Crypto Breaking

Hardware wallet vendor Trezor has disclosed that personal data tied to roughly 14,000 customers may have been exposed through a shipping-related incident involving its logistics provider, ShipMonk. While Trezor emphasized that its own systems were not breached and that customer devices remain secure, the company warned that the information could be used to carry out targeted phishing attempts.
In a blog post released this week, Trezor said customers who received products shipped from the US, UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal during a specific window—May 10 through Aug. 8—may have been affected. The company’s review found that 11,742 customers could have had their name, physical address, phone number, and email address compromised, and that an additional 1,947 users may have had their name, city, and email address exposed.
Key takeaways
Trezor says the incident did not involve compromising its own systems; customer Trezor devices are not at risk.
About 14,000 customers could face phishing attempts because shipping data may have been leaked.
The affected shipments span multiple countries and cover deliveries made between May 10 and Aug. 8.
Trezor warned scammers may impersonate banks, crypto exchanges, or Trezor itself using stolen contact details.
The disclosure follows a prior Trezor advisory in January 2024 involving potential phishing targeting customers after contacting support.
What Trezor says was exposed—and who is affected
According to Trezor’s announcement, the risk comes from personal information associated with customers’ orders rather than from any compromise of the underlying wallet or its security infrastructure. The company said customers who received Trezor products in the affected shipping region and date range could be targeted with scams designed to look more legitimate by using specific personal details.
Trezor broke the potential exposure into two groups. The larger group of 11,742 customers may have had a fuller set of identifiers—name, home address, phone number, and email—while 1,947 users may have had fewer data points exposed, including their name, city, and email address. Even when the dataset is smaller, attackers can still use it to craft more convincing social engineering messages, especially if the scam references a recent purchase or delivery.
Phishing risk: why shipping data matters to crypto users
Trezor’s core message is that its hardware remains secure, but that affected customers might be targeted by “more sophisticated phishing attempts” because scammers can use leaked details to improve the credibility of their outreach. In practical terms, the company said criminals could send fake emails, make fraudulent phone calls, or send counterfeit letters—potentially even impersonating banks, crypto exchanges, or Trezor.
That warning aligns with how many crypto-related theft attempts operate: attackers rarely need to break wallet security directly if they can trick users into revealing sensitive information, approving fraudulent transactions, or moving funds under false pretenses. Personalized contact information—like a real address, phone number, or email—can help scammers bypass basic suspicion and increase the odds that a victim engages with the scam.
For investors and active traders, the most immediate concern is not whether the wallet device is compromised, but whether the user’s operational security is. A well-timed phishing campaign can target anyone who has recently installed wallet software, registered an account, or is actively managing assets—exactly the moment when a misleading message could be most convincing.
A pattern of data-driven targeting for crypto holders
Trezor described the shipping-provider incident as part of a broader set of scams that appear to leverage personal data to reach crypto holders. Earlier reporting around Trezor’s own disclosures shows the company has already warned customers about phishing risk tied to customer support interactions.
In January 2024, Trezor reported that about 66,000 users were at risk of phishing attacks if they contacted the company’s support team after December 2021. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that those users could potentially be targeted because their engagement with support could make them easier to identify for scammers. The new disclosure suggests that, even when devices remain secure, the wider ecosystem—order handling, shipping logistics, and customer contact channels—can become a pathway for criminals to collect enough data to stage convincing impersonation attempts.
Cointelegraph has previously reported that scammers have used additional tactics beyond digital messages, including physical letters sent through mail to manipulate wallet users. Other approaches include text messages and emails or calls where attackers claim to be family members in urgent need, or impersonate authorities to demand repayment for a fake debt. The common thread across these tactics is social engineering—an area where leaked personal data can materially raise the quality and believability of the scam.
What to watch next for affected customers
Trezor’s disclosure does not indicate that the incident enabled direct theft from wallets, and the company states its internal systems were not compromised. However, the company’s framing makes the next steps less about checking the device and more about monitoring for suspicious communications that reference the customer’s recent Trezor shipment or personal details.
Customers in the delivery window and listed countries should be alert for unexpected emails, phone calls, or letters that ask for sensitive wallet-related actions or encourage them to verify account details through links or instructions provided by the caller. With crypto scams frequently evolving in response to user awareness, the practical question now is whether the leaked shipping data begins circulating in the wild and whether follow-on attempts appear in the weeks after this disclosure.
For the broader market, the incident is another reminder that hardware wallet security is only one part of the threat landscape: criminals increasingly rely on data from the customer journey—shipping, support interactions, and contact databases—to make phishing harder to spot. Readers should watch for emerging scam reports tied to delivery-confirmation themes and remain cautious about any outreach that attempts to force immediate actions.
This article was originally published as Trezor Says Data of 14K Users Was Exposed by Shipping Provider on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Robinhood’s newly launched blockchain, Robinhood Chain, is scaling its onchain activity with help from Uniswap, according to Standard Chartered—an integration that may reduce one of the biggest early hurdles for any fresh network: assembling sufficient liquidity quickly enough to support real demand.
In a research note cited by the bank’s analysts, Robinhood Chain is reported to have grown to nearly $1 billion in total value locked (TVL). Standard Chartered also says that virtually all of the chain’s liquidity requirements are being met via Uniswap’s existing decentralized exchange infrastructure (Uniswap V2, V3, and V4), potentially allowing Robinhood to focus on expansion rather than building liquidity plumbing from scratch.
Key takeaways
Standard Chartered reports Robinhood Chain is close to $1 billion in total value locked, calling it the fastest TVL growth among blockchains by that metric.
According to the note, Robinhood Chain’s liquidity needs are “virtually all” met through Uniswap V2, V3 and V4.
Protocol fees attributed to Robinhood activity are now the largest driver of UNI token burns, Standard Chartered says.
The UNI burn rate has reportedly accelerated after a Robinhood-linked fee switch activated on July 27, reaching an annualized pace of about $90 million.
Robinhood’s broader push into tokenization and prediction markets is being closely watched on Wall Street, even as reported crypto trading volumes have softened.
Why Uniswap liquidity matters for a new chain
New networks typically struggle early with liquidity: without deep trading venues, users have less confidence that they can enter and exit positions efficiently. Standard Chartered’s assessment suggests Robinhood Chain is attempting to sidestep that problem by routing much of its liquidity demand to Uniswap rather than relying on nascent pools.
The bank’s note, attributed to analyst Geoffrey Kendrick, frames the approach as strategically important for Robinhood as it scales. By leaning on battle-tested decentralized finance infrastructure, Robinhood Chain can potentially improve execution quality for users while accelerating growth.
Earlier coverage highlighted that Robinhood Chain launched on July 1 with a focus on bringing real-world assets onchain, and adoption moved quickly after launch. Cointelegraph previously reported the chain reached 194,000 daily active users during its first week, reflecting strong initial engagement that would require reliable access to trading venues and liquidity.
From liquidity to UNI burns: the token-economics spillover
Standard Chartered also connects the integration to measurable changes inside Uniswap’s token economics. The bank says protocol fees generated through Robinhood are now the largest source of UNI token burns.
In the note, the UNI burn rate is described as having roughly doubled since a Robinhood-linked fee switch was activated on July 27. Standard Chartered estimates that this puts UNI burns on an annualized pace of about $90 million.
With UNI priced at roughly $3.50 per token at the time referenced in the report, Standard Chartered calculates that the annualized burn translates to about 25 million UNI tokens—just over 4% of UNI’s circulating supply—being removed each year.
For UNI holders and DeFi traders, the key question isn’t only whether Robinhood Chain is growing, but whether that growth sustains fee generation over time. A rapid early rise in burns can be encouraging, but the durability of activity on a new chain typically depends on its ability to retain users, deepen liquidity, and keep relevant applications running.
Robinhood’s broader crypto strategy: tokenization and prediction markets
Robinhood Chain is part of a larger corporate strategy to expand beyond traditional stock trading. The brokerage is pursuing crypto-related products alongside tokenization and prediction markets—initiatives that have attracted investor attention.
Cointelegraph previously reported that analysts at Bernstein raised their price target for Robinhood (HOOD) stock to $160 per share, citing tokenization and prediction markets as key growth drivers. That Wall Street framing matters because it ties Robinhood’s onchain activity to a wider narrative: using blockchain as distribution infrastructure for additional financial products.
At the same time, Standard Chartered’s liquidity thesis sits alongside mixed signals from Robinhood’s reported crypto business. Cointelegraph notes that Robinhood reported record revenue and earnings in its second quarter, while crypto trading volumes and revenues declined—an environment that can make it harder to interpret which developments are fundamentally strengthening the platform versus which are simply offsetting slowdowns elsewhere.
What to watch next on Robinhood Chain and Uniswap
For market participants, the immediate watchpoints are whether Robinhood Chain can keep liquidity demand flowing through Uniswap as the novelty of launch fades, and whether UNI burns remain elevated beyond the initial “fee switch” period described by Standard Chartered. Investors should also monitor how Robinhood’s tokenization and prediction-market efforts evolve, since the long-term value proposition for the blockchain will likely depend on sustained application usage rather than liquidity routing alone.
