Crypto Breaking

Mastercard and stablecoin orchestration network Borderless are launching a pilot focused on improving cross-border stablecoin payments using Mastercard’s Crypto Credential standards-based framework.
The initiative, announced in coordination with Cointelegraph, will test whether Mastercard’s approach can generate assurance signals that market participants can plug into their own approval, compliance, and risk workflows—potentially reducing friction where verification responsibilities often become fragmented across counterparties.
Key takeaways
Mastercard and Borderless will trial how Crypto Credential standards can produce governance and verification signals for cross-border stablecoin payments.
The pilot is designed to help participants incorporate assurance signals into their internal approval, compliance, and risk processes.
Borderless frames compliance and trust between parties as the key bottleneck, comparing it to how correspondent banking historically handled assurance.
Mastercard will not process or settle funds as part of the pilot; the project centers on the credential layer rather than payment execution.
Why “assurance signals” matter for stablecoin payments
Stablecoins can move value quickly, but cross-border usage often runs into a problem that looks less like a technology challenge and more like a governance and compliance workflow issue. According to Borderless CEO and co-founder Kevin Lehtiniitty, the main source of friction is providing the right kind of assurance across a chain of counterparties.
Lehtiniitty compares the situation to correspondent banking, which “solved this decades ago” by making trust upstream and avoiding repeated re-execution of compliance checks at each step with downstream parties. In his view, Mastercard’s Crypto Credential framework aims to apply a similar idea to digital-asset payments: instead of every participant building their own end-to-end verification logic from scratch, the system provides standardized signals that can be interpreted and used across the network.
Mastercard’s Crypto Credential framework, as described in the announcement, relies on common standards and assurance signals intended to add certainty to blockchain-related transactions. In the pilot, the partners will look specifically for governance signals that can lower operational friction in cross-border stablecoin flows.
A pilot focused on governance, not settlement
While the partnership is positioned within the broader stablecoin payments ecosystem, the pilot itself is intentionally narrower. Lehtiniitty told Cointelegraph that Mastercard’s role would be limited to the Crypto Credential governance and verification layer; Mastercard will not process or settle funds as part of this test.
That distinction matters for how investors and builders might interpret the trial. It suggests the project is primarily about interoperability—how credentialed assurance can be communicated and reused—rather than about replacing payment rails or directly competing with settlement providers in the near term.
For Borderless, the value proposition is tied to workflow integration: participants would be able to take the signals produced under Mastercard’s framework and incorporate them into their existing approval, compliance, and risk processes. The pilot therefore aims at practical adoption challenges, not just a theoretical standard.
How Mastercard’s stablecoin push is evolving
The pilot builds on Mastercard’s recent expansion in the stablecoin industry. Cointelegraph previously reported that Mastercard completed its acquisition of stablecoin infrastructure company BVNK on Monday, a deal valued at $1.8 billion.
In June, Mastercard also announced plans to expand settlement capabilities to include intraday, weekend, and holiday card settlement. That proposal included settlement through stablecoins such as Circle’s USDC, Paxos-issued PYUSD, and other dollar-linked tokens, including USDG and USDP, as well as Ripple’s RLUSD and SoFi’s SoFiUSD.
Taken together, the new pilot indicates Mastercard is pursuing a dual-track strategy: expanding where stablecoins can be used in settlement while also working on how trust and verification can be communicated in a way that fits traditional compliance expectations.
Still, the pilot’s scope leaves open some important questions. The partners have emphasized credentialing and governance signals, but they have not indicated how quickly these signals could standardize cross-border approvals across different jurisdictions, nor whether the pilot will extend beyond specific participants or networks. Those details will determine whether the program becomes a scalable template or remains a proof-of-concept.
What to watch next in the pilot
Because Mastercard and Borderless have framed the work around assurance signals that can be incorporated into compliance and risk processes, observers should watch for outcomes that reflect real operational integration—not just technical compatibility. Key areas include how participants interpret the governance signals, whether the framework meaningfully reduces the need for repeated due diligence steps, and what governance standards emerge as most effective in lowering cross-border friction.
Another practical factor is whether the credential layer can maintain consistency across counterparties without requiring each party to recreate verification logic. If the pilot succeeds, it could offer a clearer path for stablecoins to fit into existing payment and compliance infrastructures—where trust models are typically built around accountable intermediaries.
For now, the next step is the pilot’s results: how well the assurance and governance signals translate into reduced friction for cross-border stablecoin payments, and whether the approach can be expanded from a controlled test into a broader standard that participants can adopt with confidence.
This article was originally published as Mastercard Trial Enables Identity Checks for Borderless Stablecoin Transfers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (BTC) has rebounded from Monday’s low of $62,210, retaking $64,000. The flagship cryptocurrency reached an intraday high of $64,497 on Tuesday and is currently trading around $64,122.
A close above $65,000 could open the door to a move towards $66,000 and July’s high of $67,975. However, buyers must overcome immediate resistance between $64,000 and $65,000.
Bitcoin Back Above $64,000
Bitcoin (BTC) started the week with a sharp drop, falling to a low of $62,210 as the Coincard exploit, along with prevailing macroeconomic and geopolitical conditions, pressured an already jittery market. The flagship cryptocurrency recovered from Monday’s low to reach an intraday high of $64,497 on Tuesday, and held above $64,000 during the ongoing session as buyers stepped in. A close above $64,300 could lead to more gains, but macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty is weighing down market sentiment.
The RSI currently sits in neutral territory at 51, while the MACD suggests bulls have a slight advantage. Despite BTC’s impressive recovery this week, it remains in a broader consolidation range spanning between $57,000 and $67,000. While a close above $65,000 is bullish in the short term, a break above $67,000 could hand bulls control.
Bitcoin Tests Descending Channel
On the four-hour chart, BTC tested the upper boundary of a descending channel, briefly pushing higher before dropping back towards $64,000. This price action suggests buyers are unsure about a breakout. Meanwhile, analyst Ali Martinez stated that a close above $64,300 on the four-hour chart could clear the way for a move towards $65,500-$66,500.
“If you’re bullish on Bitcoin, watch this. $BTC is testing the upper boundary of a descending channel, making $64,300 the key level to watch. A 4-hour close above $64,300 could confirm the breakout and open the door to a rally toward $65,500 or even $66,500.”
The Awesome Oscillator flashed a bullish signal, climbing past 277 and printing rising green bars. However, Bitcoin must absorb the overhead supply to ensure sustained momentum. An order book analysis revealed large sell orders between $64,000 and $65,000, explaining BTC’s inability to extend its gains beyond the current range.
$62,000 In Focus
The Bitcoin liquidation heatmap revealed a substantial concentration of leveraged positions at $62,000 and could come into focus if BTC loses momentum. The heatmap also shows smaller clusters around $63,000 and between $64,500 and $66,000. In a bullish scenario, BTC stays above $63,496 and breaks above the overhead supply zone. Such a scenario could see BTC push above $67,000 and its broader consolidation range. However, if BTC falls below $63,500, it could bring the liquidation cluster at $62,000 into focus. A break below this level could see BTC slip below $61,000.
US-Iran Talks Progress
BTC’s latest recovery began after Qatar confirmed mediators were working to reopen negotiations between the US and Iran. Majed Al-Ansari, Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, stated that Doha aims to restore normalcy in the Strait of Hormuz and was working with other regional countries to mediate between Washington and Tehran.
“What matters to us now is the resumption of negotiations, and to achieve this, a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz must be guaranteed.”
Diplomatic efforts have eased concerns about supply chain disruptions. The strait is one of the world’s most important oil supply routes. Reopening the strait could ease strain on crude prices and drive demand for risk assets like BTC.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin (BTC) Eyes $65,000 As US-Iran Talks Progress on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance-linked entities have filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong alleging that RedotPay, a Hong Kong-based cryptocurrency payments firm, diverted more than 470,000 users away from the Binance Card through activities they say were outside a commercial agreement. The plaintiffs are seeking nearly $473 million in damages.
The case, detailed in a Hong Kong court filing obtained by Bloomberg, is part of a broader push by Binance-affiliated companies to enforce terms tied to their card offering. Bloomberg reported the litigation may also intersect with RedotPay’s plans as it weighs a potential initial public offering.
Key takeaways
Binance-affiliated plaintiffs say RedotPay enabled users to load RedotPay payment cards using Binance Pay outside the scope of their agreement.
The complaint alleges diversion of more than 470,000 users from Binance Card and seeks about $472.8 million in damages.
RedotPay says the lawsuit will not affect operations and plans to contest the claims.
A related legal action is also underway in Singapore, where a hearing has been scheduled for Friday.
Hong Kong lawsuit targets alleged diversion of Binance Card users
According to Bloomberg’s report, Binance Holdings affiliates Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore filed the petition against RedotPay co-founders Gao Zhangpeng, Chan Wa Choi and Yao Chao. The filing centers on alleged breach of a commercial agreement governing RedotPay’s relationship with Binance Card.
The plaintiffs’ core allegation is that RedotPay permitted users to fund RedotPay stablecoin payment cards with Binance Pay in ways they claim were not authorized under the parties’ contract. In their lawsuit, Binance-affiliated entities argue this conduct resulted in substantial customer movement away from Binance Card and toward RedotPay’s own offering.
Damages claim hinges on lifetime customer value
The lawsuit seeks nearly $473 million. In Bloomberg’s account of the filing, the damages calculation is tied to Binance’s estimated lifetime customer value of $925 per user multiplied by the alleged user diversion figure of more than 470,000.
That approach suggests the plaintiffs are not merely pursuing damages for discrete transactions, but for the expected long-term value of a customer base they say was taken from their card product. For investors and market participants tracking crypto payments, the case signals how vigorously major counterparties are now quantifying commercial harm in custody- and payments-adjacent relationships.
Parallel litigation in Singapore adds pressure
Bloomberg further reports that Chaintecs filed a related lawsuit in Singapore. A hearing is scheduled for Friday, according to the court’s published hearing list.
Multiple jurisdictions can matter in crypto-related disputes because different courts may have varying views on contract interpretation, evidence standards, and the enforceability of certain remedies. For parties involved in cross-border payment ecosystems, the existence of parallel proceedings also raises the likelihood that the dispute will stay in the public spotlight longer than a single-country filing.
RedotPay pushes back, says operations will continue
In a statement posted on its website, RedotPay said the legal proceedings would not affect its operations and that it intends to contest the allegations. The company also indicated it would refrain from further comment while the matter is before the court.
“We are confident in our legal position, and are vigorously defending all claims. As the matter is currently before the court, RedotPay will not be commenting further on the allegations, the ongoing proceedings, or matters that will be addressed through the judicial process,” RedotPay said in its published response.
Binance did not provide operational commentary but, according to a spokesperson speaking to Cointelegraph, it would pursue legal options where necessary. The spokesperson said, “While Binance does not comment on ongoing litigation, where necessary we will use courts and other forums to pursue what is right.”
Why this dispute matters for card and payments users
This lawsuit is not just a contractual fight; it highlights the growing importance of compliance and channel controls in crypto card ecosystems. Allegations involving how users load funds—particularly through payment rails like Binance Pay—can directly affect user access, onboarding flows, and which provider ultimately captures transaction-driven value.
