Crypto Breaking

Bitcoin rebounded to around $79,000 on Friday after US core inflation data came in broadly in line with expectations, helping ease pressure across risk assets earlier in the session. The relief rally, however, unfolded against a backdrop of sharp moves in US bond yields—an environment market participants say can still make it harder for BTC to sustain gains.
US CPI showed that core prices rose 0.3% month-on-month in August, slightly above the 0.2% expected by traders, while the broader inflation narrative remained tightly linked to Federal Reserve rate expectations. According to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool, implied odds of a 0.25% rate hike at the September 16 meeting climbed to 85% on Friday, up from roughly 60% a week earlier.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin jumped more than 3% after core CPI exceeded expectations by 0.1 percentage point on a month-on-month basis.
CME FedWatch Tool data showed the probability of a September 0.25% hike rising to 85% after the release.
Bond markets reacted with volatility: the 30-year Treasury yield briefly surged to its highest level since June 2004 before retreating.
Trading firm QCP warned that higher yields and tightening expectations can become a headwind for BTC until Treasury liquidity support takes hold.
BTC’s rebound after “nervous” CPI digestion
TradingView data reflected renewed intraday volatility in the BTC/USD market following the CPI print, which showed year-on-year inflation at 3.4%. After slipping toward $76,000 immediately after the data, BTC/USD reversed quickly and ended the day up more than 3%.
The move tracked a broader improvement in US equities after an initially weak start. At the time of writing, the S&P 500 was up about 1% and the Nasdaq Composite had gained roughly 1.1%. Earlier in the week, Bitcoin had been pressured after the Producer Price Index (PPI) overshot expectations, and the CPI read was widely viewed as “conforming to expectations” compared with that prior shock.
While equities steadied, rates markets were more erratic. In response to the CPI release, the 30-year Treasury yield swung sharply—first rallying to levels not seen since June 2004 and then falling back to around 5.309%.
“This is a nervous market,” trading resource The Kobeissi Letter summarized in a post on X.
Core CPI details sharpen the policy focus
The inflation figures highlighted how energy costs continued to weigh on monthly price movement. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that gasoline prices rose 3.9% in August and accounted for over one third of the total monthly increase in the “all items” CPI. The BLS also said the energy index rose 2.1% over the month.
Those components mattered for how quickly traders could form a narrative about disinflation. Alongside the broader data, BLS said core CPI rose 0.3% in August month-on-month—about 0.1 percentage point higher than anticipated—keeping the Federal Reserve’s next steps firmly in the spotlight.
As a result, traders adjusted their rate expectations more aggressively. CME’s FedWatch Tool showed a marked jump in the probability of a 25 basis point hike for the September 16 meeting, reaching 85% on Friday. That represented a substantial shift from the roughly 60% implied probability a week earlier.
What Fed split signals mean for crypto
US policy uncertainty continues to frame crypto’s immediate trading conditions. The article noted that Fed officials are not fully aligned on the appropriate path forward. In particular, governor Christopher Waller indicated he would be inclined to keep rates within the current 3.50%–3.75% range if upcoming inflation data showed at least “some signs of disinflation.”
Reuters previously reported Waller’s view that hiking by another 25 basis points at the next meeting would not be enough to push CPI down to the 2% target, emphasizing the limits of incremental action when inflation momentum remains uncertain.
For Bitcoin, that debate matters because the market’s sensitivity to real yields and the broader “risk-free” benchmark tends to rise when inflation readings do not clearly validate a cooling trend. In other words, even when CPI data is not disastrous, a “slightly hotter than expected” core print can still reprice the rate path in ways that constrain risk-taking.
QCP warns yields could undercut Bitcoin’s momentum
Beyond the immediate reaction, QCP Capital argued in its latest analysis that the type of yield strength developing this year may be especially challenging for Bitcoin. The firm suggested that the rise in US yields has increasingly been driven by expectations for tighter policy and a shared risk premium across stocks and bonds, rather than by stronger growth.
