Precio de FREEdom CoinFREE

Everyone loves a good listing pump, but there better be clean hands and clear rules behind every legit launch. Since 2024, #Bitget has had a strict misconduct & ethics policy to keep our listing process transparent and drama-free. We have zero tolerance for shady plays,

That is all for now, feel free to give a RT/Like for support

In the past 24 hours, CryptoPunks have seen a flurry of buying activity as its floor price climbs to 42 ETH per NFT. According to data on its official site, the Yuga Labs -backed NFT collection has seen 19 sales of its unique pixelated avatar heads in the past 24 hours. The recent surge in CryptoPunks buyer activity has brought the number of transactions up by 18.75%, bringing the NFT collection to the second largest spot, according to data from CryptoSlam. So far, the top purchase in the past 24 hours is CryptoPunk #2301 , showcasing an avatar with an eyepatch and a hoodie that was purchased at a price of 115 ETH ( ETH ) or $235,190 at current prices. At press time, the floor price for CryptoPunks sits at 42 ETH. The number has increased by 5% compared to the day prior, when its floor price was still below 40 ETH. Earlier today, its floor price dipped lower to 39.39 ETH. In the past 24 hours, the total sales of CryptoPunks NFTs has reached 915.37 ETH. According to current market prices, today’s total sales are equal to more than $1.8 million. Ethereum is currently trading hands at $2,060 according to data from crypto.news. In the past month, the NFT collection sales has gone up by nearly 20%, indicating an upward trend. However despite the recent rise in buyer activity, its daily trading volume has evidently gone down by 21.8%. Its market cap currently sits at 419,748 ETH or equal to around $865 million. In the past 7 days, the Yuga Labs-backed collection has occupied the top NFT collectible sales, with CryptoPunks #2967 valued at $843,070 that was sold on March 23. Launched in 2017, CryptoPunks is an NFT collection which consists of 10,000 unique pixel art avatars that traders can mint on the Ethereum blockchain. In October 2024, publishing firm Phaidon released an 800-page book that documents all 10,000 Punks ever created. The book titled “CryptoPunks: Free to Claim” was written and compiled by creative director Zak Kyes, web3 lifestyle in partnership with Yuga Labs.

bilkul free

In a stunning revelation that adds political intrigue to an already high-profile legal battle, Reuters has uncovered that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) interim chief, Mark Uyeda, cast the sole dissenting vote against suing Elon Musk earlier this year. The closed-door vote, held just days before Republicans took control of the agency in January, approved a lawsuit over Musk’s delayed disclosure of Twitter stock purchases. The 4-1 decision not only highlights deep internal divisions within the SEC but also raises serious questions about political pressure, regulatory integrity, and the future of enforcement under a Musk-friendly administration. In a quiet but consequential January vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) decided 4-1 to sue Elon Musk over his delayed disclosure of Twitter shares. The vote, revealed exclusively by Reuters , exposed a deep rift within the agency. The lone dissenter? Republican Commissioner Mark Uyeda, now the SEC’s interim chief. His "no" vote came just days before a political shift in Washington saw Republicans take control of the agency. The core issue stems from Musk’s 2022 acquisition of Twitter (now X), when he disclosed his stake 21 days late—far beyond the required 10-day window for holdings exceeding 5%. That delay, the SEC argues, allowed him to scoop up more shares at lower prices, saving him $150 million and triggering market movements. The agency sued Musk on January 14, just a week after the commissioners' internal vote. Uyeda, a Republican appointee and close observer of political implications, reportedly questioned the motives behind the lawsuit. Before the vote, he asked SEC enforcement staff to sign pledges that the case was free from political influence—an unusual move rejected by the staff. His opposition was not necessarily about Musk’s actions, but about the optics and timing of the enforcement, which came just before a change in administration. The timing has raised eyebrows. Musk is a known ally of President Donald Trump, and the vote occurred just before Republican leadership took over the SEC. Trump has since issued an executive order accusing the SEC of partisan targeting under Biden and demanded a review of politically driven investigations. Though the SEC declined to comment, the lawsuit’s proximity to the power shift casts doubt on the agency’s neutrality in the eyes of critics. The commission reportedly demanded Musk give up the $150 million in alleged gains and pay an additional penalty. While Uyeda voted no, fellow Republican Hester Peirce sided with the three Democratic commissioners, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The decision shows an unusual split within Republican ranks and underscores the internal friction over how to deal with the billionaire entrepreneur. Intent was key. SEC investigators explored whether Musk knowingly delayed the filing—a charge that could carry more severe consequences. Musk, however, claimed he misunderstood the rule and eventually complied. The SEC dropped the intent angle but still pursued civil penalties. Musk had agreed to be deposed twice but resisted further interviews, delaying the case until after the 2024 election. Legal experts question the SEC’s sluggish pace. A late filing case is typically straightforward. "Bringing it at the last minute—it loses credibility," said Howard Fischer, a former SEC lawyer. Others argue that not filing at all would have looked like selective enforcement, undermining the agency’s role in upholding fair markets. Musk has until April 4 to respond to the court summons. With Uyeda now leading the SEC and Trump ordering a review of the agency’s actions, the Musk case could become a lightning rod in the wider war over regulatory power and political influence. Musk’s long-standing feud with the SEC—dating back to his 2018 Tesla tweet saga—adds more fuel to the fire. The internal divide within the SEC, revealed in this exclusive report, paints a picture of an agency caught between law and politics. Whether the case against Musk is about justice or timing remains an open question—one that could reshape the future of securities enforcement in a deeply divided America.