Even if the underlying contract is eventually interpreted narrowly, cases like this can influence how payment partners structure permissions, settle revenue-sharing, and document user attribution. Traders and builders watching crypto payments may also take note of how disputes are increasingly tied to quantified customer metrics, signaling a shift away from purely reputational arguments toward measurable economic damages.
As proceedings move forward in Hong Kong and Singapore, the key questions for readers will be what the courts find about the parties’ contract scope—especially whether Binance Pay funding to RedotPay cards fell within agreed boundaries—and how damages, if any, are calculated once the facts are established.
This article was originally published as Binance Files Lawsuit Against RedotPay Over Alleged $473M Losses on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States continued drawing attention from investors, posting net inflows of $211.5 million on Tuesday, after $170 million of inflows the prior day, according to SoSoValue data. The renewed demand comes as a high-profile Coldcard hardware wallet incident is prompting fresh debate over how safely digital assets are protected—especially in comparison with regulated, institutional custody.
The inflow rebound also aligns with early reassessment of the potential impact of the Coldcard hack. Galaxy Research has estimated the incident could have affected up to 7,300 addresses and may have led to roughly $130 million in suspected Bitcoin losses for users of the hardware wallet, based on its own analysis shared on social media.
Key takeaways
SoSoValue reports spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $170 million on Monday and $211.5 million on Tuesday, signaling a return of daily demand.
BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) led the recovery with $111 million in inflows on Monday and $170 million on Tuesday, per Farside Investors data.
Galaxy Research estimates the Coldcard incident may have impacted as many as 7,300 addresses, with suspected losses around $130 million.
Bloomberg Intelligence’s Eric Balchunas said the custody narrative could shift as investors compare institutional safeguards with smaller crypto players.
Bitcoin was broadly stable as traders weighed custody concerns alongside other selling pressure, including a reported 1,638 BTC sale by Strategy.
Spot Bitcoin ETFs rebound as capital returns
ETF flows suggest demand is not confined to a single fund—though the largest products remain the main drivers. Farside Investors data shows IBIT led Monday and Tuesday inflows, contributing $111 million on Monday and $170 million on Tuesday.
Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) followed with approximately $33 million in inflows on Monday and around $20 million on Tuesday. Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF (BTCO) recorded $6.7 million in inflows on Monday—its first positive daily flow since July 1—according to Farside.
For investors, the timing matters. Coldcard-related headlines are reintroducing risk questions that many ETF investors previously treated as settled through regulated custody frameworks. When inflows rise during a period of heightened security discourse, it can be interpreted as a renewed preference for products where asset protection is managed within established financial systems.
Galaxy Research keeps the Coldcard impact in focus
Galaxy Research has been one of the most prominent groups tracking the Coldcard incident, with estimates that attempt to quantify both exposure and potential losses. In posts shared by Galaxy Research personnel, including firmwide research head Alex Thorn, the analysis has highlighted possible affected addresses and the scale of suspected stolen funds linked to users of the device.
While the figure of “up to 7,300 addresses” and roughly “$130 million” in suspected losses are estimates rather than confirmed outcomes for every impacted user, the essential point is that the hack underscores the operational risks that come with self-custody—particularly for hardware wallet users who expect their security model to hold under real-world conditions.
The ETF market’s ability to absorb investor worry depends on how quickly investors can translate those risks into a decision. Tuesday’s strong inflow data suggests many were willing to do exactly that, at least in the short term.
Custody debate: when “institutional” starts to look like a feature
Bloomberg Intelligence ETF analyst Eric Balchunas argued that the Coldcard hack could push some investors toward Bitcoin ETFs by changing how custody is perceived. In a Tuesday post on X, Balchunas framed traditional custodial responsibility as increasingly attractive—suggesting that what some in crypto culture once dismissed as a “bug” (reliance on legacy financial institutions) may appear like a “feature” once investors compare those systems to the realities of security failures elsewhere.
Balchunas also pointed to additional ETF-market shifts that are affecting investor expectations around the product landscape, including the closure of Hashdex’s spot Bitcoin ETF and a planned reverse split for BlackRock’s Ethereum ETF, according to related reporting and a regulatory filing referenced in the original discussion.
For market participants, these changes matter because product availability and investor access can influence where flows ultimately land. Even if the Coldcard incident is the immediate catalyst for attention, the broader structure of the ETF market—what exists, what’s closed, and what changes operationally—affects whether risk-off moves translate into reduced exposure or reallocations within the ETF suite.
Bitcoin price holds steady as traders weigh selling pressure
Bitcoin remained relatively stable as traders processed both the Coldcard incident and other potential sources of pressure. At the time of publication, BTC traded around $64,113, down about 0.8% over the prior seven days, according to CoinGecko, with the period’s low falling below $62,500.
Alongside custody headlines, observers also cited additional selling activity, including a reported 1,638 BTC sale by Michael Saylor’s Strategy. That adds another layer to how traders may interpret ETF inflows: if ETFs are attracting new capital while other wallets are still moving coins, price stabilization can occur even without immediate net buying pressure overwhelming other flows.
Not all analysis has treated the Coldcard-related movement risk as negligible. Some commentators argued that moving or converting stolen funds could be more difficult because blockchain transactions are publicly visible. In an X post, commentator Shagun suggested that large transfers would likely draw scrutiny from blockchain researchers, exchanges, and other market actors.
What to watch next
Investors will likely keep an eye on whether spot Bitcoin ETF inflows persist beyond the current rebound and whether any further incident-related assessments clarify the true extent of the Coldcard exposure. Separately, traders may watch on-chain behavior for signs of how any stolen funds move—because the custody story may change again depending on whether attackers can liquidate quickly or face increased friction.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs See Inflows as Cold-Wallet Hack Revives Custody Debate on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s on-chain “capitulation” phase has stretched to its longest stretch since the aftermath of the FTX collapse, according to Glassnode. In a Monday update, the firm pointed to its composite cycle-tracking framework showing that a large share of Bitcoin price-related indicators has remained in its most defensive, low-conviction stage through 2026.
The key nuance is that, while conditions resemble late-cycle stress, Glassnode’s heatmap readings have not yet fully matched the deepest “floor” signatures that appeared during earlier bear-market bottoms. At the same time, Glassnode’s latest Market Pulse report suggested that on-chain activity has strengthened—an important counterpoint for investors weighing whether capitulation is finally giving way to stabilization.
Key takeaways
Glassnode’s “Bitcoin Cycle Position Heatmap” shows 45 tracked BTC price metrics have been in the longest capitulation phase since late 2022’s FTX fallout.
Rafael Schultze-Kraft said the current period sits in its coldest stretch since FTX, but still not at the unanimous deep-blue level that historically marked cycle floors.
The heatmap uses a basket of 45 indicators, heavily incorporating investor profitability across short-term (STH) and long-term (LTH) holders.
Glassnode reported stronger network engagement, including daily active addresses and entity-adjusted transfer volumes moving above upper statistical bands.
Heatmap extends capitulation longer than past cycles
Glassnode’s “Bitcoin Cycle Position Heatmap,” created by the platform co-founder Rafael Schultze-Kraft, aggregates data from 45 different Bitcoin price and market-health indicators. In the heatmap, blue shading is associated with capitulation conditions, while red is used to highlight the euphoria typical of late-cycle momentum toward peaks.
The tool flipped from a more euphoric configuration after November 2021 into a majority-blue dominance throughout 2022. That shift coincided with the collapse of FTX, which occurred in late 2022 and aligned with analysts pointing to Bitcoin’s bear-market bottom around $15,600, according to earlier coverage referenced from Cointelegraph.
Schultze-Kraft’s latest read of the heatmap emphasizes both duration and depth. He said the current stage is “its coldest stretch since FTX” and is late in the bear market cycle, but remains “not yet the unanimous deep blue” that had historically indicated a more definitive floor.
For traders and long-term investors, this matters because cycle-position models are often less about predicting a specific day and more about gauging whether market behavior is approaching the “reset” phase that follows widespread distribution and forced risk reduction.
Why profitability and holder behavior shape the signal
Beyond conventional price gauges like market cap, the heatmap places significant weight on the profitability of Bitcoin’s investor base. It divides participants into short-term holders (STH) and long-term holders (LTH), reflecting that these cohorts typically react differently during sell-offs and recoveries.
Schultze-Kraft also highlighted an additional complication: some indicators change character as the composition of the investor base ages. One example is dormancy, measured by how many days a unit of BTC spent idle before being moved on-chain. Because dormancy tends to increase as the chain ages, the dormancy signal can differ between cycles—meaning the same threshold may not “mean” the same thing across different bear markets.
That kind of calibration is crucial when interpreting heatmap results. A long capitulation stretch can be read two ways: either distribution is still ongoing, or the market has moved into a prolonged sideways grind where participants are not capitulating in the most extreme fashion yet. Glassnode’s framing—that the readings are colder than prior periods but not at maximum floor conditions—leans toward the second interpretation.
Network activity improves even as capitulation persists
While the cycle heatmap focuses on sentiment and cycle-stage indicators, Glassnode’s Monday Market Pulse report pointed to strengthening on-chain behavior. The firm reported that daily active addresses and entity-adjusted transfer volumes moved above their upper statistical bands, a change it characterized as a “notable increase” in network engagement and economic throughput.
That improvement matters because it suggests a degree of market function is returning even if the broader cycle signal still shows capitulation characteristics. In other words, activity may be shifting from panic-driven flows toward more sustained utilization, which can be an early ingredient of stabilization.
Glassnode also noted that stabilization of capital outflows persisted despite investor reaction to a separate security event: a low-entropy bug exploit in Coldcard hardware wallets. The implication is that even if some participants reacted defensively to the news, the broader on-chain throughput did not collapse further.
Supporting this, CryptoQuant data cited by Cointelegraph compared a rise in on-chain transfers of 1 BTC or less with the pattern seen after the FTX implosion. Specifically, it noted that on July 31 the daily tally reached 39,600 BTC, compared with 39,900 BTC on Nov. 16, 2022. The comparison underlines how transaction behavior can echo prior stress periods, even when the macro timeline differs.
What to watch next as the signal matures
Glassnode’s heatmap suggests Bitcoin is in the coldest stretch since FTX, but not yet in the “unanimous” conditions that previously aligned with a more decisive bottom. Investors should watch whether the heatmap continues deeper into its most extreme blue regime while on-chain activity remains elevated—especially daily activity and transfer volumes—as those combinations would strengthen the case that capitulation is transitioning into a more durable stabilization phase.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin “capitulation basket” hits longest streak since FTX, says Glassnode on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Prediction market platform Polymarket is in preliminary discussions to raise $1 billion at a valuation of above $20 billion, according to sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations.
The latest discussions come only a few months after the platform closed a $15 billion funding round in April.
Polymarket Looks To Raise $1 Billion
If the latest funding round is successful, it would likely double Polymarket’s October 2025 valuation of $9 billion. The company secured a $15 billion valuation during its April funding round, bringing hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co. and venture capital firm G Squared on board as new investors. Polymarket also secured a $600 million investment from Intercontinental Exchange Inc. during April’s funding round, bringing the total investment close to $1 billion.
