoring, as well as a 40% rise in operational efficiency.  

Saving time, costs, and workforce

The practical benefits of AI are beyond catching hidden threats. As the complexity of regulatory demands rises, many companies face rising costs in both time and workforce. AI-based solutions can help by automating tasks that would otherwise be manual and require more time, for example:

• Prioritizing alerts and flagging high-risk cases.
• Large language models can handle initial writing or policy reviews, freeing compliance officers to focus on critical analysis.

AI allows teams to concentrate on strategic decisions by relieving them of repetitive chores. Smaller crypto firms, in particular, can benefit from this. Free from bulky legacy systems, they can be faster and more flexible in adopting cutting-edge tools to remain competitive against larger players. 

Still, staff training is key to helping teams interpret automated findings correctly and make data-based decisions.

Enhancing efficiency, but not regulatory collaboration

Although AI can significantly boost day-to-day efficiency, it is less likely to transform how crypto companies and regulators collaborate. Compliance officers still need to talk directly with regulatory bodies to address policy gray areas, manage ethical dilemmas, and ensure trust. 

AI’s job is to streamline internal workflows, not to replace human judgment in those high-level discussions. Ultimately, regulators want clear, accountable communication, something only people can provide. 

Using AI for competitive advantage and reputation 

Players in traditional finance are already focusing on AI for compliance, and crypto companies that overlook this approach risk falling behind. While merely adopting AI won’t affect a crypto firm’s reputation directly, failing to use it where it’s clearly beneficial can backfire. If a preventable fraud incident or compliance breach occurs, the reputational damage could be severe. So, we can see implementing AI as a competitive advantage. 

Moreover, responsibly implemented AI can enhance marketing efforts. Firms are already highlighting their AI-driven tools as evidence of risk management and user protection. When done transparently and ethically, these measures can strengthen consumer confidence and a company’s standing in the industry.

Keeping humans in the driver’s seat

Even as AI can take on a share of compliance tasks, responsibility can’t be delegated to algorithms. Decisions with legal or ethical consequences require a distinctly human touch. AI can flag a suspicious transaction, but the final call on how to handle that alert—whether to freeze an account or close it, for example—should remain with a qualified professional. Retaining control also protects companies from overreliance on technology that, while impressive, can never truly match human intuition and responsibility.

AI is on track to become an important part of crypto compliance. By combining its data-processing capabilities with human insight and ethical judgment, companies can spot threats more effectively, lower costs, and save time. The key is to find the right balance between automation and accountability. 

The crypto industry should be encouraged to explore what AI has to offer while recognizing that technology alone doesn’t build trust. Real trust calls for a true commitment to compliance, transparent communication with regulators, and a focus on customer protection. By treating AI as a helpful tool, not a replacement for human judgment, the industry can move toward a safer future.

Pi Network has been accused of being a scam by Bybit CEO Ben Zhou, bringing up a police notice from 2023 that calls it a ‘scam that preys on the elderly.’

In a recent post, Bybit co-founder and CEO Ben Zhou responded to a claim made by an unofficial Pi PI-39.31%Pi Network technical team account that claims the crypto exchange was “rejected by Pi” to list on its exchange. The Pi Network is a project that enables users to mine cryptocurrency through a mobile app.

“Bybit had made no listing request to PI and the claim that PI refused Bybit listing or Bybit did not pass some sort of KYB of PI is completely nonsense,” said Zhou in his post.

Zhou retaliated by bringing up a Chinese police report that was published in 2023, warning citizens about a virtual currency scam that targets the elderly through a “get rich overnight” scheme perpetrated by actors claiming to be affiliated with the Pi Network.

“Many criminals use “π Coin” to claim that they can mine for free by simply downloading an app on their mobile phones. They also give lectures to the elderly, expand the victim group by claiming that they can “recommend rebates” by developing downlines, resell user personal information, and defraud the elderly of their pensions,” wrote the Wuxi Public Security Bureau in a translated notice.

The report state that scammers would use free rewards and gifts to lure in victims who wish to gain small profits by downloading the app and promising them a small amount of Pi tokens as gift.

“They expand the victim group by rewarding people for recruiting more people, resell users’ personal information, and defraud victims of their money,” added the police bureau.