In QCP’s view, this matters because it creates a particularly unfavorable combination for BTC: a higher “competing” yield without the nominal-growth impulse that often accompanies traditional tightening cycles. The firm described that mix as “the worst mix for Bitcoin,” because it undercuts the narrative that previously helped BTC rally—from about $63,000 to $82,000 in the second half of August—when market participants were focused on a “Treasury liquidity put” providing structural support.
QCP also said Bitcoin could benefit later from the same broader developments, but only once buyback operations have had time to inject meaningful liquidity into markets. That framing implies that Friday’s bounce may be less about a durable shift in the macro trend and more about traders reacting to a CPI release that did not worsen expectations further.
Notably, the analysis referenced the earlier US Treasury decision to step up debt buyback interventions, which had been discussed in prior market coverage. If those operations translate into sustained liquidity, it could soften the impact of high yields over time; if not, elevated rate expectations and yield volatility could continue to cap BTC’s upside.
With CPI interpreted through the lens of Fed reaction functions, the next datapoints—particularly additional inflation prints and any signs of disinflation durability—will likely determine whether Bitcoin’s rebound holds or fades as bond yields reassert pressure. Readers should watch how Treasury-related liquidity expectations evolve alongside FedWatch-implied probabilities for September, because that combination may decide whether BTC’s volatility turns into trend.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Targets $80K as US CPI Lifts Bond Yields to 22-Year High on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Anchorage Digital has partnered with stablecoin protocol Frgmnt to bring institutional access to Frgmnt’s fUSD and sfUSD tokens through Anchorage’s regulated custody platform. The arrangement is designed to let qualifying clients hold, mint and redeem fUSD—and also stake and unstake it—without having to build a separate custody setup.
According to a Friday Chainwire announcement, Frgmnt’s fUSD is issued against USDC on Base, with backing deployed across onchain lending markets. Users can stake fUSD to receive sfUSD, which entitles them to rewards generated by Frgmnt’s underlying strategies.
Key takeaways
Anchorage Digital will provide custody-based access to fUSD and sfUSD for institutional clients, covering minting, redemption, and staking operations.
Frgmnt issues fUSD against USDC on Base and links staking yields to returns from onchain lending markets.
Frgmnt is currently in a capped, invite-only beta, but plans to open public access and raise its deposit cap on Sept. 15.
Frgmnt said sfUSD generated 13.32% APR as of Sept. 4, while noting yields can change with market conditions.
How Anchorage will route fUSD and sfUSD access
The partnership positions Anchorage as a direct on-ramp for institutional participation in Frgmnt’s stablecoin ecosystem. Rather than requiring investors to move assets into a separate custody arrangement, the integration aims to keep operations inside Anchorage’s platform while still enabling the core token lifecycle: holding, minting, redeeming, and staking-related actions.
For institutions, this distinction matters because custody arrangements often determine operational overhead, compliance controls, and the speed at which clients can expand their stablecoin and onchain yield activities. By packaging multiple functions—token management and staking—within one custody workflow, the deal reduces friction that typically slows adoption of newer DeFi-linked stablecoin products.
Frgmnt’s stablecoin mechanics and what backs the yield
Frgmnt describes fUSD as a stablecoin built on Base, issued against USDC. The protocol’s backing is deployed across onchain lending markets, meaning the performance of those underlying strategies feeds into the rewards distributed to stakers.
Staking converts fUSD into sfUSD, with rewards reflecting the protocol’s current yield environment. Frgmnt said in a post on X that sfUSD was generating 13.32% APR as of Sept. 4. The protocol also indicated that yields vary as lending-market conditions change, which is consistent with how DeFi-linked stablecoin products typically behave: the stablecoin wrapper may be steady, but the return profile is not guaranteed.
Data from DeFiLlama shows Frgmnt has about $100,000 in total value locked. The same reference set also indicates the protocol is operating under a capped, invite-only beta—status that signals limited early availability compared with mature stablecoin infrastructure.