Since the April funding round, Polymarket has launched its US exchange and reported annualized revenue of over $1.2 billion. Daily notional volume on Polymarket’s US exchange has crossed $100 million, a substantial increase from the $75 million reported in May. Negotiations remain at an early stage, with no term sheet, closing date, or final investor sheet publicly available. A $20 billion valuation would value Polymarket nearly 33% higher than the April 2026 funding round, and more than twice Bloomberg’s October 2025 valuation.
Why Polymarket Has A Strong Case For Higher Valuation
Polymarket’s return to the US market as a regulated entity gives it a highly regulated growth channel and bolsters its case for a higher valuation. Polymarket US is listed as QCX LLC, a designated contract market, in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) official registry. Polymarket has submitted rule changes, liquidity programs, surveillance, and trading procedures since its listing. According to Bloomberg, Polymarket opened its US exchange after its April 2026 funding round.
Polymarket’s reported revenue growth supports the platform’s push for a higher valuation, and trading data revealed a significant jump in trading activity on the US platform.
Kalshi’s $22 Billion Valuation
Kalshi, Polymarket’s biggest rival, announced a Series F funding round at a $22 billion valuation. The funding round was led by Coatue, with investments from Andreessen Horowitz, Sequoia Capital, IVP, Paradigm, AKR Invest, and Morgan Stanley. The prediction market reported an 800% increase in trading volume, while its annualized trading volume rose from $52 billion to $178 billion. Kalshi also claimed it controlled over 90% of the US prediction market when it announced the funding round, while independent data showed Kalshi processed over three times the combined volume of Polymarket’s international and US platforms.
Polymarket plans to leverage its crypto settlement infrastructure, international reach, brand recognition, and partnership with Intercontinental Exchange to narrow the valuation gap with Kalshi.
Ongoing Regulatory Disputes Could Hamper Funding
Polymarket US is facing lawsuits in several US states that argue sports events contracts equate to gambling and are subject to state, not federal, laws. Polymarket and QCX were also the subject of a civil complaint filed by the Nevada Gaming Control Board to stop companies like Polymarket from offering unlicensed wagering in Nevada. Both Polymarket and Kalshi are also locked in a dispute about whether the Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC exclusive authority over prediction markets.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Polymarket Seeks $1 Billion At More Than $20 Billion Valuation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

DefiLlama has added Forgd’s market-maker leaderboard to its analytics platform, aiming to give traders, token teams, and liquidity researchers a more standardized view of how market makers perform across exchanges and individual tokens.
According to Forgd, the leaderboard aggregates data on spreads, market depth, trading volume, and uptime. The integration provides DefiLlama users with a dashboard that ranks market makers using consistent measurements for pricing quality, liquidity depth, reliability, and execution—rather than relying on fragmented, exchange-by-exchange metrics.
Key takeaways
DefiLlama integrates Forgd’s leaderboard to surface market-maker performance indicators such as spreads, depth, volume, and uptime.
Forgd claims broad coverage, with data spanning more than 500 token projects and 35 market-making firms using its tooling.
Comparisons aim to be standardized, enabling users to benchmark liquidity providers across venues and token markets.
Scores are not a pure “trading performance” grade, Forgd says: lower ratings may reflect incomplete “performance verification” opt-in rather than poor execution.
What DefiLlama’s new leaderboard adds
DefiLlama is widely used by the crypto community to track on-chain and protocol-level activity, liquidity, and cross-market performance. With the new integration, the platform extends beyond token analytics into a layer focused on the mechanics of market making—how liquidity is provided in practice.
Forgd told Cointelegraph that its dashboard ranks crypto market makers using standardized criteria, including pricing-related metrics (such as spreads), the capacity of markets to absorb trades (market depth), and reliability measures (uptime). By tying those inputs to an index, users can compare market makers in a way that is meant to be consistent across active engagements.
How the underlying data is sourced
Forgd says the leaderboard is built from data spanning more than 500 token projects and involves 35 market-making firms that use Forgd’s tools to monitor liquidity across their active engagements.
The company also positioned the leaderboard as a tool for token projects when it first launched in May—helping teams select, evaluate, and monitor liquidity providers. With the DefiLlama integration, the same dataset is now intended to be more broadly accessible to anyone using DefiLlama’s interface for market research.
Why liquidity teams and traders may care
In practice, liquidity quality is not just about how much trading volume exists—it’s also about how efficiently orders can be filled without excessive price impact and whether liquidity remains available under stress.
Ryan Celaj, DefiLlama’s head of research, said the integration adds another evaluation signal for market structure that complements commonly tracked metrics like volume and liquidity. In other words, two tokens with similar headline liquidity can differ meaningfully in how consistently market makers support them and how tight spreads remain as activity fluctuates.
For token teams, the promise is straightforward: an easier way to compare market makers on criteria that map more directly to trading experience. For traders and analysts, it offers a way to evaluate market resilience—especially when liquidity conditions change across venues or during periods of volatility.
Important caveat: scores may reflect verification coverage
While the leaderboard provides grades meant to summarize multiple dimensions of performance, Forgd cautioned that these ratings are not solely a reflection of how a firm trades.
“A lower grade on the index is not necessarily a judgment of a firm’s trading,” Forgd CEO Shane Molidor told Cointelegraph. He explained that the index can also reflect whether market makers have “fully opted into performance verification.” In that case, the scoring may partly track the amount of verified data a firm supplies to Forgd rather than an objective decline in execution quality.
This distinction matters for anyone using the leaderboard for decision-making. If a firm’s dataset is thinner because it has not completed verification, a low score could be as much about data availability as about market-making effectiveness. Traders and liquidity teams may therefore want to look beyond the headline rating and consider how much verified activity is reflected in a firm’s placement.
What’s next and what to watch
With Forgd’s leaderboard now embedded into DefiLlama, the main question for users is how quickly the integration improves cross-market comparability and whether verification coverage grows over time—potentially changing which firms appear toward the top. Investors and market participants should watch for how consistently uptime, depth, and spread metrics track real trading conditions, and whether new listings and opt-ins expand the reliability of the underlying index.
This article was originally published as ForgeD Adds Crypto Market-Maker Leaderboard to DeFiLlama on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Arthur Hayes, the former co-founder of BitMEX, is warning that today’s surge in AI infrastructure spending could sow the seeds of a renewed credit crunch—one he believes may ultimately send Bitcoin to highly elevated levels.
In a Tuesday blog post, Hayes argued that the boom is being treated by investors as a high-growth technology earnings story, when he views it more like leveraged real estate. He expects lenders to fund aggressive data-center and power buildouts, only for a slowdown in AI-related capital expenditure to reveal weaker borrowers. From there, Hayes suggested, a government liquidity response could reintroduce significant risk assets into the broader market, with Bitcoin potentially rallying far beyond current ranges.
Key takeaways
Hayes frames AI infrastructure expansion as a “credit story” rather than an “earnings story,” drawing a parallel to the 2008-style credit cycle.
He expects banks to finance data-center construction and believes the exposure will become clearer when AI spending growth cools.
Hayes said Bitcoin could churn in a range of $60,000 to $70,000, with downside risk to $50,000 before any credit-driven recovery.
He forecast Ether could reach $5,000 by year-end and said his firm Maelstrom plans to accumulate while selling out-of-the-money ETH puts.
Recent reporting highlights the scale of future AI data-center lease commitments, underscoring the leverage embedded in the buildout.
Hayes’ “AI is real estate” credit-cycle warning
Hayes’ latest argument centers on how the AI buildout is financed. In his view, spending on data centers and power infrastructure is not the same as investing in product-driven technology growth. Instead, he characterizes it as a leveraged commitment that resembles property finance—where cash flows depend on demand staying strong and credit remaining available.
That distinction matters because credit cycles can turn quickly when expectations are met too early or when capital expenditure slows. Hayes’ thesis is that lenders will continue extending funding while projects are still ramping, but problems may surface after AI capital expenditures weaken and borrowers face difficulty servicing obligations. In that scenario, he expects liquidity measures from policymakers to follow—potentially injecting fresh capital into financial markets.
From 2008 comparisons to Bitcoin’s speculative path
Hayes directly compared the dynamic to 2008, calling the AI boom a “credit story like 2008 and not an earnings story like 2000.” He stressed that the key driver for crypto, in his framing, would not be fundamental “earnings” growth from the AI sector itself, but rather the liquidity response that could follow a credit deterioration.
In the meantime, he outlined a near-term technical-style range for Bitcoin. Hayes said BTC could remain between $60,000 and $70,000, with potential downside to $50,000, before any recovery tied to the credit cycle and government liquidity response. He also floated the prospect that, if the cycle plays out as he expects, Bitcoin could eventually be driven to $1 million or higher.
It’s important to note that Hayes’ scenario is inherently speculative. The argument depends on a specific chain: overbuilding in AI infrastructure → weaker borrowers → a credit crisis → policy liquidity support → renewed inflows into risk assets like Bitcoin. While the general linkage between credit conditions and market liquidity is a recurring theme in macro finance, the timing and magnitude Hayes suggests remain uncertain.
What changes, and how Hayes positions within the market
Hayes’ outlook includes both a macro forecast and an options-and-positioning angle. He predicted Ether (ETH) would reach $5,000 by year-end and said Maelstrom intends to build a “significant position” while simultaneously selling out-of-the-money ETH put options. The structure signals a willingness to hold exposure while collecting premium that could cushion downside—though the payoff depends on where ETH trades relative to the strike prices and volatility conditions.
His thinking also builds on earlier public comments about how AI competition and capital allocation could affect crypto liquidity. On May 13, Hayes said US-China competition in AI would encourage bank lending and fiat creation—an environment he argued could benefit Bitcoin. On June 4, he previously said he sold HYPE and NEAR after warning that major AI-related listings could divert capital away from crypto.
Taken together, the throughline is that Hayes sees crypto’s near-to-medium term direction as sensitive to macro and liquidity flows, not just to crypto-native fundamentals. Where AI spending is framed as a credit lever, the opportunity for crypto comes from the knock-on effect: whether the broader system expands liquidity—or contracts it under stress.
Why leverage in AI infrastructure is getting attention
Hayes’ caution about financing risk comes as reporting has begun to quantify the scale of commitments behind the AI buildout. According to Reuters, Microsoft, Meta, Oracle, Amazon, and Alphabet have committed about $1.09 trillion to leases that have not yet commenced, largely for data centers. Reuters noted that this figure cannot be treated as a straightforward debt total because it reflects undiscounted payments spread across multiple years.
Still, Reuters highlighted that the commitments are nearly four times the roughly $285 billion in lease liabilities already recognized by the same companies. The gap matters because off-balance-sheet commitments can become a stress point if operating assumptions weaken, especially if the buildout timing and actual demand for capacity diverge.
Reuters also pointed to uneven strain across firms. A separate Reuters analysis cited that Oracle’s debt was about 4.3 times its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, while Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta had ratios below one. Reuters further quoted S&P Global analyst Andrew Chang, who said Oracle’s data-center leases run for 15 to 19 years, while customer contracts last no more than five years—creating a mismatch that could increase risk if customers do not renew or expand on the expected schedule.
For crypto investors tracking Hayes’ thesis, the relevance is straightforward: if the AI infrastructure ramp becomes a drag on credit and financing markets, it could translate into broader liquidity constraints. Conversely, if policymakers respond aggressively to maintain stability, that same liquidity could later flow back into speculative assets—where Bitcoin has historically captured attention during risk-on phases.