This article was originally published as Robinhood Chain Approaches $1B TVL as Uniswap Boosts Liquidity on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A security incident at a Trezor shipping provider exposed personal details belonging to 13,689 customers.
The breach affected customers across seven countries, while Trezor confirmed that its wallet systems and devices remain secure.
However, the company warned that exposed details could increase phishing attempts targeting affected users.
Shipping Provider Incident Led to Data Exposure
The incident began after ShipMonk, a shipping provider used by Trezor, suffered unauthorized access to its systems.
As a result, attackers accessed customer information linked to hardware wallet orders processed through the provider.
The exposed information includes names, email addresses, phone numbers, and shipping addresses for some affected customers.
Trezor identified 11,742 customers whose information received full exposure during the incident. Those records included customer names, email addresses, phone numbers, and shipping addresses linked to their orders.
Meanwhile, another 1,947 customers faced partial exposure involving their names, cities, and email addresses.
The affected customers received orders in the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, or Portugal. Trezor said those orders fell within the 90 days before August 8, 2026, when the incident came to light.
Furthermore, the company contacted affected customers through its official email channel and advised them to remain alert.
Trezor Warns Customers About Phishing Threats
Although the breach exposed personal information, Trezor said attackers did not compromise its internal systems.
The company also confirmed that its hardware wallets remain secure and that customer funds remain protected by wallet security.
Therefore, the incident primarily creates a social engineering risk rather than a direct device security threat.
However, leaked contact and shipping information could help criminals create more convincing phishing messages.
Attackers could combine customer names, addresses, and emails to make fraudulent messages appear linked to Trezor orders. Consequently, affected users could face attempts to obtain wallet credentials, recovery phrases, or other sensitive information.
Trezor customers should therefore avoid links from unexpected messages and verify communications through official channels.
Users should also never provide recovery phrases, because legitimate wallet providers do not require those details.
In addition, customers should treat unexpected calls, emails, and messages as potential attempts to steal wallet access.
Trezor Develops Anonymous Delivery Option
The breach has also pushed Trezor to develop a new Anonymous Delivery option for future customers.
The company plans to introduce the service in the European Union by September and in the United States later.
This approach aims to reduce the personal information connected with hardware wallet purchases and deliveries.
The planned option could allow customers to use nicknames or label identification instead of real names.
It could also support automated parcel lockers, which would reduce the need to provide home delivery addresses.
Furthermore, Trezor plans to offer unbranded packaging with generic sender information for additional privacy.
The move highlights the security challenges that crypto companies face beyond their own technology and wallets.
Shipping partners can hold valuable customer information, which makes third-party data protection important for hardware wallet users.
As Trezor responds to the incident, stronger delivery privacy could help reduce similar exposure in future orders.
The incident also follows a separate Coldcard security incident that raised concerns across the crypto self-custody sector.
Galaxy Research estimated that users lost as much as $116 million in Bitcoin during that incident.
Together, the events highlight how personal data and wallet security can create different risks for crypto users.
This article was originally published as Trezor Data Breach Exposes Personal Details of Nearly 14,000 Customers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A U.S. crypto industry group is urging the Supreme Court to take up a dispute between Custodia Bank and the Federal Reserve over access to the central bank’s payment system, arguing that federal law limits how broadly the Fed can refuse eligible banks.
In an amicus brief filed Wednesday, the Blockchain Association said the Fed should not have wide discretion to deny payment services to state-chartered banks that meet eligibility requirements. The group also framed Custodia’s case as part of a broader pattern of resistance to crypto banking—referencing regulatory pressure it links to the “Operation Choke Point 2.0” narrative.
Key takeaways
The Blockchain Association filed an amicus brief supporting Custodia Bank’s petition to the U.S. Supreme Court over Fed master account access.
The group argues the Federal Reserve should not be able to effectively override eligibility for payment services through broad discretion.
Custodia’s application for a master account was rejected by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, and a Tenth Circuit ruling left the Supreme Court as the last option.
The dispute is unfolding as some crypto firms have obtained federal banking structures and, in limited cases, direct access to Fedwire.
Why Custodia is looking to the Supreme Court
Custodia Bank, a Wyoming-chartered institution focused on digital assets, applied for a Federal Reserve master account in 2020. Such an account is designed to give qualifying banks direct access to payment system services, reducing reliance on intermediary institutions for transfers.
The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City denied Custodia’s request in 2023. After that denial, the case moved to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately ruled that the regional Fed bank had discretion to reject the application.
Earlier this year, the Tenth Circuit voted 7-3 against rehearing the dispute in March. With the appeals court effectively closing the door, Custodia’s petition to the Supreme Court became its remaining path for review.
The Blockchain Association’s legal argument
The Blockchain Association’s amicus brief argues that the lower court gave the Fed too much leeway in how it interprets its authority. The group contends that federal law requires the Federal Reserve to make its payment services available to eligible nonmember banks.
In the association’s view, the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning risks granting the Fed a de facto veto over state-chartered banks by allowing the central bank to withhold the operational access these institutions would need to function independently.
The filing also connects Custodia’s situation to claims about regulatory discouragement of crypto-related banking activity. Specifically, it links the case to concerns raised under the “Operation Choke Point 2.0” theme, which has been used in parts of the industry to describe alleged pressure that makes it harder for banks to serve digital asset clients.
Notably, the brief’s central emphasis is legal and structural: whether the Fed’s discretion in granting access should be narrowly constrained when a bank meets eligibility requirements.
Access to Fed payment rails is becoming more common—though unevenly
Custodia’s dispute comes at a time when some crypto businesses are making headway into the U.S. banking system through federal licensing, and in certain circumstances, direct links to Federal Reserve infrastructure.
For example, in March, Kraken Financial—an entity tied to the Kraken ecosystem—became the first crypto banking unit to receive a limited-purpose master account from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. That approval provided direct access to Fedwire. The development stood in contrast to Custodia’s earlier rejection by the same regional Fed bank, highlighting that the legal questions at the heart of Custodia’s case remain highly consequential for other banks pursuing similar access.
Meanwhile, Coinbase has moved through federal chartering pathways tied to custody and trust activities. In April, the company received conditional approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national trust company, a structure that would bring custody services under federal oversight without allowing retail deposits or operation as a commercial bank. Circle later obtained final OCC approval for a national trust bank in July, and Kraken parent Payward applied for its own national trust company charter the following month.
The OCC has also conditionally approved national trust bank applications for several other crypto-adjacent firms, including Ripple, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Paxos in December.
Industry pushback from traditional banking groups
As crypto firms seek federal charters and deeper banking integration, traditional banking associations have argued that these entities can gain benefits associated with bank status without accepting the full set of regulatory obligations applied to conventional retail banks.
In April, the Independent Community Bankers of America opposed Coinbase’s conditional OCC approval for a national trust company, arguing that crypto companies are pursuing the advantages of bank charters while avoiding certain burdens of the traditional banking framework.
This tension underscores a broader theme: even as regulators have created pathways for crypto-related institutions to operate under federal supervision, access to the most central components of the payment system—such as Fed master accounts—still appears to be a contested boundary.
For investors and operators, the Supreme Court decision will matter less as a symbolic victory and more as a potential clarification of how far the Fed can go when determining payment-system access for eligible banks. Until the Court acts, it remains uncertain whether Custodia’s case will reshape the Fed’s discretion or further cement the limits of judicial review over payment rail eligibility decisions.
This article was originally published as Crypto Group Supports Custodia in Supreme Court Fight for Fed Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bullish (NYSE: BLSH) shares jumped in early trading on Thursday after the institution-focused crypto exchange and CoinDesk owner reported a strong rebound in quarterly results. The company said second-quarter adjusted revenue climbed 62% year over year, while adjusted EBITDA more than tripled, reflecting both improved operating performance and a shift in where income was coming from.
The stock’s move also followed a regulatory step in Gibraltar that broadens Bullish’s ability to operate in tokenized securities—an area that has increasingly drawn attention from traditional finance. Investors appear to be weighing the quarter’s financial momentum alongside the company’s push toward more regulated onchain market activity.
Key takeaways
Bullish reported second-quarter adjusted revenue of $92.6 million, up from $57.0 million a year earlier.
Adjusted EBITDA rose to $29.5 million from $8.1 million, indicating a significant improvement in profitability.
Subscription, services and other revenue reached a record $62.7 million, helping offset weaker exchange activity.
The company’s quarterly trading volume totaled $179.6 billion, down from $197.4 billion year over year, while average daily volume fell to $2.0 billion.
Bullish received approval from Gibraltar’s Financial Services Commission to offer secondary trading in issuer-sponsored tokenized securities and raised full-year guidance for subscription-related revenue.
Quarterly results point to operating leverage
In its earnings update, Bullish said adjusted revenue for the second quarter reached $92.6 million, compared with $57 million in the same period of the prior year. The profitability turnaround was even more pronounced: adjusted EBITDA increased to $29.5 million from $8.1 million.
On the bottom line, the company reported adjusted net income of $14.3 million, reversing a $6.0 million loss in the year-ago quarter. For shareholders, the combination of rising revenue and sharply higher adjusted EBITDA suggests the business is capturing more value per unit of activity—an important signal for exchanges that have historically been sensitive to market volumes.