Why the Sept. 15 public access step could matter
The announcement ties the Anchorage integration to a broader expansion plan for Frgmnt. The protocol plans to open public access and raise its deposit cap on Sept. 15, moving from a restricted beta phase toward wider participation.
In practice, that sequence could influence how quickly institutional demand translates into onchain activity. While Anchorage’s custody access is already intended for institutional clients, Frgmnt’s deposit constraints during beta could limit the pace of new inflows. Investors and operators will likely be watching whether the capacity increase on Sept. 15 triggers higher volumes or whether demand remains concentrated among early invite participants.
It is also worth noting the asymmetry between regulated custody access and protocol-wide participation. Anchorage’s platform may streamline institutional workflows, but the protocol’s own caps and availability rules still govern how much capital can enter the system at any given time.
Anchorage’s push deeper into regulated stablecoin and staking services
This Frgmnt partnership adds to Anchorage Digital’s expanding role as a regulated gateway for institutions seeking stablecoins, staking, and other onchain financial products. Anchorage is not only positioning itself as a custody provider; it has also pursued roles that touch issuance and payments-adjacent infrastructure.
Earlier, Tether tapped Anchorage Digital Bank in January to issue USAt, a US-focused stablecoin designed to operate under the GENIUS Act. That development put Anchorage on the issuance side of the market, marking a step beyond custody-only services.
Anchorage has also looked at cross-border and treasury use cases. In May, Grupo Salinas partnered with Anchorage to support blockchain-based dollar transfers, cross-border settlement and treasury activity through its Coinpro digital asset subsidiary. Beyond stablecoins, Anchorage’s institutional staking work has expanded across networks and strategy integrations, including an April integration with Marinade Finance for Solana staking strategies and later additions supporting staking for Tron’s TRX.
Taken together, the Frgmnt collaboration reinforces a theme Anchorage appears to be pursuing: bringing more of the stablecoin lifecycle and yield stack into a custody and controls framework built for institutions, while still allowing clients to engage with DeFi mechanisms.
Investors should watch how the Aug./Sept. transition plays out—specifically, whether Frgmnt’s Sept. 15 deposit cap increase leads to measurable growth in participation through Anchorage, and how realized yields for sfUSD trend as underlying lending conditions move. The yield figure cited for Sept. 4 provides a reference point, but the key variable will be whether those returns remain attractive after the beta limits loosen.
This article was originally published as Anchorage Digital Enables Institutional Access to Frgmnt’s fUSD on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japan’s publicly listed Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet has moved to ease shareholder concerns tied to its Series 10 stock acquisition rights. In an announcement made by CEO Simon Gerovich on Friday, the company said it will further amend the rights after criticism over potential dilution from an expanded option pool.
Metaplanet plans to reduce the number of shares that could be delivered through future exercises of the Series 10 rights by 131.3 million, bringing the potential share count down from 319.464 million to 188.19 million. The company will do this by resetting the conversion ratio from 1:696 to 1:410—described as the level that existed prior to its September 2025 international share offering—while leaving already-delivered shares unchanged.
Key takeaways
Metaplanet will cut the potential shares from future Series 10 exercises from 319.464 million to 188.19 million.
The conversion ratio will be reset from 1:696 to 1:410, aligning with the pre–September 2025 level.
Previously exercised shares will not be reversed, and the dilution reduction applies only to future rights exercises.
The company says the adjustment eliminates more than $220 million in warrant value and raises Bitcoin-per-fully-diluted-share by about 8.8%.
Metaplanet is also withdrawing earlier plans related to transferring rights into an officer and employee incentive vehicle and is tightening vesting timelines and exercise restrictions.
Dilution concerns prompt a Series 10 reset
Gerovich’s announcement responds to a wave of shareholder pushback focused on the dilution risk created by Metaplanet’s option pool expansion. According to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, the company increased the pool from 46 million shares to 319.5 million, which drew scrutiny from investors concerned about how incremental rights could dilute existing holders.
Metaplanet had previously stated that it “fixed the pool” at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18. However, some shareholders called for the cancellation of 273 million additional potential shares that were generated by that expansion.