Going forward, market participants will likely watch whether AI infrastructure spending and financing conditions begin to show signs of strain, and whether policy-makers move to support credit markets if they do; Hayes’ case hinges on that transition from construction optimism to a liquidity-driven response. Until there is clear evidence of a slowdown in capital expenditure or credit stress in the real economy, his BTC range and $1 million-plus scenario remain a high-volatility narrative rather than a confirmed forecast.
This article was originally published as Hayes Warns AI Credit Bubble Could Drive Bitcoin Toward $1M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum’s ongoing tokenomics debate has reignited after six researchers and developers, including Ethereum Foundation (EF) researcher Justin Drake, published a draft proposal aimed at changing how much ETH the network issues to validators as staking participation rises.
The draft—provisionally labeled EIP-8363 and described as the “Tapered Issuance Burn”—would increasingly burn a portion of validators’ consensus rewards once the amount of staked ETH approaches a preset threshold. The policy is designed to phase in over roughly 18 months, while supporters argue it addresses dilution pressures from persistently high staking incentives.
Key takeaways
The proposed EIP-8363 would burn an increasing fraction of validator consensus rewards as staked ETH nears 60.25 million ETH (about 50% of current ETH supply).
Under the draft, issuance is expected to peak at around 0.5% of ETH supply per year when roughly 20% of ETH is staked, then decline toward zero as the threshold is reached.
Critics—including DeFi and solo-staking advocates—warn the reward taper could push out solo validators earlier than larger staking entities.
The proposal has drawn concerns over whether enough time exists for community review, especially given its proximity to an Aug. 6 deadline related to other Hegotá-focused EIP pull requests.
EIP-8363 remains an early draft and has not been approved, scheduled, or included in the Hegotá upgrade.
How EIP-8363 would change issuance as staking grows
The Tapered Issuance Burn proposal sets a clear mechanism: as the staking ratio rises toward a fixed target, validators would see a larger share of their consensus rewards redirected into a burn. The authors outline a threshold of 60.25 million ETH—roughly equivalent to 50% of today’s ETH supply—where the deduction reaches 100%.
In other words, the more ETH that is staked, the more the system reduces net issuance to validators via burning. The draft specifies that the change would phase in over about 18 months, rather than switching abruptly.
The EIP is published as a draft on GitHub under the provisional identifier EIP-8363, hosted here: GitHub.
Why the authors say “dilution” is the real issue
Support for the proposal comes from the argument that Ethereum should cap issuance more tightly as staking becomes increasingly dominant. One of the authors, Jérôme de Tychey, says the network’s current incentive curve does not “switch off,” creating ongoing dilution pressure even if most or all ETH is staked.
De Tychey pointed to staking reaching 33% in April and warned that continued growth could lead to an ecosystem where ETH is increasingly concentrated among large custodians and liquid staking providers—reducing the role of raw, neutral ETH in favor of intermediated claims.
In a post associated with the proposal, de Tychey frames the issuance problem as a “dilution tax,” arguing that when staking derivatives and large intermediaries expand, the asset most directly tied to Ethereum’s core value accrual becomes less central to everyday usage. He also suggested that unchecked issuance makes it harder to maintain Ethereum’s “store of value” fundamentals.
According to the draft’s proponents, the mechanism would help make supply growth bounded and more predictable, and they tie the idea to Ethereum’s broader monetary stack. In their view, combined with other supply-side mechanisms such as EIP-1559 and the burn model introduced for certain network activity, tapering validator issuance would reduce long-term inflationary pressure.
Outside the EF developer circle, Grayscale’s research leadership has previously argued that limiting staking incentives could be “positive for the price of Ether over time,” according to a May statement attributed to Zach Pandl by Grayscale.
Backlash: solo validators, DeFi liquidity, and institutions
Despite support from some quarters, the draft has faced pushback from developers, stakers, and DeFi participants. A central concern is the effect of reward reduction on smaller participants—particularly solo validators—who may face higher relative operational costs.
Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, criticized the proposal by arguing it would weaken institutional demand for ETH and reduce borrowing activity across DeFi, calling it “hurtful” rather than helpful to Ethereum’s goals. His position was shared in a social post referenced in the reporting.
Ether.Fi CEO Mike Silagadze echoed the solo-staker concern, stating the policy would effectively “push out” solo operators unless they receive external subsidy. In his view, the result would be a validator set dominated by large centralized entities while users hold ETH passively.
De Tychey disputed that framing in an Ethereum Magicians thread, noting that users of large staking providers generally still pay fees and therefore would be less attracted as consensus rewards decline. He acknowledged that research on the magnitude and timing of those effects remains contested, but the core disagreement reflects a broader tension: whether reducing validator incentives primarily harms decentralization dynamics or mainly corrects dilution without materially damaging the staking ecosystem.
Some developers also raised concerns about process and timing. While the underlying confusion appears to relate to Hegotá-related deadlines, Greg Koumoutsos argued that the community may not have enough time to conduct a thorough review of a change to monetary policy of this magnitude.
Where EIP-8363 fits in Ethereum’s Hegotá roadmap
EIP-8363 is not currently approved, scheduled, or included in Hegotá. The draft has an associated Aug. 6 deadline, but the reporting clarifies that this date concerns pull requests proposing additional EIPs for Hegotá—not a deadline for deciding which proposals ultimately get included.
Ethereum community organizer Trent Van Epps said that selection for Hegotá could continue until Nov. 8, and that the upgrade is likely to reach mainnet in the second quarter of 2027, referencing Ethereum’s fork schedule: forkcast.org schedule.
That timeline matters because changes to issuance and validator incentives are not just operational parameters—they interact with token supply expectations, staking behavior, and the economics of DeFi strategies that depend on staking yields. With EIP-8363 still in draft form and outside any confirmed inclusion, much remains to be determined through community discussion and the eventual selection process.
For readers tracking this debate, the key next checkpoints are how EIP-8363 evolves in the open review process, whether further modeling clarifies the expected impact on solo validators versus larger staking providers, and how—if at all—the proposal fits into the eventual Hegotá EIP selection window extending toward Nov. 8.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Researchers Propose Staking Limits as Critics Warn of Fallout on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto security leaders are grappling with a growing mismatch: attackers increasingly benefit from cutting-edge, AI-assisted capabilities, while many major crypto firms still lack direct access to the most powerful “frontier” cyber models used for security testing and code hardening.
In June, Coinbase said it had secured access to Anthropic’s restricted Mythos model, and Zcash founder Zooko Wilcox said Anthropic used Mythos to help audit the Zcash protocol at the request of Shielded Labs. Yet other large players, including Binance, have publicly indicated they have not been able to obtain similar access—highlighting an emerging “security divide” across the industry.
Key takeaways
Major crypto firms have uneven access to restricted frontier cyber models like Anthropic’s Mythos, leaving some with fewer defensive tools than others.
Executives argue gating advanced models is initially necessary because attackers may adopt new capabilities faster than defenders.
As publicly available models close the capability gap, industry pressure is likely to increase for wider defender access to restricted tools.
Recent incidents involving AI-assisted exploitation and wallet/bridge security show why faster defensive iteration is becoming critical.
Why access to “frontier” cyber models is uneven
Anthropic’s Mythos is positioned as a restricted version of a model also related to a more public offering—its developers say the underlying base is similar, but that Mythos removes certain safeguards that limit sensitive cybersecurity work. OpenAI has described a comparable approach, offering different tiers of capability depending on the type of user and intended use, including “Trusted Access for Cyber” for verified defenders.
Binance chief security officer Jimmy Su told Cointelegraph that the gap remains meaningful. According to Su, Binance has been trying to make progress on obtaining such tools, including conversations with other crypto exchanges and investors, but it has not obtained the most advanced model like Mythos.
This uneven rollout matters because the cyber threat landscape is moving faster than traditional security review cycles. In an ecosystem where vulnerabilities can be exploited rapidly—often with automated or semi-automated assistance—having fewer defensive options can translate into slower discovery and patching.
Executives back initial gating—then question the long-term rationale
Crypto security executives interviewed by Cointelegraph said there is likely a legitimate need to restrict initial access to frontier cyber models. The reasoning is straightforward: if a new model enhances attackers more quickly than defenders, it can increase the ecosystem’s exposure before the security community catches up.
Su suggested that controlled rollout can reduce the “blast radius,” especially early on. However, he also argued that the justification changes as competing models become more powerful and more widely available. In that scenario, the pressure shifts to model developers to broaden access—and the key question becomes whether defenders can use the tools effectively at the same pace attackers do.
Michael Coates, chief information security officer at the Solana Foundation, echoed the tension. Coates supported safeguards but said verification and acceptance pathways can slow down legitimate defensive usage. In his view, defenders need a more streamlined process to get advanced models into the hands of teams that can evaluate code and identify issues before they are exploited.
Blockchain Capital’s Sean Cheetham also leaned toward eventual opening. He argued that while malicious actors are skilled, the broader pool of security researchers tends to be larger. If “good people” can scale their defensive work, broader access could ultimately strengthen the ecosystem more than it helps attackers.
Large exchanges and builders still waiting, while some crypto-adjacent firms got in
Binance’s access situation is notable given its scale: DefiLlama data cited by Cointelegraph places Binance’s total assets at $137.8 billion. Despite that footprint, Su indicated the exchange had not reached the highest tier of frontier cyber-model access.
Cointelegraph also reported additional signals of staggered access within the sector. Fireblocks, a major crypto custodian, said in April it had sought access to Mythos. At that time, it relied on Anthropic’s publicly available model for penetration testing rather than restricted access. Uniswap founder Hayden Adams similarly criticized safeguards tied to cybersecurity prompts in relation to Fable 5.
Separately, the Ethereum Foundation said in July that it has been running “coordinated AI agents” to find bugs across its systems but did not specify which models were being used. Cointelegraph reached out to the Ethereum Foundation, Fireblocks, and Uniswap to confirm whether they had received access to restricted frontier models since those earlier statements.
While many crypto players appear to be waiting, some crypto-adjacent organizations have moved ahead. FIS, which provides technology to banks and partnered with Circle last year for USDC payments, said it joined Anthropic’s Project Glasswing program last month. Project Glasswing is designed as a gated channel for vetted cyber defenders and critical software infrastructure organizations to obtain early access to restricted Mythos models.
HackerOne—known for bug bounty and security testing—also said it joined Project Glasswing. Cointelegraph notes that, in this case, testing is limited to HackerOne’s own infrastructure rather than being extended to customer programs.
Cointelegraph reached out to OpenAI and Anthropic for details on how many crypto companies have been granted access to restricted models, but those responses are not included in the article text provided.
Why the stakes are rising: AI-assisted exploitation and faster attacker iteration
The access debate is playing out against a backdrop of security incidents that organizations link to faster exploitation cycles. On Monday, Bitcoin swap service Boltz said it paused its non-custodial bridge after it observed a steady rise in AI-assisted hacking attempts over the past few months. Boltz’s statement, as reported by Cointelegraph, argued that the pattern is that attackers can iterate faster than a smaller security team can find and patch issues.