Revenue mix strengthens as exchange activity cools
While exchange volumes softened compared with the year before, Bullish highlighted a key offsetting driver. Subscription, services and other revenue totaled a record $62.7 million in the quarter.
That figure mattered because trading metrics declined: Bullish reported $179.6 billion in quarterly trading volume, down from $197.4 billion a year earlier. Average daily volume also slipped to $2.0 billion from $2.2 billion. The implied message is that the company’s income stream is becoming less dependent on pure trading throughput and more supported by services and subscription-related earnings.
For traders and institutional users, a revenue mix that relies more on subscriptions and services can be beneficial—especially if broader market activity fluctuates. It may also indicate that Bullish is attracting customers not only for spot trading, but for infrastructure and ongoing platform access.
Gibraltar approval expands tokenized securities business
Separate from the financial results, Bullish reported it received approval from the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission to offer secondary trading in issuer-sponsored tokenized securities. This is a notable development for a company positioning itself in regulated onchain markets.
The approval matters because secondary trading permission moves tokenized securities beyond primary issuance mechanics and into ongoing liquidity, where regulatory frameworks and market structure typically become more complex. Bullish framed the step as part of its expansion into regulated tokenized markets.
However, the exact scope of what products can be listed and how trading will operate in practice was not detailed in the provided information. Investors will likely watch for further clarification on launch timelines, participating issuers, and how trading activity in tokenized securities compares with the broader crypto exchange volume.
Guidance raised amid improved visibility
Bullish also lifted its full-year guidance. The company now expects $225 million to $245 million in subscription, services and other revenue, citing performance in the first half of the year and improved visibility.
Raising guidance can be interpreted as management signaling confidence that the stronger revenue mix seen in the quarter will persist. That is particularly relevant given the reported decline in trading volume versus the prior year—suggesting the company believes its non-exchange revenue streams are gaining enough momentum to offset weaker trading activity.
At the same time, investors should note that guidance is tied specifically to subscription, services and other revenue. The company did not provide a revised outlook in the provided excerpt for exchange-specific results, so it remains unclear how much of the improvement will translate into sustained volume growth.
Shares rally, but longer-term performance remains a concern
Thursday’s advance extends a broader rebound for Bullish shares. The stock has gained around 20% over the past month, according to Yahoo Finance data. Even with the recent rally, Bullish shares remain far below levels seen after the company’s listing last year, trading about 70% under post-listing highs, based on the same Yahoo Finance reference.
In other words, the near-term reaction to stronger financial metrics and a regulatory expansion comes against a backdrop of still-limited recovery from earlier drawdowns. That dynamic often shapes how markets respond to the next earnings report: investors may continue to reward progress on profitability and services growth, while still requiring evidence that trading volumes and tokenized securities activity can scale.
Looking ahead, the key signals to watch are whether Bullish can maintain subscription and services momentum as trading volumes fluctuate, and how quickly the Gibraltar tokenized securities approval translates into tangible secondary-market activity. The regulatory green light may open doors, but the market will ultimately want proof in execution and sustained earnings.
This article was originally published as Bullish Shares Rally 10% After Q2 Adjusted EBITDA Triples on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Andre Cronje, the architect behind Yearn.finance and the creator of Fantom Network, says most decentralized finance has drifted away from what many in the sector have historically meant by “DeFi.” In a conversation with Cointelegraph during Chain Reaction X, Cronje argued that true DeFi exists only in small pockets, while the broader ecosystem has evolved into something closer to conventional finance layered on-chain.
His remarks arrive as quantitative signals point to contraction in DeFi activity and as regulators and policy makers continue to scrutinize whether DAOs are genuinely decentralized enough to remain outside traditional oversight. With DeFi total value locked (TVL) falling sharply and governance widely concentrated in major protocols, the debate over decentralization—technical, economic, and legal—has moved from philosophy to governance design and regulatory classification.
Key takeaways
Andre Cronje argues that most DeFi today is no longer “true DeFi,” because intermediaries and decision-makers effectively remain in the system.
DefiLlama data cited in the report shows DeFi TVL fell from about $167 billion in early October 2025 to roughly $75 billion at the time of writing.
The European Central Bank has questioned whether large DAO ecosystems should be considered “fully decentralized,” citing governance token concentration across major protocols.
Cronje also renews a long-running technical debate in DeFi: whether emergency controls like circuit breakers are compatible with decentralization.
Cronje’s “true DeFi” critique: decentralization vs. onchain finance
Cronje’s central claim is that DeFi, as practiced by most mainstream protocols, has departed from the decentralization ideal. “I don’t think DeFi exists anymore outside of those very small niches,” he told Cointelegraph during Thursday’s Chain Reaction X Spaces. He further argued that “true DeFi” should be decentralized, immutable, and without an intermediary, adding that those standards are not met by “pretty much any other protocols running today.”
Rather than rejecting decentralization entirely, Cronje reframed the shift as an evolution into “onchain finance or open finance.” In his view, the ecosystem has moved into a structure where roles that traditionally belong to banks and other intermediaries—curation, risk committees, and decision-making—are effectively performed by other entities within the protocol’s operating reality.
“We’ve long since moved on from [DeFi]. Because your intermediary now is a company, it’s a decision maker, it’s a curator, it’s a risk committee, it’s all the traditional kind of things we saw in banking.”
That argument matters for investors and users because it reframes what decentralization is supposed to guarantee. If governance and administrative control concentrate around identifiable decision-makers—whether individuals, foundations, or companies—then the “trust-minimized” promise can weaken. For market participants, the practical outcome is not just a philosophical disagreement; it affects how risks are priced, how upgrades and interventions occur, and how credible the threat of “exit” really is when the system’s controls are not distributed.
Cronje did leave room for a more optimistic interpretation. He said the critique does not rule out “true DeFi” altogether and suggested that genuine innovation is still occurring among some protocols.
From circuit breakers to governance control: the decentralization test
According to the same reporting thread, Cronje has been making this point for months. Earlier in the year, he said that much of DeFi is “no longer DeFi” in the strict sense, as builders debate whether circuit breakers and other emergency controls are necessary safeguards against exploits. The implication is that emergency mechanisms may introduce discretionary intervention—potentially conflicting with the immutability and autonomy expected from “true DeFi.”
This internal engineering debate has increasingly spilled into governance questions. If a system’s safety depends on a special intervention path, the governance structure that can authorize those interventions becomes part of the decentralization equation. That is where decentralization is no longer only about smart contract code; it becomes about who can change outcomes under stress.
Cronje’s comments also intersect with a broader policy question: when is a DAO decentralized enough to qualify as outside the scope of financial regulation?
DeFi’s contraction meets regulatory pressure
The article’s discussion places Cronje’s remarks alongside data showing that DeFi has been shrinking. DefiLlama data cited in the report indicates DeFi TVL fell to about $75 billion at the time of writing, down from $167 billion in early October 2025—more than halving over roughly the past 10 months. While TVL is not a direct measure of decentralization quality, it can reflect broader market appetite, capital rotation, and confidence in protocol risk—factors that often rise when governance effectiveness and system resilience come under scrutiny.
In parallel, the European Central Bank has questioned whether certain DAOs meet the threshold implied by “fully decentralized” services under regulatory frameworks. In a March working paper, the ECB examined Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap. It reported that, based on governance tokenholder holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023, the top 100 governance token holders controlled more than 80% of the token supply in each protocol.
The ECB authors said these findings challenge assumptions about inherent DAO decentralization and whether such systems should remain outside Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) as “fully decentralized” services.
For readers, the tension is clear: DeFi’s decentralization narrative is often presented as a property of code and onchain governance, but regulators and researchers look at real-world concentration of economic power. Even where the smart contracts are decentralized, the governance tokens may be held and coordinated in ways that create effective control at the top.
What changes next: the decentralization debate is shifting from rhetoric to design
Cronje’s intervention reflects a wider sector shift—from arguing about whether DeFi is “dead” to asking how DeFi should be structured if decentralization is treated as a measurable standard. When TVL declines and governance concentration becomes a regulatory talking point, protocol designers face increasing pressure to demonstrate that decision-making is genuinely distributed and that emergency actions are constrained in ways that users can evaluate.
For investors and builders, the practical watchlist is likely to focus less on slogans and more on governance architecture: distribution of voting power, how upgrades and circuit breakers are authorized, and what level of intervention is actually possible by identifiable parties.
As policy scrutiny continues and market participation evolves, readers should watch whether major protocols modify governance mechanisms or strengthen decentralization claims with clearer, more testable structures—because the definition battle is increasingly tied to risk, regulation, and how resilient these systems are under stress.
This article was originally published as Andre Cronje: DeFi Label Fades as On-Chain Finance Takes Over on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Andre Cronje, founder of DeFi platform Flying Tulip and creator of the Fantom Network, says “most” decentralized finance no longer fits the strict definition of DeFi. Speaking during Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction X Spaces event on Thursday, Cronje argued that true DeFi should be decentralized, immutable, and free of intermediaries—conditions he believes many major protocols no longer meet.