In Friday’s update, Gerovich said the company will reduce the number of potential shares tied to future Series 10 exercises. Specifically, Metaplanet will lower the conversion ratio so fewer shares can be issued when the rights are exercised later, while leaving any shares already obtained through earlier exercises intact and uncanceled.
Financially, Gerovich said the change would extinguish more than $220 million in warrant value and improve the company’s Bitcoin-per-fully-diluted-share measure by about 8.8%. The logic is straightforward: if fewer shares can ultimately be issued via the rights mechanism, the dilution denominator shrinks.
What changes—and what doesn’t—under the amended rights
Metaplanet’s amended terms include both quantitative changes (fewer shares potentially deliverable) and structural changes to how the rights vest and can be exercised.
The CEO said the company will withdraw plans to transfer up to 90,000 rights to a long-term officer and employee incentive vehicle. In its place, Metaplanet will develop a new compensation program with a “leading global compensation consultant,” according to Gerovich.
Under the amended structure, all unvested rights will face additional exercise restrictions. Gerovich said rights will become exercisable in thirds, with one-third exercisable in each of 2029, 2030, and 2031. This matters for shareholders because timing affects how quickly any potential dilution could materialize, even if the total theoretical share count is capped by the conversion ratio.
The update also followed corporate actions around the Series 10 rights in late August. On Aug. 31, Metaplanet disclosed that Gerovich exercised rights to acquire 92,000 shares under the Series 10 pool, according to the company’s filing. Gerovich stated that he recused himself from board deliberations and the vote on the adjustment because he holds Series 10 rights.
Earlier, on Aug. 18, Metaplanet acknowledged in a disclosure that expanding the pool “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders,” a statement that foreshadowed the investor backlash and the eventual decision to revisit the structure.
Market reaction and investor signals
The Series 10 adjustment drew immediate commentary from market observers. In an X post Friday, Matthew Sigel, head of digital asset research at VanEck, described the change as a “meaningful concession” that better aligns management with shareholders.
Company shares reflected some volatility around the announcement. According to Yahoo Finance, Metaplanet shares fell 3.8% on Friday, extending a five-day decline to 15%.
While price moves can be influenced by broader market dynamics, the timing of the dilution fix is notable: the company’s willingness to reduce future deliverables comes shortly after it had to address the criticism that its rights expansion could weaken the position of existing investors.
“Project Nova” expands beyond treasuries with Hong Kong plans
Alongside the Series 10 amendment, Metaplanet also outlined plans to expand its business footprint in Asia. The company announced Friday that it intends to establish a new Hong Kong subsidiary, Metaplanet Asset Management Asia Limited, with $1 million in initial capital later in September.
The subsidiary is expected to conduct trading in Bitcoin, equities, and credit products during Asian market hours. Metaplanet said the initiative is part of “Project Nova,” a broader effort to build a Bitcoin-centered platform that spans asset management, securities, capital markets, and other financial services.
In June, Metaplanet agreed to acquire Siiibo Securities in a deal valued at 2.1 billion yen (about $13.1 million), with the stated goal of forming a securities arm. That acquisition plan fits with the company’s new Hong Kong structure, suggesting Metaplanet is attempting to move from a pure treasury thesis toward a platform approach that can support trading and capital markets activities.
For investors, the immediate relevance is twofold: first, corporate actions on dilution are directly tied to shareholder outcomes, and second, the company’s platform expansion could influence how it funds growth and manages risk across different revenue lines. For now, the Series 10 amendment is the most concrete near-term change, while the Hong Kong subsidiary appears set for implementation later in the year.
Going forward, investors should watch whether Metaplanet provides further details on how the revised compensation program will be structured, and how the reduced Series 10 conversion ratio affects the company’s fully diluted share calculations as more rights vest over the 2029–2031 window.
