More than a Drop in the OceanWhile regulators in the US grapple with the question of who has jurisdiction over prediction markets, current and prospective users would do well to consider what they are up against when placing their bets.Singapore Summit: Meet the largest APAC brokers you know (and those you still don't!)The Wall Street Journal reports that White House staff received an email in late March warning them not to use any information they came across in the course of their work to gamble on the timing of specific events.The Trump administration reacted in typical fashion to the report, with spokesman Davis Ingle telling the BBC that ‘any implication that administration officials are engaged in such activity without evidence is baseless and irresponsible reporting’.He went on to point out that all federal employees are subject to government ethics guidelines that prohibit the use of insider information for financial gain, adding that ‘the only special interest that will ever guide President Trump is the best interest of the American people’.Perhaps the most egregious example of potential insider trading to emerge on prediction markets to date is the sizeable pricing bets placed by oil traders just minutes before Trump revealed that he was postponing strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure.There will be some who point to prediction markets as just the latest example of mankind’s obsession with betting that can be traced back to 2300 BC, noting that even children will ‘wager’ on which of two raindrops runs down a window the fastest.But markets rely on at least the illusion of fairness - which is why the first recorded ban on insider trading was introduced in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to outlaw manipulative and deceptive devices following the 1929 stock market crash.Give Us a BreakEarlier this month, we looked at the results of a Crisil Coalition Greenwich survey of buy-side equity traders, which found that one in five saw the quest for work-life balance as their biggest source of fatigue and burnout.Jesse Forster, senior analyst in market structure & technology at Crisil Coalition Greenwich and the author of the study, observed that traders see volatility, long hours and performance pressure as part of the job.However, the findings of the firm’s latest offering in this space - which analyses traders’ attitudes to round-the-clock trading - suggest that even the most stress-free institutional traders are balking at the prospect of moving stocks at any time of the day.Only 14% of the buy-side equity traders surveyed said they were enthusiastic about 24/7 trading, with 60% stating that they had absolutely no interest in round-the-clock trading.“Retail traders are excited, particularly around market-moving headlines that come outside of traditional trading hours,” says Forster. “Institutions largely view it through the lens of execution quality, operational risk and market impact, and they are concerned about the possible negative impact it could have on their physical and mental health.”These individuals saw round-the-clock trading as introducing unnecessary risk for little reward, especially if it siphons liquidity and attention from the core session. Even among supporters, expectations are more evolutionary than revolutionary. They see the ability to trade around the clock as being useful for specific situations, rather than a wholesale transformation of trading workflows.Nearly two-thirds were concerned about poor market quality during overnight hours, expecting these sessions to mirror today’s extended sessions, characterised by sporadic volume, inconsistent participation, wider spreads and less price discovery. A similar percentage were concerned that liquidity would worsen during core hours, adding time-based fragmentation to their list of worries.Liquidity tends to concentrate around auctions and key events, and extending trading spreads participation more thinly.Some noted they don’t want to be trading during the most illiquid, costly time of the day - currently the overnight session. Others point to the existing pre- and post-market sessions as a live experiment, describing them as ‘sporadic at best’ and ‘unreliable’ in terms of volume and participation.“Most traders support focusing on improving outcomes during core hours, such as increasing crossing opportunities, rather than spreading the same liquidity across more time,” says Forster.Strategy or Insanity?The phrase ‘social media spat’ would make most sensible people run for the hills. But a recent exchange on Michael Saylor’s latest Bitcoin purchase highlighted the divide between those who see the cryptocurrency as the ultimate inflation hedge and others who argue that this strategy only works under very specific structural conditions.Strategy Inc (formerly known as MicroStrategy) has doubled down on its strategy of buying Bitcoin despite the fall in its value since last October and is now the largest single corporate holder of the cryptocurrency.On Monday, Saylor posted on X that Strategy had acquired 34,164 BTC for approximately $2.54 billion at $74,395 per Bitcoin, bringing its overall holding to 815,061 BTC acquired for approximately $61.56 billion at $75,527 per coin. In other words, the company’s holding is worth pretty much exactly what it has paid for it at current prices.JUST IN: Coffeezilla publishes video taking on Bitcoin believer Michael Saylor & Strategy's $STRC.Coffee says Saylor's STRC preferred-stock pitch is too simple & the risks are not properly explained."It's been compared to the iPhone. It's been compared to a Ponzi scheme."… pic.twitter.com/H9Tx32VbuR— Altcoin Daily (@AltcoinDaily) April 15, 2026A salesman at a Bitcoin mining company suggested on LinkedIn that whether you agree with the approach or not, the absence of emotional interference in the execution of the strategy is worth studying, and that the investors he has watched make the most durable wealth in Bitcoin didn’t buy based on price targets but instead built a framework, sized to their conviction level, and executed through the periods that tested that conviction.However, one professional financial analyst took exception to the use of the phrase ‘unrealised loss’ to explain the difference between the current value of Strategy’s Bitcoin holding and what it cost to acquire, suggesting that none of the above was relevant to any other class of investor.Separately, he posted that the Strategy model runs on fair value accounting, a corporate tax exclusion that lets you hold indefinitely without a cash tax liability, zero-coupon unsecured institutional debt with no margin calls, and an institutional market premium that creates a self-financing engine – none of which exist in the UK.This article was written by Paul Golden at www.financemagnates.com.