His comments come as industry-wide concerns about concentration in DeFi governance and real-world controls continue to grow, alongside data showing DeFi activity has cooled substantially over the past year. According to DefiLlama, total value locked (TVL) in DeFi has fallen to about $75 billion, down from roughly $167 billion in early October 2025—more than a 50% decline.
Key takeaways
Andre Cronje argues that most current DeFi relies on intermediaries and decision-makers, undermining the “true DeFi” model.
Cronje frames the shift as movement toward “onchain finance or open finance,” rather than the original DeFi ethos.
DefiLlama data cited in the discussion shows DeFi TVL has more than halved over the past 10 months, reflecting weaker momentum.
European Central Bank analysis has questioned DAO decentralization, suggesting top governance token holders control large shares of supply.
The debate is increasingly about whether emergency controls, governance concentration, and protocol dependencies should keep DeFi outside regulation.
From decentralized finance to “open finance”
Cronje’s central claim is that DeFi has drifted away from its original design principles. In his view, many protocols that present themselves as decentralized now include centralized elements in practice—such as companies or other entities functioning as decision-makers, curators, or risk-management bodies.
“We’ve long since moved on from [DeFi]. Because your intermediary now is a company, it’s a decision maker, it’s a curator, it’s a risk committee, it’s all the traditional kind of things we saw in banking.”
That framing matters because it shifts the discussion away from user interfaces and token-based governance, toward the actual mechanisms that control execution and risk. When “decentralization” is defined as the absence of discretionary intermediaries, the question becomes whether today’s DeFi protocols are merely automated fronts for off-chain power—or truly credibly minimized in terms of who can intervene.
Cronje also stopped short of saying the concept of true DeFi is dead. He argued that some protocols still show genuine innovation consistent with his definition, even if the broader ecosystem has moved toward a different model.
Why the industry is arguing about circuit breakers and controls
The critique is not new for Cronje. Earlier this year, he said much of DeFi is “no longer DeFi” in the strict sense while builders debate whether circuit breakers and other emergency measures are now necessary to protect users from exploits. Those controls can improve safety, but they also introduce practical questions: Who can trigger them? How discretionary are they? And do they effectively reintroduce centralized authority into systems marketed as decentralized?
The tension is becoming more explicit. If protocols are forced to rely on intermediated responses to security incidents, then the “immutable” component of true DeFi becomes harder to defend. At the same time, users and developers may view emergency capabilities as unavoidable once real-value systems and complex smart contracts face exploitable edge cases.
DeFi TVL contraction adds weight to the skepticism
While decentralization debates are partly philosophical, the numbers indicate the ecosystem’s broader traction has slowed. DefiLlama data cited in the discussion shows DeFi TVL has dropped to about $75 billion from around $167 billion in early October 2025—an overall contraction of more than half over approximately 10 months.
Decreasing TVL does not automatically prove decentralization is failing, but it does support the idea that the center of gravity in crypto finance has shifted. When capital and liquidity concentrate elsewhere—whether in centralized venues, tokenized markets, or other on-chain segments—protocol governance concentration and dependency risks tend to receive more scrutiny from investors.
For market participants, falling TVL also changes the incentives behind governance. With less capital flowing through protocols, participants may become more aligned with risk-averse decisions or concentrated operators—especially if recovery and security mechanisms require coordination.
Regulators and academics look at DAO concentration
Cronje’s comments align with earlier concerns raised by institutional researchers. In a March working paper, the European Central Bank questioned whether decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) are sufficiently decentralized to remain outside regulators’ scope.
According to the ECB paper, researchers examined Aave, MakerDAO, Ampleforth, and Uniswap, finding that the top 100 governance token holders controlled more than 80% of the supply in each protocol. The analysis was based on holdings snapshots from November 2022 and May 2023.
The ECB authors said these findings challenge the idea of “inherent decentralization” and whether DAOs should qualify as “fully decentralized” services outside Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). In other words: even if protocols use token voting and smart contract execution, governance concentration can still mean power is effectively centralized among a relatively small set of participants.
This matters for the practical question investors and users face: how much confidence should be placed in the permissionless nature of governance when major influence is concentrated? If decentralization is measured not by code architecture alone but by distribution of influence, concentration becomes a key regulatory and compliance problem.
What to watch next
The debate over “true DeFi” is likely to intensify as protocols balance security controls, governance participation, and real-world operational dependencies. Investors should watch how builders define decentralization in practice—especially around emergency powers and concentrated governance—and whether regulators treat “token-based coordination” as meaningfully decentralized when custody, influence, or intervention remain concentrated.
This article was originally published as Andre Cronje Says “DeFi” Is Gone, On-Chain Finance Now on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin iyun ayının əvvəllərindən etibarən dar ticarət diapazonunda sıxışıb qalıb və on-çeyn məlumatlar göstərir ki, ən son təzyiq daha çox qısa müddətli investorların qazanc əldə edib çıxmaq cəhdi ilə, onların ən yaxın olduğu zərərsizləşmə (breakeven) səviyyələrinə yaxın zonalarda yaranır. Glassnode-un ən yeni həftəlik on-çeyn analizi, son altı ay ərzində alış edən spekulyativ investorlardan formalaşan realizə olunmuş qiymət üzrə “rezistentliyin” olduğunu bildirir; Bitfinex Alpha isə diapazonun içində həyata keçirilən spot ticarətlərində təkrar-təkrar qazanc və zərər arasında keçid edən, yüksək konsentrasiyalı təchizat hissəsini vurğulayır.

Digital Yuan vs US Dollar has become a major theme in discussions about the future of global trade as China continues developing its digital currency infrastructure while the U.S. dollar maintains its long-standing position in international finance. The latest developments do not indicate an immediate shift away from the dollar, but they show how financial systems are being redesigned through technology, cross-border payment networks, and new approaches to currency settlement.
China’s digital yuan strategy is focused on creating additional payment channels, strengthening renminbi usage, and reducing dependence on dollar-based systems. For decades, the U.S. dollar has been the foundation of global commerce. It remains the leading reserve currency, a major currency for international trade settlements, and a benchmark for commodities, sovereign debt, and financial markets.
However, countries facing geopolitical uncertainty, currency volatility, and financial risks are increasingly exploring alternatives that provide greater flexibility. China’s digital yuan development is part of this broader transformation. Beijing is not simply attempting to replace the dollar. Instead, it is building financial infrastructure that could allow more transactions to take place through alternative networks.
What Does Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar Show About The New Financial Landscape
Digital Yuan vs US Dollar reflects a wider change in how countries think about financial independence and payment systems. The debate is no longer only about which currency dominates reserves. It is increasingly about which networks control the movement of money across borders.
The dollar’s influence has been built over decades through deep capital markets, global trust, liquidity, and widespread usage. International institutions and financial markets continue to rely heavily on dollar-based systems. At the same time, emerging markets are exploring ways to reduce excessive dependence on a single currency.
This shift is driven by several factors, including geopolitical tensions, sanctions risks, trade disputes, and the impact of a strong dollar on developing economies. A stronger dollar can increase the burden of dollar-denominated debt, pressure local currencies, and contribute to capital outflows. For some policymakers, expanding alternative payment options is viewed as a way to improve financial resilience.
How Has China Redesigned The Digital Yuan In 2026
China’s digital yuan has entered a new phase with a redesign aimed at making the system more compatible with existing banking structures. The key change is that digital yuan holdings will remain connected to commercial banks and payment companies rather than functioning purely as digital cash issued directly by the central bank. Under the updated model, commercial banks can manage digital yuan funds, maintain those balances within their financial systems, and pay interest to users.
Current deposit rates remain around 0.05%, meaning the immediate financial incentive remains limited. However, the redesign changes the relationship between banks and the e-CNY project. Previously, banks were concerned that digital yuan adoption could pull deposits away from traditional accounts and reduce available lending capacity. The new structure reduces that concern by keeping commercial institutions involved.
The redesign also reflects a wider global movement toward tokenized deposits, where financial institutions use new technology to improve payment systems without significantly disrupting banking operations. China began exploring a digital currency in 2016 and became one of the first major economies to develop a large-scale central bank digital currency project.
Despite early expectations, adoption has grown gradually because consumers already rely heavily on established digital payment platforms. By November 2025, the People’s Bank of China reported that the e-CNY had processed nearly 3.5 billion transactions worth 16.7 trillion yuan, equivalent to about $2.4 trillion.
However, digital yuan activity remained a small share of China’s broader payment market, accounting for about 0.2% of the 1.3 quadrillion yuan processed through bank cards and digital platforms during 2024. Internationally, the digital yuan has also expanded. The currency had processed more than 3.4 billion transactions worth around $2.3 trillion to $2.4 trillion by the end of 2025, representing growth of more than 800% since 2023.
What Is New With The Digital Yuan’s Global Expansion
The latest developments show that China’s focus is moving beyond domestic payments toward international settlement infrastructure. A major area of attention is Project mBridge, a multi-central bank digital currency platform designed to explore direct cross-border digital currency payments. The platform includes China, Hong Kong, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. The system has processed more than 4,000 cross-border transactions worth nearly $55.5 billion.