This article was originally published as Metaplanet Shrinks Series 10 Stock Pool by 41% and Launches HK Subsidiary on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Robinhood Chain hat tokenisierte Aktien in gewisser Weise zu einem weiteren Baustein für dezentralen Handel gemacht – manchmal mit wirklich skurrilen Folgen. Ein Memecoin-und-Aktien-Liquiditätspool, der rund um BONER und tokenisierte Gesundheitsaktien von Hims & Hers (HIMS) aufgebaut wurde, trieb den On-Chain-Token kurzzeitig weit weg vom zugrunde liegenden NYSE-Referenzpreis.
Laut einem in der ursprünglichen Berichterstattung von The Defiant zitierten Bericht hielt der BONER/HIMS-Liquiditätspool zeitweise 31.198 HIMS-Token – mehr als die Hälfte der 58.714 tokenisierten HIMS-Anteile, die im Umlauf sind. Dieses Ungleichgewicht ging mit einem Anstieg des tokenisierten HIMS-Preises auf 132,64 US-Dollar einher, verglichen mit einem Schlusskurs von 28,84 US-Dollar für die echten HIMS-Aktien an der NYSE, basierend auf historischen Kursen, die in der Quelle als Referenz genannt wurden.

Indien hat 1.025 Crore (116 Millionen US-Dollar) in tokenisierten Unternehmensanleihen über das Demat-2.0-Pilotprojekt ausgegeben. Die Anleihen wurden in drei Transaktionen ausgegeben und mit dem Wholesale Digital Rupee der Reserve Bank of India (RBI) abgewickelt.
Laut einer Erklärung der Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) verbindet Demat 2.0 ein verteiltes Ledger, das im Besitz der gesetzlichen Verwahrer Indiens ist, mit der Unified Market Interface der RBI und überträgt die Anleihe sowie die zugehörige Zahlung mithilfe atomarer Abwicklungen.
Indien gibt 116 Millionen US-Dollar mithilfe des Demat-2.0-Pilotprojekts aus

Der japanische Bitcoin-Tresorunternehmen Metaplanet erklärt, es werde die Umtauschbedingungen für seine Aktienerwerbsrechte der Serie 10 erneut ändern – und damit eingreifen, nachdem es von Aktionären Gegenwind wegen der Verwässerung durch einen erweiterten Optionspool gegeben hatte.
Laut Metaplanet-CEO Simon Gerovich wird das Unternehmen die Anzahl der Aktien reduzieren, die bei künftigen Ausübungen der Rechte ausgegeben werden könnten, um 131,3 Millionen – und damit die potenzielle Aktienanzahl von 319,464 Millionen auf 188,19 Millionen senken. Die Anpassung erfolgt durch das Zurücksetzen des Umtauschverhältnisses von 1:696 auf 1:410; wie Gerovich sagte, stellt dies das Niveau wieder her, das vor dem internationalen Aktienangebot von Metaplanet im September 2025 verwendet wurde.

India’s capital markets are taking a tangible step toward blockchain-based settlement. The country’s securities regulator and central bank have launched a pilot that enables corporate bonds to be issued and held as tokenized assets, with settlement linked to the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) wholesale central bank digital currency (CBDC).
On Thursday, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) said its “Demat 2.0” initiative allows corporate bonds to be issued and recorded as digital tokens on a distributed ledger maintained by India’s statutory depositories. The system is designed to connect to the RBI wholesale CBDC using the central bank’s Unified Market Interface (UMI).
Key takeaways
SEBI’s Demat 2.0 pilot tokenizes corporate bond issuance and ownership records within India’s regulated depository framework.
Settlement is tied to the RBI wholesale CBDC via the UMI, with SEBI describing “atomic settlement” to reduce timing mismatches between cash and bonds.
The first issuers—REC, Larsen & Toubro (L&T), and IIFL—collectively raised 10.25 billion rupees (about $107 million) across multiple transactions.
SEBI says issuers can receive funds on the day of bidding rather than the typical two- to three-day delay.
Investors can use existing Demat accounts, but must enable Demat 2.0 through their depository and have a wholesale CBDC wallet with a participating bank for settlement.