Hardware wallet maker Coinkite reported last week that some of its Coldcard devices were exploited due to a flaw in wallet seed generation. Coinkite indicated the randomness of the seed generation was less than expected and speculated that the attacker may have used AI to examine previous firmware versions to identify and exploit the weakness—even though the company said it had used “one of the best available AI models” to review its code only weeks earlier.
These examples underscore a key practical problem: even when defenders use advanced tools, the cadence mismatch—how quickly attackers can adapt and how quickly defenders can verify fixes—can still drive outcomes. Access to restricted models may be only part of the answer; process, testing rigor, and deployment speed remain central to reducing real-world risk.
Next, readers should watch whether frontier-model providers expand defender access beyond the current limited pipelines and whether security teams can demonstrate that broader availability improves outcomes rather than accelerating exploitation. The gap between who can test with the most capable tools—and how quickly they can patch—may become one of the defining operational fault lines in crypto security.
This article was originally published as Crypto Firms Still Seek Frontier AI Access, With Only Few Approved on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A former FBI supervisory agent, Patrick Steven Yaroch, has been charged with abusing internal access to obtain credentials for cryptocurrency wallets tied to an adversarial country and then using those funds to transfer value to his own crypto accounts. Prosecutors say Yaroch used the access to conduct unauthorized transfers totaling roughly $1 million in digital assets across late 2024 and early 2025.
According to a Saturday court filing in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Yaroch later admitted to 10 unauthorized transfers involving an estimated total of about $1 million. Prosecutors also allege that some of the stolen crypto was deposited into Suilend to earn yield.
Key takeaways
Patrick Steven Yaroch allegedly used FBI internal systems to access credentials for cryptocurrency wallets linked to an adversarial country.
The admitted unauthorized activity included 10 transfers between late 2024 and early 2025, with an estimated total value of around $1 million.
After self-reporting, Yaroch was placed on administrative leave, then terminated and arrested within days.
Investigators reportedly recovered devices, seed phrases, and a Trezor wallet from Yaroch’s Virginia home to access accounts on Suilend and on crypto exchange Kraken.
Earlier federal cases in the Silk Road investigation involved agent theft of large Bitcoin amounts, underscoring a recurring pattern.
What prosecutors allege Yaroch did
The filing states that Yaroch admitted to making unauthorized transfers between late 2024 and early 2025. Prosecutors describe the conduct as credential misuse: he allegedly used internal FBI systems to obtain access for wallets associated with an adversarial country. Those credentials were then used to move funds to wallets under his control.
Yaroch’s admission included 10 transfers, with prosecutors estimating the total digital assets involved at approximately $1 million. The filing further alleges that he deposited some of the assets into Suilend, a platform where users can earn yield by supplying crypto.
How the investigation proceeded
After Yaroch self-reported the incident, he was placed on administrative leave last Wednesday. He was terminated and then arrested on Friday, according to the filing.
Agents also obtained materials from Yaroch’s Virginia residence. The filing says investigators retrieved devices, seed phrases, and a Trezor hardware wallet to access Yaroch’s accounts on Suilend and on crypto exchange Kraken.
With Yaroch’s cooperation, investigators report transferring roughly $925,000 in funds to government-controlled wallets. That figure represents the majority share of the estimated value admitted in the case, but the filing’s description indicates that some assets may not have been fully captured in the returned amount.
AI use raised further questions
In May, the court filing says Yaroch used ChatGPT for advice about investing money for maximum profit and return. The prompt included a hypothetical: “If I had a million dollars, how would you suggest investing it/spending it to maximize profit and return.”
According to the filing, the AI response recommended “building a slower-living vineyard/agricultural lifestyle” in places such as Cilento or Portugal’s Dão region. The filing does not indicate that the advice was acted on as written, but it places Yaroch’s mindset and planning alongside the period during which the alleged unauthorized transfers were conducted.
A pattern of agent-linked crypto theft
Yaroch’s case follows several other U.S. federal prosecutions involving law enforcement personnel accused of stealing cryptocurrency connected to major investigations.
In 2015, former DEA special agent Carl M. Force diverted about $700,000 in Bitcoin. The Department of Justice later announced that Force pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six and a half years in prison; the DOJ described the case as involving extortion and money laundering connected to the Silk Road investigation. Earlier coverage of the Silk Road investigations also notes the role that seized or handled crypto played in facilitating improper transfers.
In a separate case, former U.S. Secret Service special agent Shaun W. Bridges was charged with stealing about $350,000 in Bitcoin in 2015. According to DOJ records, Bridges pleaded guilty and received a six-year prison sentence tied to a scheme associated with the Silk Road investigation.
Both of those matters—Force and Bridges—were linked to the broader Silk Road dark web marketplace investigation, demonstrating how cryptocurrency handling in high-profile cases can become a target for insider wrongdoing. Yaroch’s situation is different in details—focused on wallet credential access and transfers tied to an adversarial country—but it similarly involves a trusted role, crypto access, and unauthorized movement of funds.
A broader takeaway for the crypto sector is that enforcement and investigative work increasingly intersects with on-chain systems and credentialed wallet access. When insiders control operational keys, seed phrases, or database-like credentials—whether intentionally or through misuse—the risk is not limited to centralized platforms; it can directly translate into irreversible on-chain transfers. That reality is what makes these cases a recurring concern for regulators and compliance teams, even beyond any single exchange or protocol.
What to watch next
Readers should watch how the court evaluates the scope of the alleged transfers, what portion of the estimated value remains unaccounted for after the reported ~$925,000 transfer to government wallets, and whether the case expands beyond credential access into additional charges or additional wallet targets.
This article was originally published as Ex-FBI Supervisor Pleads Guilty in ~$1M Crypto Theft Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The United States and the United Kingdom used a recent bilateral meeting to signal continued alignment on digital-asset oversight, focusing in particular on stablecoin regulation, cross-border payments, and the structure of tokenized markets. The discussion took place during the 13th session of the UK–US Financial Regulatory Working Group (FRWG) in London on July 8.
In an Aug. 4 joint statement summarizing the meeting, US officials told their UK counterparts they are updating implementation details for the GENIUS Act, alongside ongoing work on how digital asset markets should be regulated. The statement also highlighted broader efforts on payment modernization and participation in the G20 Cross-border Payments Roadmap.
Key takeaways
The July 8 FRWG meeting reinforced US–UK policy coordination around stablecoins, digital asset market structure, and tokenization.
US officials provided an update on implementing the UK-referenced GENIUS Act and related stablecoin work, but no new policy measures were announced.
Cross-border payments modernization remains a shared priority, with both governments pointing to international work under the G20 roadmap.
UK stablecoin regulation is evolving as the Bank of England and other authorities reassess earlier approaches amid competitive momentum from the US.
FRWG meeting places GENIUS Act implementation and market structure front and center
The FRWG meeting covered several areas that regulators typically treat as interconnected: stablecoin rules, the way digital-asset markets operate in the US, tokenization, and the UK’s “Wholesale Financial Markets Digital Strategy.” Those topics matter because stablecoins are often the settlement layer for payments and tokenized instruments, while regulatory frameworks for market structure influence how exchanges, brokers, custodians, and trading venues adapt to digital assets.
According to the Aug. 4 joint statement released by the US Treasury, the US side shared updates with the UK about implementing the GENIUS Act—framed as the country’s landmark stablecoin legislation—along with work on digital asset market structure. The statement also indicates that participants discussed payment modernization initiatives and international coordination on cross-border payments through the G20 Cross-border Payments Roadmap.
While the meeting did not yield new regulatory actions, it did reinforce a familiar theme in transatlantic policy: the desire to keep pace with fast-moving market developments without undermining financial stability. Notably, the statement described a “responsible” approach to digital-asset innovation, while still emphasizing oversight and the need for international regulatory cooperation.
US–UK coordination extends beyond stablecoins to tokenization and payments
The FRWG meeting appears to fit into a broader effort by the two governments to coordinate on financial innovation. Earlier, on July 14, the Transatlantic Taskforce for Markets of the Future—an initiative aimed at strengthening cooperation on financial innovation and capital markets—published initial recommendations together with a joint statement on stablecoins.
That earlier announcement said the measures would help set the foundation for continued US–UK leadership in digital assets and capital markets. Taken alongside the July 8 FRWG discussion, it suggests regulators are treating stablecoin policy not as an isolated topic, but as part of a larger strategy that includes tokenized finance and how payments infrastructure evolves.
For investors and operators, the implication is straightforward: regulatory decisions in one country may influence how compliant products and services are designed for the other. Even when there are no immediate new rules, ongoing coordination can reduce uncertainty for cross-border issuers, market intermediaries, and firms building payment and tokenization applications intended to serve both jurisdictions.
UK stablecoin review accelerates as US regulation gains momentum
UK policymakers’ renewed attention to stablecoins arrives at a time when some observers believe the US is pulling ahead. The rationale is that the GENIUS Act has created clearer traction for regulated, dollar-backed stablecoin activity, providing a benchmark for other jurisdictions to respond to.
Within the UK, the Bank of England has reportedly softened its stance after earlier controversy over potential limits. Cointelegraph previously reported that the BoE was considering alternatives to temporary limits on stablecoin holdings and reviewing whether a proposal requiring at least 40% of reserve assets to be held as non-interest-bearing deposits at the central bank was too restrictive. Separate coverage also noted the BoE’s ongoing work to calibrate regulation in a way that supports stability without overly constraining legitimate market participation.
At the same time, the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has signaled where it sees near-term real-world value. Earlier in the year, the FCA pointed to cross-border payments as one of the “clearest near-term use cases” for stablecoins, emphasizing that regulators increasingly recognize the technology’s potential—not just as a trading asset, but as a component of payments systems.
For market participants, these signals together indicate that the UK is attempting to thread a needle: maintain strong financial stability requirements while ensuring its framework does not lag in usability and competitiveness relative to the US approach.
What to watch next: implementation details and remaining UK constraints
With the FRWG meeting described as a coordination exercise rather than a source of new rules, the practical question for the market is what happens next in implementation—especially in the US under the GENIUS Act—and whether the UK continues adjusting aspects of its earlier stablecoin proposals. Readers should watch for further clarity from UK authorities on reserve requirements and for concrete milestones tied to stablecoin market-structure work, since those details will likely determine how quickly compliant dollar-backed stablecoin services can expand across borders.
This article was originally published as US and UK Reaffirm Stablecoin and Tokenization Rules in Joint Talks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senate negotiations over digital asset legislation remain unresolved as lawmakers prepare for a key procedural vote. The CLARITY Act faces growing uncertainty after Democratic senators signaled they would not support ending debate without further concessions. Republican leaders continue seeking enough backing before lawmakers leave Washington for the summer recess.
Democrats Signal Resistance Before Procedural Vote
Democratic senators continue coordinating their position before the expected procedural vote on the CLARITY Act. Several lawmakers insist unresolved issues require additional bipartisan negotiations before supporting cloture. Senate leaders have not announced any agreement addressing those concerns.
Punchbowl News reporter Brendan Pedersen described the current Democratic position in a post on X. He wrote, “There is a clear consensus among Senate Democrats right now that—without movement on ethics, illicit finance and stablecoin yield—a cloture vote this week on the Clarity Act will fail.” His comments reflected the latest state of negotiations before the expected vote.