Zhou used the article as the basis for his claims, reaffirming his crypto exchange would not be listing Pi Network in the foreseeable future, unlike other major exchanges like OKX and Bitget. Even Binance has started to test the waters by holding a community vote on whether the exchange should list the Pi Network.

In an interview with crypto.news, Pi Network co-founders Dr Nicolas Kokkalis and Chengdiao Fan elaborated on Pi Network’s model and mining mechanism shortly after the launch of the project’s mainnet.

They explained that their goal is to ensure Pi remains stable by providing a fair and wide token distribution whilst facilitating real-world uses. To ensure safety on the network, they implement actions like security circles, utility-based Pi apps, running nodes and other precautions.

Additionally, Pi users, known as Pioneers, are required to undergo an identity verification process before they are able to obtain Pi .

Pi Network warns users of potential scams and bad actors

In an X post shared a few days ahead of its mainnet launch, the Pi Network warned users of the emergence of “potential bad actors and activities, scams, and individuals impersonating others” that claim to be affiliated with the project.

“Neither Pi Network, nor anyone affiliated with Pi Network, has any affiliation whatsoever with any parties organizing or engaging in such illegal or harmful activities to our users or the community,” wrote the Pi Network in its post.

The account explained that any activities that require users to pay a fee as well as actors that make “misleading promises of monetary rewards or future profits, or MLM [Multi-Level Marketing]” are not authorized by Pi Network. The protocol also urges its followers to check their official site for information on how to protect their Pi accounts and wallets.

At the time of writing, the Pi token has plummeted more than 50% in the past 24 hours. PI is currently trading hands at $0.65. The token has maintained a trading volume of $1.2 billion in the past day.

[Crypto News]

Treehouse CEO Brandon Goh recently discussed the potential of fixed income in decentralized finance (DeFi), calling it a key factor for the sector's institutional adoption. In an interview on the podcast Hashing It Out, Goh explained that although DeFi has seen growth with products like decentralized exchanges and lending platforms, it lacks the core component of traditional finance: fixed income. Goh emphasized that fixed income, which includes assets like bonds and savings accounts, forms the backbone of traditional finance, but its absence in the DeFi ecosystem presents a barrier to wider institutional involvement.

One of the main challenges with introducing fixed income to DeFi is the lack of standardized benchmark rates, such as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), which is commonly used in traditional finance. Goh pointed out that without these foundational benchmark rates, scaling fixed-income products in a decentralized environment becomes difficult. He believes this gap is one reason fixed income is nearly non-existent in the current DeFi landscape.

Treehouse, the platform Goh co-founded, aims to address this issue by combining traditional fixed-income products with the flexibility of DeFi. Through its platform, Treehouse offers a way for users to earn predictable returns, making it easier for investors to manage risks in yield-generating products. This approach is designed to provide both stability and transparency, key factors that could attract institutional investors to the DeFi space.

Additionally, Goh stressed the importance of creating an on-chain benchmark, such as a decentralized offered rate (DOR), to improve market efficiency and transparency. He explained that Treehouse’s model uses these tools to provide a secure and reliable investment environment, helping bridge the gap between traditional finance and the emerging DeFi market.

The conversation also turned to how large financial institutions might engage with DeFi in the future. Goh suggested that while these institutions may be cautious about participating in high-risk DeFi products, they may be more likely to adopt stable and transparent options like staking. He predicts that as regulatory clarity improves and the infrastructure around DeFi becomes more robust, fixed income could play a significant role in the next phase of DeFi’s growth.

Treehouse’s work in introducing fixed income to DeFi represents a crucial step in the sector’s maturation. With its combination of traditional financial models and decentralized technology, Treehouse could provide the stability needed to attract institutional players. As DeFi continues to evolve, Goh’s vision for fixed-income products may help create the foundation for a more stable and widely accepted decentralized financial ecosystem.

[Yahoo.com]

The cryptocurrency market is lacking positive catalysts in the near term, Wall Street bank JPMorgan (JPM) said in a report Wednesday.

The correction in crypto markets in recent months has seen both bitcoin (BTC) and ether (ETH) futures near backwardation, which is a sign of lower demand, the report said. Backwardation occurs when the spot price of an asset is higher than the price trading in the futures market.