The digital yuan accounts for about 95% of the settlement volume. While this remains small compared with traditional global payment networks, it demonstrates China’s effort to develop alternative financial channels. China has also continued expanding offshore renminbi finance, cross-border trading, and Shanghai’s role as an international financial center.
The measures announced at the Lujiazui Forum included efforts to strengthen foreign central bank liquidity facilities, increase international participation in parts of China’s financial sector, and support wider renminbi usage. These developments are part of a longer strategy. Beijing has spent nearly two decades promoting renminbi internationalization through trade settlement programs, offshore clearing centers, currency swaps, and alternative payment infrastructure.
What Are The Key Metrics Behind The Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar Competition
Digital Yuan vs US Dollar shows two different financial models. The digital yuan is a state-backed digital payment system designed for domestic use with expanding cross-border capabilities. The U.S. dollar remains the world’s primary reserve currency and is deeply integrated into trade, investment, and financial markets. The digital yuan has processed more than 3.4 billion transactions worth around $2.3 trillion to $2.4 trillion.
Its cross-border role through mBridge has exceeded $55 billion in transaction volume with more than 4,000 transactions. The dollar’s advantage comes from scale, trust, and market depth. Unlike the digital yuan, it does not depend on a newly developed payment network because existing global financial systems already operate around dollar liquidity.
The two systems are also following different policy directions. China continues developing a state-backed digital currency while limiting private stablecoin competition. The United States has focused more on private-sector dollar-backed stablecoins and has not launched a retail central bank digital currency.
Why Does The Digital Yuan Matter For Businesses And Investors
For companies involved in international trade, changes in payment infrastructure could create new options for settlement. Businesses operating with Chinese partners may eventually have more opportunities to use renminbi-based payment channels. Treasury teams in emerging markets may explore multi-currency strategies to reduce dependence on a single settlement currency.
For investors, the development of digital currencies and stablecoins represents a broader transformation in how global money flows. The competition may not only involve currencies themselves but also the technology and networks supporting transactions. Financial professionals will increasingly need knowledge of currency markets, geopolitical risks, digital payment systems, and cross-border financial strategies.
Conclusion
Digital Yuan vs US Dollar does not represent an immediate contest where one currency will quickly replace another. The dollar continues to benefit from strong institutional foundations, global acceptance, and deep financial markets. China’s objective appears more focused on creating alternatives and reducing dependence on dollar-based systems.
A world where more trade, investment, and payments can operate through multiple financial networks would represent a significant change. The future is more likely to involve a multi-currency environment where the dollar remains important while other currencies gain specific roles.
Glossary
Digital Yuan (e-CNY): China’s official digital currency.
US Dollar (USD): The world’s leading reserve currency.
CBDC: A digital currency issued by a central bank.
Cross-Border Payments: Payments made between different countries.
Renminbi (RMB): China’s official currency, also called the yuan.
Frequently Asked Questions About Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar
Is The Digital Yuan Replacing The US Dollar
No. The Digital Yuan is not replacing the US Dollar, but it offers another option for global payments.
What Is The Main Goal Of China’s Digital Yuan
China aims to improve digital payments and expand cross-border payment options.
Why Are Countries Exploring Alternatives To The US Dollar
Some countries want more payment choices and less dependence on a single currency.
How Could The Digital Yuan Affect Global Trade
The Digital Yuan could make international payments faster and provide more settlement options.
This article was originally published as Digital Yuan Vs Us Dollar: The Growing Battle Over Global Trade And Digital Finance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan argues that crypto valuations may be structurally poised to rise as more networks route transaction fees toward token repurchases and burns. In his view, the market still has not fully accounted for the growing link between protocol revenue and the value of native tokens.
Speaking in a CIO memo published by Bitwise, Hougan said that—outside of Bitcoin—an increasing share of activity is now translating into revenue that can directly create buy-side pressure for tokens. He cited multiple DeFi and crypto-native projects that already use fees to reduce circulating supply, and he expects the approach to spread across DeFi applications and layer-1 ecosystems over the next 12 to 24 months.
Key takeaways
Hougan says crypto assets beyond Bitcoin could see much higher valuation as protocol fees increasingly translate into token buybacks and burns.
He points to examples across DeFi—Hyperliquid, Uniswap, and Aave—where revenue mechanisms are designed to reduce token supply.
The CIO argues investors have not fully priced in revenue-to-token value linkages, leaving some assets potentially undervalued.
Hougan ties the trend partly to a more permissive US regulatory environment that reduces friction for revenue-sharing features.
He notes that even with revenue capture, token holders do not have the same cash-flow rights as equity shareholders, and tokenomics can still change.
Why revenue capture could matter for token valuation
Hougan’s central claim is that the market narrative for many cryptocurrencies is shifting from pure speculation to a model where network usage can have measurable economic consequences for token holders. According to the Bitwise memo, protocol revenue can create a direct channel to demand for a token—either by purchasing it back or by removing tokens from circulation through burns.
That difference matters because it brings at least some components of conventional valuation logic into the crypto market. Hougan said stronger ties between revenue and token value could allow investors to think more like they do with traditional assets, where earnings and cash flows help justify prices. At the same time, he emphasized a key asymmetry: token holders typically do not have shareholders’ legal claims on cash flow. In addition, community-set tokenomics means the rules governing how revenue is used can evolve.
DeFi examples where fees flow to buybacks and burns
In the memo, Hougan highlighted several protocols that already operationalize fee-to-token mechanisms.
Hyperliquid: The decentralized exchange generated over $800 million in revenue last year, according to the figure cited by Hougan. Hyperliquid’s own reporting offers a concrete example of the model: on Aug. 6, the protocol said it recorded $169 million in second-quarter revenue and directed $141 million toward buybacks and burns of its HYPE token. The implication is straightforward—trading activity can translate into systematic token repurchases rather than only funding ongoing development or remaining in treasury.
Uniswap: Hougan also pointed to Uniswap’s “UNIfication” overhaul and its fee plan. Cointelegraph previously reported that Uniswap’s approved changes include protocol fees that can be used to fund UNI burns. Under that mechanism, fees that are collected can be claimed by burning UNI, with the memo referencing an activation tied to a Dec. 22, 2025 date. The structural point for investors is that, once fully live, protocol usage has a built-in pathway to reducing supply.
Aave: For Aave, the revenue-to-token model is tied to DAO buybacks. Hougan referenced Aave DAO’s buyback program purchasing more than 205,000 AAVE during its first 10 months. Cointelegraph reporting also cited an Aug. 5 statement from Aave founder Stani Kulechov about designing an automated, non-discretionary buyback mechanism. Additionally, Kulechov wrote that “100% of Aave Protocol and GHO revenue goes to the $AAVE token,” describing that arrangement as established in the “Aave Will Win” proposal.
From regulatory friction to “revenue-driven” markets
Hougan attributed the accelerating interest in revenue-linked token economics to a gradually more favorable regulatory landscape in the United States. In his view, the industry spent years avoiding revenue-sharing style features due to securities-law concerns, which limited the scope for directly connecting protocol earnings to token supply adjustments.
In the Bitwise memo, he also argued that crypto can continue expanding even without a specific legislative outcome sometimes discussed in the sector. Hougan pointed readers to Cointelegraph coverage of the idea that regulatory clarity—or its absence—does not necessarily mean the industry must pause its development trajectory.
For investors, the implication is not just that DeFi protocols are innovating, but that the regulatory environment may be allowing economic designs to mature—turning “activity” into something closer to a cash-flow analogue through mechanisms like buybacks and token burns. What remains uncertain, however, is how consistent this will be across networks and how resilient it will be if market conditions or governance priorities change.
What to watch as the model spreads
If Hougan is right, the next wave in token design will likely focus on whether fees can be captured reliably and then used in a repeatable way that affects circulating supply. Investors should watch for governance decisions that formalize fee routing, clarify whether buybacks are discretionary or rule-based, and track how much of revenue is actually allocated to token reduction versus other uses.
Over the coming 12 to 24 months—as Hougan expects—attention may shift from “does a protocol have revenue?” to “what economic actions does that revenue trigger for the token?” The key question for token holders will be how durable those revenue-to-demand pathways prove once the market cycle turns.
This article was originally published as Bitwise CIO: Linking protocol revenue to tokens could double valuations on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kriptovalyutaların qiymətləndirmə çərçivəsi, daha çox şəbəkənin protokol gəlirini token geri alışları və yanma proseslərinə çevirməsi ilə yenilənməyə ehtiyac duya bilər; bunu Bitwise-in Baş İnvestisiya Mütəxəssisi (CIO) Matt Hougan bildirir və hesab edir ki, bazar bu dəyişikliyi hələ tam qiymətə daxil etməyib. Çərşənbə günü göndərdiyi memorandumda Hougan, Bitcoin-dən kənar kripto aktivləri üçün real istifadə və fəaliyyətin yerli-token dəyərinə çevrilə bildiyi, artmaqda olan “gəlirə əsaslanan” modeldən danışıb—bu da bu günkü göstəricilərin nəzərdə tutduğundan daha yüksək qiymətləndirmə gözləntilərini dəstəkləyə bilər.