Pedersen also wrote, “Democrats won’t be moved by crypto cash at this point.” That statement highlights continuing resistance despite Republican efforts to secure procedural support. The CLARITY Act therefore remains short of the bipartisan momentum needed for a successful cloture vote.
Outstanding Issues Continue to Divide Both Parties
Senate Majority Leader John Thune continues working toward a procedural vote before lawmakers begin the August recess. However, several Democratic senators argue the CLARITY Act still requires further revisions before advancing. Negotiators continue discussing ethics provisions, illicit finance safeguards, and stablecoin yield rules.
Republican lawmakers have sought Senate consideration of the legislation for several months. Current vote estimates indicate supporters still lack sufficient backing to advance debate. Negotiators continue working to resolve disagreements before the CLARITY Act reaches another procedural milestone.
One Democratic aide questioned whether negotiations could survive another political escalation before Congress returns. The aide said, “If they spend in August, it’s done.” That remark underscores concerns that campaign activity could further complicate CLARITY Act negotiations.
Senate Talks Remain Focused on Reaching Consensus
Senator Ruben Gallego questioned whether Republican negotiators were maintaining productive bipartisan discussions around the CLARITY Act. He said, “We are clearly here, trying to engage constructively.” Gallego also added, “At this point, if they’re not engaging, it’s telling me that they don’t want this to happen.”
Some Democratic lawmakers also expressed concern about political spending by crypto-backed organizations before Congress reconvenes in September. They believe additional campaign activity could further strain ongoing bipartisan discussions. Those concerns continue influencing negotiations surrounding the CLARITY Act.
Supporters of the legislation maintain that additional negotiations could still produce a workable compromise before future procedural votes. They believe remaining differences between House and Senate proposals can still be addressed through bipartisan discussions. For now, the CLARITY Act remains dependent on negotiations before any successful cloture vote can proceed.
Senate negotiations continue without a confirmed breakthrough before the expected procedural vote. The immediate future of the CLARITY Act now depends on whether bipartisan negotiators resolve outstanding disputes. Until then, Democratic resistance continues creating uncertainty over this week’s planned Senate action.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Senate Vote Could Fail as Democrats Refuse to Budge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The United States and the United Kingdom used their latest bilateral regulator meeting to reaffirm coordination on digital-asset oversight, with particular focus on stablecoins, market structure, and payment modernization. The 13th session of the UK-US Financial Regulatory Working Group (FRWG) took place in London on July 8, continuing a pattern of policy alignment as the U.S. prepares to roll out the GENIUS Act.
In an Aug. 4 joint statement summarizing the discussions, U.S. officials said they provided their UK counterparts with an update on GENIUS Act implementation, alongside ongoing work related to the structure of digital asset markets. The statement also referenced broader efforts to improve cross-border payments under the G20 Cross-border Payments Roadmap, signaling that stablecoin regulation is being treated as part of a wider payments and financial stability agenda rather than in isolation.
Key takeaways
The FRWG meeting highlighted continued U.S.-UK coordination on stablecoin rules, including progress on implementing the GENIUS Act.
Officials also discussed how digital asset market structure is evolving in the United States, alongside UK initiatives tied to tokenization and capital markets.
The joint statement framed stablecoin oversight within payment modernization and international cooperation on cross-border transfers.
No new policy measures emerged from the July 8 talks, but the tone emphasized “responsible” innovation alongside financial stability and regulatory alignment.
What the US-UK regulators covered
According to the joint statement issued on Aug. 4, the FRWG meeting included updates on several areas relevant to crypto and tokenized finance. Alongside stablecoin regulation, participants discussed digital asset market structure in the United States—an issue that has attracted heightened attention globally as regulators attempt to define how tokens fit within existing financial frameworks.
The statement also pointed to UK priorities in the tokenization space, referencing the UK’s Wholesale Financial Markets Digital Strategy. While the statement did not announce new rules, the range of topics matters to market participants because it illustrates how regulators are connecting stablecoins and tokenization to mainstream financial infrastructure, including wholesale markets and cross-border payment flows.
Payment modernization was another recurring theme. By tying the meeting’s work to the G20 Cross-border Payments Roadmap, the regulators effectively acknowledged that stablecoins—when they meet defined compliance and reserve requirements—are increasingly viewed as potential tools for faster, lower-friction settlement across borders.
GENIUS Act implementation remains central
For U.S. watchers, the most concrete element in the joint statement is the mention that U.S. officials updated the UK on GENIUS Act implementation. The GENIUS Act is described in the statement as the United Kingdom’s “landmark stablecoin law” counterpart in terms of the stablecoin policy direction both countries are taking—reinforcing that the U.S. and UK see stablecoin legislation as a cornerstone for broader regulatory clarity.
The immediate practical takeaway is that firms operating across the Atlantic may increasingly expect policy outputs that are compatible or at least coordinated in spirit. Even without new measures announced at this meeting, continued communication between regulators can reduce uncertainty for issuers, exchanges, custody providers, and market participants planning product rollouts that depend on stablecoin rails.
UK stablecoin debate: shifting stance and reserve requirements
The U.S.-UK alignment comes as the UK’s stablecoin regulatory posture continues to evolve. Industry reporting referenced in the original coverage indicated that the Bank of England has softened its stance and is exploring alternative approaches to a temporary framework affecting stablecoin holdings.
Earlier coverage also cited the BoE’s review of whether a proposed requirement—holding at least 40% of reserve assets as non-interest-bearing deposits at the central bank—might be too restrictive. That matters because reserve composition requirements directly affect the economics of stablecoin issuance and risk management, and can shape whether dollar-backed stablecoins expand primarily through regulated channels in the UK or migrate to jurisdictions with more operational flexibility.
Separate commentary referenced in the source indicates that the UK Financial Conduct Authority has identified cross-border payments as one of the clearest near-term stablecoin use cases. Taken together, these points suggest the UK is trying to balance financial-stability constraints with a pragmatic recognition that stablecoins may have real utility in international settlement—an area the FRWG also emphasized through the cross-border payments roadmap.
Broader implications: regulation as a competitiveness lever
The meeting did not introduce fresh rules, but the overall direction remains noteworthy. The original reporting framed the UK’s renewed emphasis on stablecoins against concerns that the United States has gained momentum in building a regulated environment for dollar-backed stablecoins. In that context, U.S.-UK coordination can be read as more than technical harmonization: it is also part of a competition between jurisdictions over who sets the terms for compliant stablecoin growth.
That competitive element becomes clearer when viewed alongside earlier U.S.-UK cooperation. On July 14, the Transatlantic Taskforce for Markets of the Future—a joint U.S.-UK initiative aimed at strengthening collaboration on financial innovation and capital markets—published initial recommendations and a joint statement on stablecoins, according to the source. The FRWG meeting’s supportive tone toward “responsible” innovation and emphasis on international cooperation suggests these parallel efforts are feeding into a single long-term policy trajectory: aligning standards so that capital markets innovation, tokenization, and stablecoin use are able to scale without undermining financial stability.
For builders and investors, the most important uncertainty is not whether stablecoin regulation is coming—both countries are clearly moving—but how precisely reserve and operational requirements will be shaped in practice. The UK’s ongoing review process around holding structures and the BoE’s consideration of alternatives signal that implementation details may change before final frameworks fully lock in.
Going forward, market participants should watch for how U.S. GENIUS Act implementation translates into operational requirements for issuers and intermediaries, and whether UK regulators further adjust stablecoin rules in response to concerns about restrictiveness and cross-border payment needs—particularly as U.S.-UK officials continue to tie domestic legislation to international payment modernization objectives.
This article was originally published as US and UK Reaffirm Stablecoin and Tokenization in Joint Talks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin mining companies with existing operations in Texas are likely to face limited direct disruption from a new state-level pause on certain data center approvals, according to Bernstein analysts. The move centers on heightened scrutiny of how quickly new data center projects are being lined up to connect to Texas’ power grid.
Governor Greg Abbott ordered the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to conduct an audit of data centers seeking to connect to the grid, The Texas Tribune reported. Bernstein said many Texas miners are already covered by electric capacity agreements that have been approved, which could reduce near-term operational risk.
Key takeaways
Bernstein expects most Texas-based Bitcoin miners to be minimally affected because many are contracted for approved power capacity.
The audit and moratorium are expected to slow or throttle speculative data center “pipeline” projects, potentially increasing the value of sites with development history.
Miners most exposed may include those whose future growth depends on converting existing pipeline assets into grid-connected capacity during ERCOT’s approvals.
Bernstein highlighted Texas operations of Cipher Digital, Core Scientific, CleanSpark, IREN and Riot Platforms as relevant to how the approval process evolves.
Texas audit targets data center grid connections
On Monday, Governor Abbott directed regulators to audit all data centers attempting to connect to the state’s electric grid system. The directive is linked to mounting public backlash over the pace of data center development in Texas, as The Texas Tribune noted in reporting on the order.
While the article describing the order did not specify how long the audit would run, the practical effect is already clear: new or pending grid-connection approvals are likely to slow while regulators review the pipeline. For electricity-intensive industries—data centers and Bitcoin mining in particular—grid access timing can be as important as total contracted capacity.
Why Bernstein says active miners may be spared
In a client note released Tuesday, Bernstein analysts argued that the direct impact on Bitcoin miners with Texas operations should be limited. Their central point: most miners operating in the state are under contracts for electric capacity that has already been approved.
That distinction matters for investors and operators. An audit that primarily affects approvals for new connections is less likely to interrupt existing operations tied to already-cleared power supply, especially where miners have scheduled energy use and infrastructure already in place.
Bernstein also suggested that throttling new approvals could create a different kind of market effect. The analysts wrote that the audit “throttles speculative data center pipeline” and, in turn, “makes genuine sites with development history more valuable.” They linked that value proposition to mining sites typically having “longest gestation” characteristics, self-funding infrastructure, and management at the local level.
Which miners Bernstein flags as more vulnerable
Even if day-to-day production is less likely to be disrupted for capacity that is already approved, growth plans can still run into delays. Bernstein pointed to miners it believes could be more exposed—particularly if their path to expansion depends on ERCOT approval processes to convert pipeline assets into grid-connected power capacity.
The analysts specifically named Cipher Digital, Core Scientific and CleanSpark as candidates that could face greater sensitivity to future public opposition and the timeline pressures created by moratoriums or directives affecting new capacity approvals.
They also highlighted IREN and Riot Platforms, noting that both have Texas mining operations that are described as fully ERCOT grid approved. In Bernstein’s framing, that approved status may matter more as new capacity becomes harder or slower to obtain.
From data center controversy to mining capacity economics
At the heart of the story is an electricity allocation question. Texas’ grid-connection process is a bottleneck for any load expansion, and public opposition can influence political and regulatory outcomes—especially when state leadership orders audits or pauses.
Bernstein’s view effectively reframes the risk from “immediate operational shutdown” to “capital planning and future capacity accessibility.” If ERCOT’s approvals become slower, and if speculative data center projects are paused or delayed, then existing—especially already-approved—capacity may retain or increase its relative value versus projects still in the queue.
For miners, this can change how the market evaluates expansion-stage assets. If new MWs (megawatts) are throttled by policy actions, then entities able to monetize power access sooner—either because they are already grid approved or because they have stronger development histories—may face fewer timing disadvantages.