"This is a negative development and indicative of demand weakness by those institutional investors that use regulated CME futures contracts to gain exposure into these two cryptocurrencies," analysts led Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou wrote.

If demand for bitcoin and ether futures is healthy, the futures cost more than the spot price, and the curve is said to be in contango, the bank noted.

When demand slows and price expectations soften, the futures curve moves towards backwardation, the bank added.

This weakness in demand could be due to a number of reasons.

Positive crypto initiatives by Trump's new administration are more likely to kick in during the second half of the year, the bank said, and this means institutional investors are likely taking profits due to a lack of short-term catalysts.

Lower demand from systematic and momentum-driven funds, such as CTAs, has also affected bitcoin and ether futures, JPMorgan added.

[markets businessinsider]

Black History Month, being observed this February in the United States and many other countries around the world, including Nigeria, affords one the appropriate opportunity to share some thoughts on the rather consequential subject of systemic racism – racism of the kind that is not ad hoc, but seems built into the system itself. The irony of it, though, is that the persistence of racism in many of the concerned countries and situations is not necessarily for want of, but in spite of, efforts to eradicate it! In fact, one of the more baffling, and undoubtedly frustrating, realities confronting people and organizations working in this area has been the seemingly “die hard” nature of the problem, its resilience and persistence despite quite considerable effort over the years to eradicate it. It may actually be recalled in this context that jolted, and no doubt equally revolted, by the Nazi race theories and atrocities of the Second World War, the post-war world reacted, particularly in the West, by deploying considerable effort and resources into the fight to combat racism and racial discrimination, spearheading, for example, adoption by the United Nations of the landmark Universal Declaration Of Human Rights(1948) expressly condemning racism and prohibiting the adoption by Member States of racially discriminatory laws.

Yet, if we take the example of the United States, the truth, as recognized by President Biden himself upon his election in 2020, is that, despite the undeniable progress that has been made, especially in the wake of the great Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 70s, there remains an underlying systemic racism in society that refuses to go away and so continues to manifest itself in various ways on the ground: the George Floyd and George Floyd-type incidents, the near legitimization and “mainstreaming” of “white supremacy” ideologies and movements, showcased in the January 6th Capitol insurrection. In Europe, the mounting anti-racism campaigns by football authorities, particularly the FA in England, and the numerous racist avowals and incidents connected with ongoing anti-immigration protests speak to the same fact.

So, what is going on here and why? “Why have all the efforts over many decades failed to defeat or excise this social evil?” My book OF BLACK SERVITUDE WITHOUT SLAVERY, The Unspoken Politics Of The English Language, in proffering a totally new approach to dealing with the systemic racism problem, addresses this particular question by pointing out that the difficulty so far lies in the nature of the problem and the efforts directed at it. I argue, inter alia, that racism, as people encounter it, is an outward expression of the perpetrator’s racial bias mindset, which no amount of clamping down on discriminatory acts, whether in jobs, schools, housing or social interactions, such as has been the case hitherto, can effectively address: only actions targeting the mindset can be relevant.

In order to effectively combat a negative mindset, one must first identify its origin and sustenance – its well-spring, as it were – and then tackle the problem at its roots. The book identifies language as a major repository, as well as purveyor, of racial bias, which then goes on, whether intended or not, to create a racial bias mindset in its users. Using the English language, the world’s dominant and virtually only global language, to illustrate this thesis, I demonstrate that embedded in it is a systemic denigration of “blackness” and corresponding glorification of “whiteness”, which is exemplified by expressions such as blacklist, black sheep, painting someone black, for example, and white list, white knight, white lie, and more. There is, in effect, a “blackness of bad/whiteness of good, badness of black/goodness of white” narrative that runs through the language – and necessarily all thinking in that language – in which “black” basically denotes “bad” and “white”, in turn, denotes “good”. Such a narrative, imbibed over a period (often from birth), and reinforced by everyday usage, must undoubtedly create in users of the language a mindset that is conditioned, subconsciously at least, to shun “black” things while instinctively embracing things designated as “white”.

In such a scenario a black person becomes routinely subsumed – subconsciously or otherwise – into the general category of “black”, and, therefore, “bad”, things, which, in turn, triggers the preprogrammed negative reaction in the other person, regardless of conscious intentions, leaving it to that person’s conscious mind, if aware and so inclined, to make the correction by separating the black person from the general category of “bad” “black” things. It actually may well be that the psychological inability to make this separation accounts for much existing racist disposition.