Hougan daha da irəli gedərək bildirdi ki, əgər gələn 12-24 ay ərzində dецentralized finance (DeFi) və layer-1 şəbəkələri rüsumu təkənə (fee-to-token) mexanizmlərinə çevirməyə davam etsə, investorlar token iqtisadiyyatının daha tanış qiymətləndirmə məntiqinə bənzədiyini görə bilərlər. Bunun “tutxəsi” isə odur ki, token sahiblərinin ənənəvi səhmdarlar kimi pul axınlarına dair eyni hüquqları yoxdur və bir çox tokenomika strukturları icmalar tərəfindən dəyişdirilə bilər.

Avstraliyanın Qiymətli Kağızlar Birjasının (ASX) bir səhmdarı, birjanın uğursuz blokçeyn əsaslı klirinq və hesablaşma əvəzləmə layihəsinə bağlı iddiaları irəli sürmək üçün keçmiş ASX direktoru və vəzifəli şəxslərinə qarşı hüquqi addıma doğru hərəkət edib və məhkəmə icazəsi istəyir.
Çərşənbə günü ASX-in açıqlamasına görə, Rosherville Pty Ltd birja qarşısında bildirmişdir ki, Avstraliyanın “Corporations Act” qanununun 236 və 237-ci bölmələrinə əsasən, qanunauyğun törəmə iddia (statutory derivative action) qaldırmaq üçün icazə almaq niyyətindədir. Federal Məhkəmə icazə verərsə, Rosherville prosesi ASX-in adından başlatacaq—amma məhkəmənin əvvəlcə nəzərdə tutulan işin davam edə biləcəyini qiymətləndirməsi tələb olunacaq.

An Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) shareholder is seeking permission from the Federal Court to pursue a statutory derivative lawsuit targeting certain former ASX officers and directors over alleged breaches connected to the exchange’s ultimately abandoned blockchain-based clearing and settlement overhaul.
ASX said on Wednesday that Rosherville Pty Ltd has notified the exchange of its intention to apply for leave to bring the case under sections 236 and 237 of Australia’s Corporations Act. If the court grants leave, the proceedings would be brought on ASX’s behalf. ASX also emphasized that the proposed action does not include allegations against the exchange itself, and it provided limited detail about who would be named, what duties were allegedly breached, or what remedies Rosherville would seek.
Key takeaways
Rosherville wants the Federal Court’s leave to file a statutory derivative action on ASX’s behalf under Australia’s Corporations Act.
ASX says the proposed claims target former officers and directors, not the exchange, but the court has not yet considered whether the case can proceed.
The litigation follows a broader regulatory reckoning over ASX’s CHESS replacement project, including findings by ASIC.
ASIC’s case against ASX was resolved earlier in 2026 with a penalty and cost order, potentially setting the stage for shareholder-focused accountability efforts.
Why the proposed action could matter for corporate governance
Statutory derivative actions are designed to allow shareholders, with court approval, to pursue claims on behalf of a company when directors or officers may have breached duties owed to that company. Here, Rosherville’s proposed case would test how far that accountability can extend for board and senior leadership decisions related to one of Australia’s most expensive financial-technology failures.
While ASX did not specify which former officials Rosherville plans to name or what conduct it alleges, the core premise is straightforward: that responsibility for overseeing the CHESS replacement project may not have been adequately discharged. For investors, the practical significance is that litigation risk can reach beyond the corporate entity itself and toward the individuals who managed or governed the decisions leading to regulatory and operational consequences.
At the same time, the court has not yet examined whether the proposed suit meets the legal threshold to move forward, meaning there is still uncertainty about the scope and viability of the claims.
From CHESS replacement to abandoned blockchain plans
The dispute traces back to ASX’s long-running attempt to replace its Clearing House Electronic Subregister System (CHESS). According to earlier reporting cited in the record, ASX began exploring a replacement in 2016 and selected a distributed-ledger system developed with New York-based Digital Asset.
In December 2017, ASX was widely expected to use blockchain for core services, a prospect described at the time as a first for a securities exchange. But the project repeatedly slipped. In November 2022, ASX paused the initiative after an Accenture review identified significant problems with the design and with meeting ASX’s requirements.
Then, in May 2023, ASX formally abandoned blockchain for the replacement, saying it would consider more conventional technology instead. The progression—from early expectations of a groundbreaking launch to a pause, then abandonment—became the backdrop for subsequent regulatory scrutiny.
ASIC’s case against ASX and the question of board accountability
The shareholder effort comes after ASIC took action against ASX itself. In August 2024, the regulator sued the exchange, alleging it did not have a reasonable basis for telling the market in February 2022 that the project was “progressing well” and on track for an April 2023 launch. ASIC later characterized the episode as a collective failure by ASX’s board and senior executives.
Later developments in 2026 narrowed the regulator’s focus to misleading conduct tied to the CHESS replacement effort. In June 2026, ASX admitted to misleading conduct related to the project. On July 3, 2026, the Federal Court ordered ASX to pay a $14.4 million penalty and $2.1 million toward ASIC’s costs, effectively bringing ASIC’s case to an end weeks before Rosherville notified ASX of its intention to seek leave for a derivative action against former officials.
Although those steps were not the same as a case against individuals, the sequencing is notable. ASIC’s enforcement action concluded against the company, but the shareholder proposal suggests some investors believe the responsibility for the issues may also sit with former decision-makers at the governance and management level.
What investors should watch next
Rosherville’s application is not yet a filed lawsuit; it hinges on the Federal Court granting leave to commence the statutory derivative action. That process will be central for determining whether the allegations can proceed, who qualifies as a potential defendant, and what legal theories and remedies the shareholder is attempting to pursue on ASX’s behalf.
In the meantime, the case is likely to remain closely tied to how courts interpret directors’ and officers’ duties in complex technology transitions—especially where public statements to the market and later regulatory outcomes are in the background. The next concrete milestone for market participants will be whether the Federal Court approves the leave request and, if it does, how the claims are framed.
This article was originally published as ASX Shareholder to Sue Former Directors Over Failed Blockchain Plan on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bank of Montreal XRP ilə bağlı fond mövqelərini nəhəng investisiya portfeli daxilində yerləşdirdiyini yeni tənzimləyici sənədə əsasən açıqlayıb. Kanada kreditoru ABŞ Qiymətli Kağızlar və Birja Komissiyasına (SEC) yeni Form 13F-HR hesabatı təqdim edərək tokenin ilk dəfə mövcudluğunu təsdiqləyib. BMO-nun iyunun 2026-cı ilinin sonunda ümumi hesabat verilə bilən qoyuluşları 303 milyard ABŞ dollarını ötüb və bu, bankı bu rübdə kripto ilə əlaqəli aktivləri açıqlayan ən böyük institutlardan birinə çevirib.
BMO-nun XRP Fondu üzrə Mövqeləri
Sənəddə Rex Osprey XRP ETF-dən tokenin qiymətinə birbaşa bağlı spot fondundan 323 səhmin olduğu göstərilir. Həmçinin qısa müddətli dalğalanmalar üçün nəzərdə tutulmuş, leveraged (ehtiramsızlaşdırılmış) məhsul olan ProShares Ultra XRP ETF-dən 20 səhm də bildirilir. Hər iki mövqe BMO-nun daha böyük səhm və fond portfeli daxilindədir və onların heç biri ümumi aktivlərdə əhəmiyyətli payı ifadə etmir.

Prediction market operator Kalshi is expanding how its real-time trading information reaches market participants by partnering with DoubleZero Edge for distribution via DoubleZero’s dedicated fiber network. In a Wednesday announcement shared with Cointelegraph, the companies said Kalshi’s live order book feed for certain sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts will be made available to new DoubleZero Edge subscribers.
The integration targets a long-standing gap in prediction market infrastructure: access to fast, machine-readable market data. Rather than building bespoke systems that reconstruct order books from raw exchange screens or parse multiple API endpoints, subscribers can consume a dedicated data feed designed to deliver order book data directly.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s real-time order book for sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts is now distributed through DoubleZero Edge’s fiber network.
DoubleZero Edge positions the feed as a way to avoid rebuilding infrastructure from order books and API responses.
Sports appears as one of Kalshi’s biggest demand categories, with crypto also ranking among the top segments by weekly notional volume.
The rollout arrives as Kalshi remains involved in ongoing regulatory disputes over whether its event contracts are sports wagers or CFTC-regulated derivatives.
Dedicated fiber distribution for prediction market order books
Kalshi said the new offering makes it the first prediction market to distribute its live order book data through DoubleZero Edge’s dedicated fiber network for sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts. For institutional and technical users, the practical value is straightforward: lower latency pathways and a consistent, machine-friendly way to ingest market depth and price levels as trades happen.
DoubleZero co-founder Austin Federa described data access as a core component of market structure, arguing that infrastructure has lagged behind “new financial paradigms” that include crypto, perpetuals, and prediction markets. The pitch here is that the industry has continued to grow without matching the data distribution capabilities usually expected in traditional, high-speed markets—especially for participants who run automated strategies.