Stock reaction and company updates
In Tuesday’s premarket trading, Cipher Digital shares were down more than 7%, according to Yahoo Finance data. Separately, Cipher Digital reported second-quarter results earlier Tuesday, showing a loss of $0.65 per diluted share that widened from last year’s loss of $0.12 per diluted share, according to the company’s posted update.
While the stock move is not automatically attributable to the Texas audit by the information provided, it underscores how quickly market participants can price in regulatory uncertainty, especially for firms tied to the broader data center and power-capacity conversation.
Going forward, readers should watch how long the audit lasts and how ERCOT and the PUCT handle conversion of pipeline assets into approved grid-connected capacity—because that timeline will likely determine whether the near-term “freeze” stays contained or begins to affect future miner expansion plans.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: Texas power grid moratorium may not materially affect BTC miners on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The XRP Ledger recorded a sharp rise in real-world asset holders as Ripple expanded its tokenization strategy. RWA holder numbers increased 25.16% during the past month, reflecting stronger activity across the network. However, the blockchain’s stablecoin market remained under pressure despite modest growth in participating addresses.
XRP Ledger RWA Holders Rise 25%
The XRP Ledger’s RWA ecosystem gained more holders as tokenized finance attracted additional users and businesses. Data showed a 25.16% monthly increase in addresses holding tokenized real-world assets on XRPL. This growth strengthened the network’s position within the expanding blockchain-based asset market.
Real-world assets represent physical or traditional financial products recorded and managed through blockchain technology. These assets can include bonds, property, commodities, funds, and private credit products. Tokenization can simplify ownership transfers while improving settlement speed and access to financial markets.
XRPL supports tokenized assets through fast settlement, low transaction costs, and built-in exchange functions. These features allow companies to issue, move, and trade assets without relying on multiple external systems. Consequently, the network has become a practical option for institutions exploring blockchain-based financial products.
Ripple Expands XRPL Tokenization Infrastructure
Ripple recently invested in two major companies to expand infrastructure supporting institutional tokenization on the XRP Ledger. The investments form part of Ripple’s broader plan to bring more financial assets onto blockchain networks. They also support tools needed for custody, settlement, compliance, issuance, and secondary market activity.
Ripple has increased its focus on capital markets as institutions explore tokenized funds and other digital financial products. The company aims to position XRPL as a reliable network for enterprise payments and asset management. Therefore, Ripple continues to add partnerships and services that connect traditional finance with blockchain infrastructure.
More than 1,000 developers and businesses now build products and services across the XRP Ledger ecosystem. These participants support payments, token issuance, decentralized trading, custody, compliance, and institutional settlement services. Their activity broadens XRPL’s utility beyond XRP transfers and strengthens its role in digital finance.
XRPL has operated for more than a decade and uses a consensus system without traditional mining. The network processes transactions within seconds and charges relatively low fees for transfers. These features have supported Ripple’s efforts to promote the ledger for cross-border payments and tokenized assets.
XRPL Stablecoin Market Remains Below Peak
Despite the RWA holder increase, the XRP Ledger’s stablecoin market recorded another decline during the month. Stablecoin market capitalization fell 9.04% and reached approximately $901.4 million. The decrease showed that holder growth has not yet produced a wider recovery in stablecoin value.
However, the number of stablecoin holders increased 0.92% during the same 30-day period. More than 60,240 addresses held stablecoins on XRPL after the monthly increase. This change suggests that participation expanded slightly even as the total market value declined.
Stablecoins support payments, trading, settlement, and liquidity across tokenized financial markets. Ripple also uses RLUSD to strengthen its payment and institutional product ecosystem. The dollar-backed asset operates on both the XRP Ledger and Ethereum, which extends its reach.
A stronger stablecoin market could improve liquidity for tokenized assets issued through the XRP Ledger. Stablecoins allow users to settle trades without moving funds through traditional banking systems. Therefore, their adoption could support Ripple’s wider institutional finance strategy and encourage more activity across XRPL.
The latest figures show uneven growth across the XRP Ledger’s expanding tokenization market. RWA holders increased quickly, while stablecoin capitalization continued to fall during the same period. Ripple’s infrastructure push now provides the main foundation for further adoption across both sectors.
This article was originally published as XRP Ledger RWA Holders Jump 25% As Ripple Expands Tokenization Drive on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitdeer, a publicly traded Bitcoin mining and infrastructure firm, has agreed to a 16-year data center lease that could be worth up to $4.7 billion, tying its next phase of growth to artificial intelligence (AI) and high-performance computing capacity. The deal highlights a broader shift in the crypto mining industry: companies built around energy and compute are increasingly positioning themselves as AI data center providers as demand for GPU-based workloads rises.
Under the agreement, Bitdeer will supply 121 megawatts (MW) of IT capacity at its Tydal, Norway AI data center. The facility is expected to be configured for Nvidia GPU-based AI workloads, though Bitdeer did not publicly identify the tenant beyond describing it as a subsidiary of Volta Infra.
Key takeaways
Bitdeer signed a 16-year lease for up to $4.7 billion to secure AI/high-performance computing data center capacity.
The agreement covers 121 MW of IT capacity at Bitdeer’s Tydal, Norway facility, configured for Nvidia GPU-based AI workloads.
Volta Infra is linked to the tenant, and Bloomberg reported its $10 billion cloud contract is with Anthropic.
The lease is subject to customary closing conditions and is not yet effective; letters of credit are expected to back tenant payments.
Bitdeer also stands out for having fully liquidated its Bitcoin treasury to zero earlier this year, to fund expansion.
A long-term compute bet tied to AI workloads
Bitdeer’s announcement says it will provide 121 MW of IT capacity at its Tydal, Norway AI data center to a tenant described only as a subsidiary of Volta Infra. The company’s release specifies that the site will be configured to support Nvidia GPU-based AI workloads, but it stops short of clarifying whether Volta Infra is the ultimate end customer or acting as an intermediary.
For investors and operators, the significance is less about a single facility and more about the contract’s structure and longevity. A lease spanning 16 years aims to lock in a long runway for revenues tied to compute demand—an area where AI infrastructure providers are facing intense competition for energy, cooling, and GPU capacity.
Volta Infra and Anthropic in the background
While Bitdeer did not name the tenant, Bloomberg News reported that Nvidia-backed Volta’s $10 billion cloud contract is with Anthropic, citing people familiar with the matter. The disclosure adds context to the strategic logic of the lease: if Volta’s cloud commitments involve Anthropic’s AI workloads, then the compute capacity Bitdeer will supply becomes part of a wider chain serving major AI model developers.
Still, the details that matter for due diligence remain partly opaque. Bitdeer has not confirmed whether Anthropic is the end customer for the contracted capacity or whether the tenant arrangement includes additional layers. Traders and analysts will likely watch for further clarification when the deal clears closing conditions and when operational timelines come into focus.
Deal mechanics: closing conditions and payment security
Bitdeer said the lease agreement is subject to customary closing conditions and is not yet effective. To help secure the tenant’s payment obligations, affiliates of JP Morgan and another unnamed global financial institution are expected to issue approximately $1.3 billion in letters of credit (or bank guarantees). In practical terms, letters of credit reduce counterparty risk for the landlord by providing a way to recover funds if contractual payments are not met.
That risk-control detail matters because long-duration infrastructure contracts can carry operational and commercial uncertainty—ranging from construction or configuration delays to changes in customer demand. The use of substantial financial guarantees suggests both parties are attempting to ensure the agreement is durable through the transition from contract signing to delivery.
Bitdeer’s pivot beyond Bitcoin mining
This lease is the latest step in Bitdeer’s broader effort to diversify beyond its core Bitcoin mining business. Alongside AI and high-performance computing infrastructure, the company has also been expanding into mining hardware manufacturing to lessen reliance on third-party suppliers.
Last month, Bitdeer announced a $36 million investment in a manufacturing facility in Nevada as part of that strategy, reinforcing the theme that the company wants more control over the full compute supply chain—whether the end use is mining or AI acceleration.
Notably, the market response to the lease announcement appeared immediately. Bitdeer shares reportedly jumped about 8% in early Nasdaq trading following the announcement, indicating investors may be treating the AI infrastructure expansion as a meaningful rerating driver rather than a side project.
Why selling the Bitcoin treasury may be part of the same plan
Bitdeer’s approach to capital allocation also differs from many publicly traded miners. Earlier in the year, the company reduced its Bitcoin holdings to zero—reportedly after holding roughly 943 BTC in early February—while stating it remains committed to the Bitcoin ecosystem. According to Bitdeer executive Ross Gann, the sales were made to help fund the company’s broader expansion strategy, including acquisitions of powered land for AI and Bitcoin mining infrastructure.
In contrast, several other major Bitcoin miners continue to hold large Bitcoin treasuries. BitcoinTreasuries.NET data cited in the coverage indicates that MARA Holdings, Riot Platforms, CleanSpark, and Hut 8 each hold at least 10,000 BTC, with MARA holding more than 36,000 BTC.
The contrast underscores a strategic asymmetry among miners: some treat Bitcoin holdings as a balance-sheet bet on future upside, while Bitdeer has chosen to convert its treasury into liquidity to finance expansion. For readers tracking the sector, this raises a key question going forward—whether compute-driven revenue growth can offset the absence of treasury exposure, and how that trade-off influences risk profiles during different phases of the crypto and AI cycles.
As the lease moves toward effectiveness, the next items to watch are the completion of closing conditions, further clarity on the tenant and end-customer structure, and whether Bitdeer’s AI infrastructure buildout scales alongside its existing diversification efforts.
This article was originally published as Bitdeer Signs $4.7B Data Center Lease to Scale AI Infrastructure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Democratic senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal have asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the TRUMP meme coin. They want the regulator to determine whether the token facilitated fraud or improper financial gains. Meanwhile, the request arrives as lawmakers continue debating ethics provisions tied to the CLARITY Act and President Donald Trump’s crypto activities.
Senators Seek SEC Investigation Into TRUMP Coin
Senators Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal sent a letter to SEC Chair Paul Atkins requesting an investigation into the TRUMP meme coin. They asked the Commission to examine whether the token violated securities laws or enabled unlawful financial benefits. Moreover, the request expands Democratic efforts targeting President Donald Trump’s digital asset ventures.
The lawmakers pointed to concerns surrounding the token’s structure, promotion, and financial outcomes. They argued that regulators should determine whether the project harmed buyers or rewarded insiders unfairly. They also urged the SEC to review all relevant transactions connected with the token.
A recent Nansen report added pressure to those concerns through on-chain market analysis. The report estimated that nearly one million TRUMP coin buyers recorded combined losses of about $3.81 billion. Meanwhile, the token trades around $1.50 after falling more than 90% from its previous all-time high near $75.
TRUMP Coin Performance Draws Political Attention
The TRUMP meme coin reached its peak shortly before President Trump returned to office in January. However, the token later lost most of its value as market sentiment weakened. Consequently, the sharp decline intensified political criticism surrounding the project.
Public disclosures indicated that President Trump generated substantial crypto-related income during the previous year. Part of that income reportedly came from licensing agreements connected to the TRUMP meme coin. As a result, Democratic lawmakers increased scrutiny of the financial benefits linked to the project.