The white person, too, being also an integral part of the same conditioning system, and indeed its main beneficiary, would likewise get subsumed, subconsciously or otherwise, but this time into the category of “good” things, which, in turn, implicitly “entitles” him or her to favorable or “sympathetic” treatment – so much so that it may indeed form the psychological underpinning to the long-observed phenomenon of decidedly unequal treatment of black and white persons in law enforcement, not just by the police and prison authorities, but often even by judges.

Considering the processes outlined above, one can well perceive racism of the kind under discussion as a kind of social system into which people are indoctrinated by fate (i.e. birth) or by circumstance! As such, the people involved may actually be seen as being themselves entrapped by the system!

Coming now to solutions, it becomes apparent from the foregoing analysis that the key to resolving the systemic racism problem is the elimination of the “blackness of bad/whiteness of good” narrative and its related mindset. Effective action in that regard would be to delink the race-designating terms of “black” and “white” from all qualitative assessment functions in the language and, so, from figurative expressions such as those noted above.  Substituting other terms not associated with racial designations for these two terms would render these terms value-neutral and, so, mindset irrelevant, while also ending their unintended racial bias reinforcement effect as part of everyday conversations.  A random example of such substitution, strictly as illustration, could be something like dronche, for “black” and freen, for “white”, giving us expressions like “dronche sheep” and “dronche list”, in the case of “black”, and, in the case of “white”, “freen knight”, and “freen magic”, and so on. Of course, whatever new substitute terms are chosen will at first appear strange, unfamiliar and maybe even nonsensical, having by necessity no intrinsic meaning; however, with time and the requisite will these should all become normalized and, more importantly, imbued with the meanings we have chosen for them, just like other invented new terms in the language: “Ms.”, “phishing”, “meme” and others, being examples.

The idea here is that upon successful implementation of such substitution, it would not be long before the older generation, no longer functioning in the “bad is black, good is white” milieu and mindset, would have this connection erased from its consciousness, while for the new-born generation no such linkage would have even existed in their consciousness, thereby leading us, in principle, to a complete and permanent solution of the systemic racism problem!

Conclusion and Notable Points

While no one can say for certain that successful implementation of the solution envisaged here would in and of itself solve all of society’s racism problem, its singular importance lies, nevertheless, in the fact that no fundamental or enduring resolution of the problem seems possible without addressing the underlying mindset issue that the solution targets! 

The great merit of the solution proposed here, as argued above, is that it aims to be a real and permanent solution of the problem, rather than a palliative to douse the current crisis, as often happens.  Furthermore, this is a solution that will be welcomed by all involved: no longer does the black person have to endure the psychological humiliation and stigma of sharing “labels” with everything bad, ugly and evil, while the white person will be relieved of the awkwardness of being compelled, for want of alternatives, to use terminology which they can sense is demeaning to the other person. Adding to the merits of this solution is the fact that: it costs next-to-nothing to implement, unlike other “social justice” undertakings!

It is important to note once again that the focus in this analysis on the English language is merely strategic: as the dominant international communications medium, it can do – and no doubt has  already done – serious damage, spreading the narrative and mindset globally; it can, on the other hand, likewise positively transmit any correction through a large swathe of the global population. Moreover, any reform of English would exert enormous pressure for change on the other languages. This well-known French adage, for example, speaks volumes and requires no commentary: “La diable n’est pas aussi noir qu’ on le dit!”, translating essentially as “The devil is not as black as he is made out to be!”  #BADISNOTBLACK&VICEVERSA

•Dr. Okali, a former United Nations Assistant Secretary-General, is Founder-Chairman, Society for the Elimination of Racism In All Language (SERIAL) 

The events at the Lagos State House of Assembly on February 17, 2025, were more than just another political crisis; they were a moment of dangerous miscalculation that put both the reputation of the Department of State Services (DSS) and the lives of its field operatives at unnecessary risk. As a psychologist and writer, I am not here to take sides but to raise an important concern—one that should trouble even the most hardened defenders of the DSS. The viral video footage does not lie. It captured DSS operatives in the kind of physically vulnerable, life-threatening situation that an elite force should never find itself in. These were not inexperienced recruits; they were trained officers of a national security agency who suddenly found themselves struggling for breath, pinned between determined lawmakers and legislative workers pushing forward against them. Their faces—half-covered by helmets, masks soaked in sweat—showed visible distress. Their bodies were strained under the pressure of the confrontation. And as the tide of lawmakers pressed forward, those officers were seconds away from being completely overpowered.