Where Kalshi’s volumes come from
Kalshi’s focus areas are not limited to crypto. According to Dune data cited in the announcement, sports accounts for 37.8% of Kalshi’s weekly notional volume, while crypto ranks third at 20.3%. Exotics, meanwhile, lead the mix at 39.4% of weekly notional trading volume.
Those proportions matter because they suggest the network-based data distribution may reach more than a niche slice of traders. A dedicated feed for sports-linked markets could be particularly relevant for participants who need to track changing probabilities and liquidity across event timelines, while crypto perpetuals event contracts add additional complexity that favors fast data ingestion.
Broader visibility, including ChatGPT search
The order book distribution comes amid increasing visibility of Kalshi markets in mainstream discovery channels. In early July, Cointelegraph reported that OpenAI began displaying Kalshi’s prediction market odds for FIFA World Cup matches in ChatGPT search results.
While that development relates more to consumer-facing access than to institutional infrastructure, it underscores how prediction markets are becoming more embedded in the information layer that users interact with—creating more pressure for robust, reliable data pathways underneath.
Regulatory pressure remains a central backdrop
Kalshi’s sports event contracts continue to sit at the center of a regulatory dispute involving state regulators and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The disagreement centers on how the contracts should be classified.
State authorities argue the products are essentially wagers subject to state gambling laws. Kalshi and the CFTC, by contrast, contend that these event contracts are derivatives that fall under the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction.
The legal conflict has already produced concrete restrictions. On June 29, a Michigan judge temporarily blocked Kalshi from allowing residents to place bets on sporting events. Earlier, Kentucky sued five prediction market platforms—including Kalshi and Polymarket—accusing them of operating unlicensed sports betting platforms. Nevada also issued a temporary ban on Kalshi earlier in March.
Meanwhile, the CFTC has taken an offensive stance as well, suing several states—arguing that federally regulated event contracts should fall under its authority. According to earlier Cointelegraph reporting, the CFTC’s legal actions are aimed at reinforcing the agency’s jurisdiction over products it views as derivatives.
In that context, better market data infrastructure may help participants operate more effectively, but it does not resolve the classification question that determines where and how these markets can be offered. Traders and developers looking at the space may therefore see two parallel tracks: technical maturation through data distribution, and legal outcomes that determine geographic reach.
Looking ahead, readers should watch whether improved access to real-time order book feeds accelerates participation from professional market makers and automated traders—and whether regulatory decisions continue to constrain Kalshi’s ability to offer sports-linked contracts in key jurisdictions.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Adds Sports & Crypto Perps Data Feed on DoubleZero on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple düzəlişi dəstəkləyən FixCleanup3_3_0 dəyişiklik təklifinə səs verib və bu addım XRP Ledger-i 3.3.0 yenilənməsinə doğru yaxınlaşdırır. Dəyişiklik bir paket daxilində bir neçə səhv düzəlişini və protokol təmizləmələrini birləşdirir. O, Tək Aktivli Vault-ları, Kreditləşdirmə Protokolunu və digər əsas ledger komponentlərini hədəfləyir.
FixCleanup3_3_0 Dəyişiklik Təklifi Erkən Dəstək Qazanır
Ripple səsini erkən səsvermə mərhələsində verib və bu hərəkət güclü şirkət dəstəyini siqnal edir. Ən son səsvermə məlumatlarına görə, hazırda 35 UNL validatorundan 8-i təklifə dəstək verir. Dəyişiklik aktivləşməzdən əvvəl daha geniş validator dəstəyi tələb olunur.

Anchorpoint Financial, a Hong Kong-licensed stablecoin issuer, is widening the distribution of its Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, HKDAP, by adding HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor. The move comes as Hong Kong’s regulated stablecoin framework continues to roll out, with market participants positioning tokenized HKD for institutional and professional access.
In a Tuesday announcement, the companies said the arrangement is part of a beta rollout. Eligible institutions and professional investors can access HKDAP via HashKey and other supported channels. HashKey also stated that it has completed its first HKDAP minting and redemption transaction with eligible clients, including fiat on- and off-ramping.
Key takeaways
Anchorpoint Financial has appointed HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor for its Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, HKDAP.
The partnership begins with a beta rollout for eligible institutions and professional investors, with HashKey already completing an initial mint and redemption.
Anchorpoint and HashKey plan to expand distribution over time and look at additional HKDAP use cases.
Hong Kong dollar stablecoins are still an early-stage segment, and reliable public data on their adoption remains limited.
HKDAP distribution goes through HashKey
HashKey’s role focuses on making HKDAP available to users that meet the eligibility requirements for the beta program. The announcement highlights operational readiness—HashKey said it has already carried out its first HKDAP minting and redemption cycle with eligible clients and incorporated fiat on- and off-ramping.
For institutions, that plumbing matters. Minting and redemption are often where operational friction concentrates, particularly when regulated stablecoins need to integrate with traditional financial rails. By completing an initial transaction, HashKey signals that it is prepared to support at least the early workflow for converting fiat into HKDAP and back out again.
Anchorpoint said the distribution program will be expanded gradually, and the companies plan to explore broader applications for HKDAP beyond basic issuance and redemption.
A regulated Hong Kong dollar stablecoin built for “tokenized money”
HKDAP—short for “HKD At Par”—is designed to function as a regulated tokenized Hong Kong dollar for payments and other financial transactions. Anchorpoint Financial is a joint venture established by Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), HKT and Animoca Brands.
Anchorpoint was among the first firms to receive a stablecoin issuer license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, reflecting how the issuer-side licensing regime is beginning to translate into real distribution relationships. The company was established in April 2025, two months after Standard Chartered and Animoca Brands, together with HKT, announced plans to launch a Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoin, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
As more authorized players enter the system, the market’s ability to scale will depend not only on licenses, but also on how quickly distributors and platforms can onboard eligible customers and run mint/redeem operations reliably.
From access to use cases: payments, settlement, and tokenized finance
The companies said they intend to explore additional uses for HKDAP as distribution grows. Their stated priorities include cross-border payments, settlement, and tokenized finance.
Those directions are consistent with what many regulated stablecoin initiatives aim to accomplish: moving tokenized fiat from “on-chain custody” toward transactional utility. Cross-border payments and settlement, in particular, are areas where stablecoins are often evaluated for faster settlement cycles and improved interoperability—though real adoption will depend on the readiness of counterparties, compliance processes, and integration details with existing payment and banking infrastructure.
At this stage, Anchorpoint and HashKey’s focus appears intentionally phased: begin with beta access for eligible participants, validate minting/redemption processes, and then widen distribution while testing expanded functionality.
How big could Hong Kong’s stablecoin segment become?
Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoins could eventually develop into a meaningful market, but current visibility is limited. A 2025 Citi report cited in the announcement estimated that circulation could reach $16 billion after the introduction of the city’s stablecoin licensing regime. Still, the broader picture remains uncertain.
For now, US dollar-pegged stablecoins dominate global circulation, and synthetic stablecoins represent a smaller, emerging category. Reliable data on circulation and adoption for Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoins is described as limited, making it difficult to assess where the market stands today or how quickly it could grow.
Meanwhile, stablecoin activity overall continues at high volume. Bernstein reported that the combined adjusted transaction volume of USDC and USDt reached roughly $3.8 trillion in the first quarter of the year, underscoring the depth of stablecoin usage even as a narrower regulatory submarket—HKD-pegged tokens—finds its footing.
This contrast matters for investors and operators: it suggests demand for stablecoin settlement and transfer mechanics is already established globally, but the local HKD variant still needs to build liquidity, distribution breadth, and compatible use cases to convert regulatory momentum into sustained adoption.
As HashKey and Anchorpoint expand distribution beyond the beta phase, the key signals to watch are onboarding speed for eligible institutions, the consistency of minting and redemption throughput, and evidence that HKDAP use cases—especially cross-border payments and settlement—are moving from plans to repeatable production workflows.
This article was originally published as HashKey Launches Beta Distribution for Hong Kong-Regulated HKDAP Stablecoin on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab is running a trade-finance experiment designed to test whether stablecoins and a potential digital British pound could work together inside the same cross-border payment flow.
In a project announced on Wednesday, NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs said the trial links an exporter’s advance delivered via a stablecoin rail with a UK importer’s settlement using simulated digital pounds. The focus is on the practical mechanics of payments timing—particularly the point at which trade finance is released and how long settlement takes.
Key takeaways
The Digital Pound Lab trial pairs a stablecoin payment to an exporter with simulated digital pound settlement by a UK importer in a single cross-border workflow.
NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs are combining payments testing with a separate effort to generate reusable credit profiles for small businesses.
The project is explicitly using simulated systems: the Bank of England has not committed to issuing a digital pound and the lab uses no real customers or money.
The work targets a long-standing trade finance problem where exporters may wait days after shipment to receive payment, tying up working capital.
The broader initiative aligns with ongoing UK regulatory development for stablecoins and tokenized settlement models.
Trade finance, simulated digital pounds, and stablecoin rails
The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab experiment is centered on trade finance—an area where cash flow can be constrained by settlement delays between shipping goods and receiving payment. According to the announcement from NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs, the test scenario involves an exporter receiving an advance through a stablecoin-based payment flow while a UK importer completes settlement using simulated digital pounds.