Senator Warren has repeatedly criticized President Trump’s involvement in cryptocurrency ventures. She recently described his actions as evidence of serious ethical concerns surrounding public office and digital assets. Meanwhile, Republicans have continued supporting broader crypto legislation despite Democratic objections.
CLARITY Act Ethics Debate Continues
The SEC investigation request also arrives as negotiations over the CLARITY Act remain unresolved. Lawmakers continue debating an ethics proposal tied to the broader crypto market structure legislation. However, President Trump has not approved the bipartisan ethics provision.
The proposed measure would allow state attorneys general to challenge the Department of Justice through legal action. They could act if the department failed to enforce the agreed ethics requirements. Democrats argue that stronger oversight remains necessary before advancing the legislation.
Senator Warren and other Democrats continue opposing the current version of the CLARITY Act. They argue that the bill does not adequately address conflicts involving President Trump’s cryptocurrency interests. Meanwhile, bipartisan negotiations continue without a final agreement.
Congress now faces increasing time pressure before the scheduled August recess begins next week. Without a compromise, the Senate appears unlikely to complete consideration of the legislation before lawmakers leave Washington. Additionally, prediction market data from Polymarket assigns only a 27% probability that President Trump will sign the bill into law this year.
The continuing dispute highlights broader divisions over digital asset regulation in the United States. Democrats continue seeking stronger ethics safeguards alongside crypto legislation, while negotiations remain active. Until lawmakers reach consensus, both the TRUMP coin investigation request and the CLARITY Act debate are expected to remain central political issues.
This article was originally published as Trump Coin Under Sec Pressure as Warren Seeks Full Fraud Investigation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miner Bitdeer has secured a major data center lease aimed at artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, a move that highlights how mining firms are increasingly positioning their power and infrastructure assets for the AI boom. The company says it has signed a 16-year agreement potentially worth up to $4.7 billion to make room for 121 megawatts of IT capacity at an AI data center in Tydal, Norway.
While Bitdeer is best known for operating and expanding its Bitcoin mining footprint, this deal shows a broader shift: investors are watching how miners can diversify revenue beyond hash-rate economics—especially as demand for GPU-based computing grows across the AI sector.
Key takeaways
Bitdeer signed a 16-year AI/HPC data center lease worth up to $4.7 billion.
The agreement covers 121 MW of IT capacity at Bitdeer’s Tydal, Norway facility configured for Nvidia GPU workloads.
The tenant is identified only as a Volta Infra subsidiary; Bloomberg reported Volta’s $10 billion cloud contract is with Anthropic.
Bitdeer said the lease is still subject to closing conditions and is not yet effective, with ~$1.3 billion expected in letters of credit for payment security.
Bitdeer shares reportedly rose about 8% in early Nasdaq trading after the announcement.
A long-dated lease ties mining infrastructure to AI demand
Bitdeer’s announcement centers on a high-capacity AI data center offering that will be dedicated to Nvidia GPU-based AI workloads. Under the lease, Bitdeer plans to provide 121 megawatts of IT capacity at its Tydal site. The company did not publicly disclose the tenant’s full identity beyond stating it is a subsidiary of Volta Infra, nor did it clarify whether Volta is the final customer or an intermediary.
For investors, the key question is how effectively this type of infrastructure revenue can diversify results. Unlike Bitcoin operations—where earnings can swing with network difficulty, power costs, and coin prices—AI data center contracts are typically structured around contracted capacity and service timelines. A 16-year horizon can therefore reduce uncertainty about utilization and cash-flow stability, at least in theory, if the tenant’s payment obligations hold.
Who’s behind the tenant: Bloomberg links Volta to Anthropic
The deal’s commercial context is complicated by Bitdeer’s lack of full tenant disclosure. Bloomberg News, in a report published alongside the announcement, said that Volta’s $10 billion cloud contract is with Anthropic, citing people familiar with the matter.
That reporting helps explain why a mining-linked infrastructure provider might find demand for long-duration AI capacity. If Volta’s cloud obligations relate to major frontier AI workloads, then a large contracted power and compute footprint in Norway could be part of meeting those compute requirements. Still, until all parties confirm the final customer and configuration details, readers should treat the end-user linkage as informed by reporting rather than an explicit contractual disclosure from Bitdeer.
Terms, financing support, and what must happen before it takes effect
Bitdeer said the lease agreement is not yet effective and remains subject to customary closing conditions. The company also indicated it expects financing arrangements to support the tenant’s payment obligations: affiliates of JP Morgan and another unnamed global financial institution are expected to issue approximately $1.3 billion in letters of credit (or a similar bank guarantee structure). This type of security is designed to ensure the landlord can recover funds if contractual payment obligations are not met.
From a risk perspective, these protections matter because long-horizon AI capacity deals can be exposed to utilization changes, customer liquidity, or renegotiation dynamics. The presence of letters of credit suggests Bitdeer is attempting to reduce downside around payment failure, though the lease’s final economics and operational start date will depend on the closing conditions being satisfied.
AI expansion meets a distinct treasury strategy
Bitdeer’s lease announcement adds to a broader trend of crypto infrastructure companies moving toward AI and high-performance computing. In addition to building and monetizing data center capacity, the company has been pursuing ways to reduce reliance on third-party supply for mining-related hardware.
Last month, Bitdeer announced a $36 million investment in a manufacturing facility in Nevada, framed as part of its strategy to expand manufacturing operations. That context matters because it signals the company is trying to control more of its value chain while it pursues new, non-mining revenue streams.
Just as important is the way Bitdeer has handled its Bitcoin holdings relative to many listed peers. Earlier this year, Bitdeer fully liquidated its Bitcoin treasury. The company previously said it reduced its holdings to zero after holding roughly 943 BTC in early February, stating that the sales were meant to support its broader expansion strategy, including AI and powered infrastructure acquisitions.
That contrasts with several major mining companies that continue to maintain sizable Bitcoin treasuries. According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, MARA Holdings, Riot Platforms, CleanSpark, and Hut 8 each hold at least 10,000 BTC, with MARA reportedly exceeding 36,000 BTC. Bitdeer’s approach suggests a willingness to convert crypto exposure into capital for operational and infrastructure expansion—an idea the latest lease reinforces.
Market reaction appeared to be positive. Bitdeer shares reportedly jumped about 8% in early Nasdaq trading following the announcement, indicating that investors are receptive to the company’s efforts to connect its energy and infrastructure capabilities with the AI compute cycle.
What to watch next is whether the lease clears closing conditions and how quickly the promised IT capacity translates into contracted, operating revenue. Equally important will be any further clarification on the tenant structure—especially whether reporting about Volta’s link to Anthropic aligns with the final end-customer arrangements under the agreement.
This article was originally published as Bitdeer Signs $4.7B Long-Term Data Center Lease to Scale AI Compute on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin pushed to fresh August highs as hopes that the Strait of Hormuz could reopen calmed broader energy-market fears and lifted risk assets into Tuesday’s Wall Street open. While equities surged, crypto’s rally stayed more controlled—yet on-chain data suggested investors were accumulating rather than chasing.
TradingView data showed BTC/USD rising to $64,176 on Bitstamp, posting maximum daily gains of roughly 1% as market attention focused on US-Iran developments, oil price moves, and how those dynamics could shape expectations for the Federal Reserve.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin extended gains toward $64,000 on Tuesday, with TradingView marking a peak around $64,176 on Bitstamp.
US-Iran reopening signals for the Strait of Hormuz pushed oil prices lower; WTI and Brent were down about 4.8% and 4.6%, respectively.
BTC traded between key moving averages on the hourly view, with the 21-day SMA near $64,388 acting as a near-term ceiling.
CryptoQuant reported “strong accumulation,” pointing to investors taking positions in the $62,000–$65,000 cost-basis band.
With rate expectations tied to oil and bond-market dynamics, FedWatch probabilities pointed to a 0.25% hike as a leading scenario for September.
Hormuz optimism lifts stocks—and pulls oil down
The crypto move was part of a wider risk-on shift driven by geopolitical headlines. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC that there is “a chance we may have a deal today or tomorrow to open the Strait and move towards a more normalized position” amid ongoing US-Iran discussions. The comments followed a day after President Donald Trump said reopening dialogue could happen “as soon as tomorrow.”
Oil reacted quickly. At the time of writing, WTI and Brent crude were trading 4.8% and 4.6% lower, respectively, with prices at their lowest levels since July 13. The direction of travel matters for markets not only because oil is a direct input for inflation expectations, but also because reopening assumptions can quickly change the probability of supply disruptions.
US stocks futures moved higher ahead of the open, and the S&P 500 topped a new milestone. According to market tracking cited in the report, the index reached a record high of 7,713 and achieved a $70 trillion market capitalization for the first time.
Fed expectations hinge on oil, bonds, and the market’s interpretation
Traders linked the Hormuz outlook to future Federal Reserve decisions. The report highlighted an environment of debate among policymakers, describing an “emerging hawkish split” regarding interest-rate timing and magnitude, while markets watched how energy prices could influence the inflation picture.
According to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool, investors were pricing in a 56.7% probability of policymakers approving a 0.25% rate hike at the September meeting. Earlier in the day, Bloomberg macro strategist Michael Ball was quoted emphasizing that Chairman Kevin Warsh’s limited guidance on the Fed’s reaction function means coming data—along with oil prices and the bond market—will have an outsized impact on how investors forecast the policy path.
For Bitcoin, the key takeaway is not that crypto is trading directly off oil headlines, but that macro expectations determine the liquidity and risk appetite that typically flows into high-beta assets. If the market believes reopening reduces inflation pressures, it can soften the “higher for longer” narrative that often weighs on speculative demand.
Bitcoin stays in a tight range, but on-chain shows buyers soaking up dips
Despite BTC/USD slipping into a comparatively narrow technical rhythm, the price still managed to break toward the low-to-mid $64,000s. On the hourly chart referenced in the report, analysts noted BTC was trading between two daily moving averages: the 21-day simple moving average (SMA) near $64,388 acted as an overhead reference, while the 50-day SMA provided support in shorter time frames.
In a market that appears to be waiting for a clearer macro catalyst, this kind of range behavior often reflects “positioning” rather than fresh momentum chasing. That’s where on-chain analysis came in.
CryptoQuant reported “strong accumulation” among investors. Specifically, the platform said 0.7% of the BTC supply—about 155,000 coins—now belongs to participants with a cost basis between $62,000 and $65,000. In CryptoQuant’s framing, the pattern signals absorption rather than capitulation: buyers were accumulating during weakness instead of selling under pressure.
For traders, the practical implication is that a stubborn local range can be consistent with accumulation, especially when there’s no broad liquidation wave. However, accumulation data doesn’t guarantee an immediate breakout; it mainly clarifies whether demand is present beneath the surface.
What to watch next as macro headlines evolve
As the Strait of Hormuz reopening narrative continues to develop, the next swings in oil and US bond yields are likely to remain central to how risk assets—including Bitcoin—trade. Investors should also monitor whether BTC can hold above the 50-day SMA on lower time frames and whether accumulation signals persist as price tests the $64,000 area and beyond.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Holds near $64K as Hormuz reopening boosts risk assets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.