And so, I ask, what if one of them had not made it out?

What if a DSS officer had collapsed from exhaustion, suffocated in the heat of the struggle?

What if a law enforcement operative had suffered serious injury from the physical force of the crowd?

What if the lawmakers, in the heat of frustration, had retaliated more aggressively?

What if an officer, under extreme stress, had reacted with force that escalated into violence?

This is not speculation. This is exactly what was set into motion on that day. This was not a strategic operation; this was a dangerous misjudgment, one that could have turned fatal within seconds. And that should concern the DSS more than anything else. Because while politicians play their games, it is always the men on the ground—the uniformed officers—who bear the real consequences.

The official statement from the Lagos Assembly, signed by Ogundipe Olukayode, Chairman of the House Committee on Information, Strategy, and Security, confirmed what Nigerians already knew:

Yes, the DSS was invited to provide security—but not to invade the chamber.

Yes, the Clerk requested their presence—but not to seal the Speaker’s office.

Yes, there were security concerns—but on that day, the DSS itself became the biggest threat.

How did an elite security force—an agency feared for its intelligence, operational precision, and enforcement power—allow itself to be turned into the story? The DSS is supposed to neutralize threats before they escalate, yet this time, it became the crisis. Instead of being the force that ensured peace, DSS operatives were physically caught in a power struggle, outnumbered, overwhelmed, and left struggling against the force of a determined Assembly. This is not how an elite force should operate.

There are bigger questions DSS leadership must now answer. Who made the call to position these officers in such a confrontational stance? Who in DSS believed that physically blocking lawmakers from their own chamber would not lead to open resistance? Who in command failed to anticipate that emotions would flare, that the situation would escalate, and that the officers placed at the doors could be trapped in a physical struggle that endangered their own safety?

If the DSS’s true mission was security enforcement, how did it end up in direct physical conflict with lawmakers and Assembly workers? If DSS officers were meant to prevent instability, why were they the ones visibly struggling, unable to maintain control, and ultimately being forced out?

Because the truth is, this was not a strategic operation. This was a tactical failure.

And what was achieved? Despite deploying DSS operatives, sealing the Speaker’s office, blocking the chamber doors, and physically engaging with lawmakers—nothing was stopped.

The Speaker, Mojisola Meranda, still presided.

The lawmakers still convened.

The Assembly still held its session.

Democracy still went on.

And DSS? What did they gain?

If the goal was to stop the session, it failed.

If the goal was to scare the lawmakers, it failed.

If the goal was to prove dominance, it failed.

Instead, DSS officers were physically overpowered, outnumbered, and exhausted, forced to retreat from a battle they should never have been sent into. What was the real objective here? And at what cost

DSS is not a riot squad. DSS is not a political enforcement agency. DSS is not a tool for individual interests. It is an elite security force, designed to protect national stability, not to be thrown into politically motivated conflicts that leave its own officers gasping for air at the doors of an Assembly building.

This incident should serve as a serious warning. It was not just a failure of tactics—it was a failure of leadership within DSS. It was a reckless deployment of operatives, without a clear strategy to ensure their success or safety. The officers involved were placed in harm’s way, while those who issued the orders watched from a distance.

This time, the officers walked away.

But next time?

Next time, the outcome may not be so fortunate.

Next time, someone may not survive the encounter.

Next time, no politician, no government official, and no DSS commander will take responsibility.

And that is why DSS must rethink its approach now. Not because of political pressure. Not because of public scrutiny. But because the lives of its own officers are at stake. No security force should be put in a position where it becomes the crisis instead of the solution. No law enforcement agent should be forced into a battle they were never meant to fight.

DSS must ask itself: Is this what we have become? Are we an agency that strategically ensures security, or one that blindly walks into chaos without a plan?

The time to rethink tactics is now. Because next time, the cost may be irreversible.