The companies did not describe the trial as a live market product; instead, it is positioned as an experiment within the lab’s research environment. The Bank of England has also emphasized that lab experiments designed by participants should not be treated as signals about future policy or as endorsements of any specific firm or technology.
For exporters—especially smaller businesses—payment timing can determine how much working capital is locked up. When funds arrive days after shipment, firms can face higher financing costs or reduced ability to take on new orders. By testing whether different digital payment components can operate in the same cross-border route, the lab project aims to assess whether tokenized settlement could reduce friction that slows trade.
Reusable credit profiles for small businesses
Beyond payments plumbing, the initiative includes a separate workstream aimed at helping small businesses access credit more efficiently. The plan, as described by the participating companies, is to create reusable credit profiles by combining transaction data, open-finance information and commercial risk data from Dun & Bradstreet.
Polygon Labs is providing the smart contract infrastructure for this part of the project. The practical idea is straightforward: instead of rebuilding risk assessments from scratch for each transaction, the system would attempt to turn available data into a standardized credit profile that could be reused in future trade finance arrangements.
If that approach works as intended, it could reduce the operational cost and time involved in underwriting and credit checks—an issue that often weighs more heavily on smaller firms than on larger counterparties with more established financing relationships.
Why this matters amid UK stablecoin and tokenization rulemaking
The trade-focused lab experiment lands as UK authorities continue building the regulatory structure for stablecoins and preparing the financial system for tokenized assets. In June, the Bank of England published draft rules for sterling-denominated stablecoins it considers systemic to the UK’s financial stability.
That proposal, according to the Bank of England, would allow systemic stablecoin issuers to hold up to 70% of their reserves in interest-bearing government debt. It also introduces a temporary issuance cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.8 billion) per systemic stablecoin, replacing earlier suggestions that would have limited holdings at the level of individual participants and businesses. The Bank of England has said it aims to finalize those rules by the end of 2026, ahead of a planned 2027 rollout.
Under the framework, stablecoins deemed systemic—because their use could pose risks significant enough to affect financial stability—would fall under the Bank of England’s regime. Non-systemic stablecoins would remain under the Financial Conduct Authority’s oversight.
Meanwhile, tokenization is also being tested through updates to legacy settlement infrastructure. In May, the Bank of England proposed moving its Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) and CHAPS systems toward near-24/7 operation, including weekends and extended daily hours, partly to support cross-border payments and new settlement models as tokenization develops.
Additionally, the Bank of England approved HSBC’s Orion platform to operate in the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox. That sandbox is expected to support digital bond issuance, including the country’s planned Digital Gilt Instrument—another sign that regulators are exploring how tokenized assets might integrate with existing market infrastructure.
What to watch next in the Digital Pound Lab
Because the Digital Pound Lab trial uses no real money or customers and the central bank has not committed to issuing a digital pound, the near-term value for market participants is primarily methodological: seeing whether a stablecoin rail and a simulated digital pound can coordinate inside a realistic cross-border trade workflow. The next step is whether the lab’s findings inform practical designs for interoperability, settlement timing, and how credit and compliance data could be translated into reusable structures for small businesses.
This article was originally published as BoE Trial Focus: Stablecoin and Digital Pound for Cross-Border Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Goldman Sachs has agreed to acquire NEOS Investments in a deal worth up to $2.25 billion. The transaction combines cash and equity, and final terms depend on performance benchmarks. This move strengthens Goldman’s position in the fast-growing active ETF market.
Deal Structure And Expected Timeline
Goldman Sachs will pay through a mix of cash and equity for NEOS Investments. The final payout remains tied to service and performance commitments over time. Regulators must still approve the transaction before it becomes final.
We're excited to announce that @NEOSInvestments is joining Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
Together, we'll combine NEOS’ innovative investment platform with Goldman’s global scale and resources seeking to bring even greater value to our investors, all while preserving the team,… pic.twitter.com/QRfropJBCK
— NEOS Investments (@NEOSInvestments) August 12, 2026
The companies expect the deal to close during the first quarter of 2027. This timeline allows both firms to complete regulatory reviews and integration planning. Goldman will fold NEOS into its existing asset management structure once approved.
NEOS currently manages nineteen systematic options-based income ETFs for its clients. The firm held roughly $30 billion in assets under management as of June. Some reports suggest that figure has since grown closer to $32 billion.
Neos Brings Scale To Goldman’s Options-Based Fund Lineup
NEOS launched in 2022 and quickly built a reputation in options-income investing. Its strategies focus on generating steady income while managing market exposure. This approach appealed to both individual and institutional investors seeking balance.
This acquisition follows Goldman’s earlier purchase of Innovator Capital Management, another options-focused firm. Innovator specializes in defined-outcome and buffer ETFs for risk-conscious investors. Together, these deals show Goldman’s clear strategy of expanding options-based offerings.
Co-founders Troy Cates and Garrett Paolella will join Goldman Sachs Asset Management as partners. The broader NEOS team is also expected to transition into Goldman’s structure. Goldman’s leadership described the acquisition as complementary to its buffer, income, and outcome-based strategies.
Combined ETF Platform Surpasses $130 Billion In Assets
After the deal closes, Goldman’s total ETF platform will exceed $130 billion in assets. Active ETFs alone will account for roughly $80 billion of that total. This scale places Goldman among the largest active ETF providers in the industry.
Morningstar data ranks Goldman as the eighth-largest active ETF provider as of June. That ranking reflects steady growth across the firm’s broader asset management division. The NEOS acquisition should push Goldman further up that competitive ranking.
Options-based income ETFs have expanded rapidly across the wider market in recent years. The category now holds about $180 billion in total assets industry-wide. Annualized growth has topped seventy percent since 2021, according to Morningstar figures.
Broader Market Context And Industry Trends
Demand for options-income strategies has grown steadily among everyday and institutional investors alike. These products aim to generate income while limiting downside exposure to market swings. That balance has made them increasingly popular within traditional ETF structures.
Goldman’s acquisitions of NEOS and Innovator reflect a broader shift toward specialized ETF products. Large asset managers continue consolidating smaller, innovative firms to diversify their offerings. This pattern suggests further consolidation may follow across the active ETF sector.
Once the deal closes, Goldman plans to operate NEOS alongside its current ETF lineup. The firm aims to expand its overall product range and total assets under management. Goldman’s latest move signals continued ambition within the actively managed ETF space.
This article was originally published as Goldman Sachs Expands Active ETF Reach With Neos Buyout on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new federal lawsuit challenges Truth Social’s paid service for early access to presidential announcements. The service charges trading firms as much as $100,000 monthly. Meanwhile, plaintiffs argue that the system gives paying users faster access to public government information.
Lawsuit Targets Truth Social’s Paid Feed
The Intercept and Freedom of the Press Foundation filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Manhattan federal court. The complaint names President Donald Trump and seeks restrictions on his participation in Truth API. It also targets White House employees who may use the service to distribute official announcements.
Truth API gives subscribers faster access to selected posts from Trump and other Truth Social accounts. However, the plaintiffs argue that presidential messages should reach the public without paid delays. They say the service creates a separate information channel for customers who can afford its fees.
Trump Media launched Truth API on August 1 after announcing the service in July. The company designed the product for financial institutions and trading firms seeking faster information. Therefore, the service could give trading companies an advantage when presidential posts affect financial markets.
Constitutional Claims Raise Public Access Issues
The lawsuit argues that Truth API violates First Amendment protections by favoring paying subscribers. According to the complaint, news organizations and members of the public should receive equal access. The plaintiffs also challenge the government’s role in providing special access through a private platform.
The complaint further raises a Fifth Amendment claim over the financial condition attached to access. The plaintiffs argue that the government cannot require large payments for access to a public benefit. However, the court has not ruled on either constitutional claim.
Trump frequently uses Truth Social to announce decisions involving trade, foreign policy, and federal appointments. Some announcements can move markets because they reveal major policy changes or government actions. As a result, faster access can hold significant value for companies that trade financial assets.
Trump Media Ownership Adds Financial Dimension
The plaintiffs also point to Trump’s financial interest in Trump Media as part of their case. The Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust owns about 41.43% of Trump Media shares. Trump remains the trust’s sole beneficiary, and that holding has carried a value above $1 billion.
Trump Media launched Truth Social in 2022 after Trump founded the company in 2021. Since then, the platform has become a major channel for Trump’s direct public communication. The company has therefore gained importance as presidential announcements increasingly appear on the platform.
The lawsuit asks the court to stop Trump and White House employees from providing preferential access. It specifically targets the delivery of official announcements through Truth API’s paid system. The plaintiffs are represented by several legal groups, including the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic.
The case now places Truth Social’s premium information model under federal scrutiny. Its outcome could influence how public officials distribute time-sensitive information through private platforms. Meanwhile, the dispute raises broader questions about equal access when presidential statements can affect markets.
Trump Media and the White House now face legal arguments over the service’s structure and public role. The court will determine whether the plaintiffs can establish the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint. Until then, Truth API remains a paid service that offers faster access to selected Truth Social posts.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Faces Lawsuit Over $100,000 Truth Social Early Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.