The Demat 2.0 pilot and the first set of tokenized bond issuances
SEBI said Demat 2.0 enables tokenized corporate bonds to be issued and held on a distributed ledger managed by statutory depositories. The pilot architecture is intended to keep corporate bond legal issuance and investor protections within the existing framework, while modernizing the recording and settlement layer.
Three companies participated in the initial launch. SEBI reported that public-sector lender REC raised 5 billion rupees from 18 investors on Monday. Engineering and construction conglomerate Larsen & Toubro (L&T) followed with a separate 5 billion rupees issuance from four investors on Wednesday. Non-bank lender IIFL also issued 250 million rupees to a single investor on the same day.
In practical terms, SEBI said the infrastructure is designed to accelerate the payment window. Instead of funds arriving two to three days after bidding, the regulator claims issuers receive funds on the day of bidding. SEBI linked this improvement to “atomic settlement,” describing it as a mechanism that removes delay between transfers of money and transfers of bonds.
The regulator also pointed to smart contracts as a way to automate key cash-flow events associated with the bonds, including interest and redemption payments. While the details of the smart-contract logic were not elaborated in the announcement, SEBI’s emphasis is clear: the pilot aims to streamline both settlement timing and payment operations.
From a smaller REC test to a broader first phase
The pilot expands beyond what was initially described in earlier reporting. In August, Reuters said India planned to test tokenized corporate bonds through an REC issuance of less than 5 billion rupees with selected investors. The subsequent SEBI update indicates the launch went further than that preliminary plan.
SEBI’s description of the first phase shows that the pilot moved past the original REC-only concept to include two additional issuers. With REC at 5 billion rupees and the combined additions of L&T and IIFL, the first-phase total rose to more than double the originally reported amount expectation for REC.
SEBI also said the issuances in the first phase remain ongoing. It described later phases as building out functionality, including secondary trading using existing request-for-quote platforms and opening access to retail investors. The regulator added that experience from the pilot would inform any wider rollout.
How investors access tokenized bonds without changing Demat structure
A key question for tokenized-market pilots is whether investors must rebuild their infrastructure. SEBI said tokenized bonds can be held in existing Demat accounts without opening a separate account or completing new KYC processes.
However, SEBI noted that participation still requires enablement of Demat 2.0 through an investor’s depository. On the settlement side, investors must also maintain a wholesale CBDC wallet with a participating bank to receive and settle payments under the pilot’s CBDC-connected workflow.
SEBI further characterized the approach as a combination of three elements: (1) bonds issued “natively on a distributed ledger,” (2) ownership records maintained by statutory depositories, and (3) settlement conducted in CBDCs within existing regulated market infrastructure. The regulator’s framing suggests the pilot is meant to reduce friction between new settlement mechanics and the established compliance and custody system investors already rely on.
What remains unchanged: legal status and investor protections
Tokenization can raise concerns about legal enforceability and consumer safeguards, especially when settlement technology shifts from traditional rails to blockchain-linked workflows. SEBI addressed this directly by stating that tokenization does not alter the legal status of the bonds, repayment obligations, or investor protections.
That clarification matters for market participants evaluating risk: it implies the pilot is focused on changing how bonds are issued, recorded, and settled—rather than redefining the underlying contract or regulatory rights attached to the instruments. For issuers, the pitch is largely operational (faster funding and potential payment automation). For investors, the emphasis is on continuity of rights even as settlement infrastructure evolves.
As the first phase continues, the market will be watching whether SEBI’s promised advantages—same-day funding, atomic settlement behavior, and smooth automation of interest and redemption—hold up in practice. The next milestone will likely be how Demat 2.0 is extended toward secondary trading and broader investor access, and whether the pilot’s approach can scale without creating new operational bottlenecks.
This article was originally published as India Pilots Tokenized Bonds, Issues $107M in First Phase on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Der „Dip-Kauf“-Impuls von Bitcoin scheint sich Anfang Juli ungewöhnlich verhalten gezeigt zu haben, wie eine On-Chain-Analyse nahelegt, die verfolgt, wie schnell zuvor inaktive BTC wieder in aktive Hände zurückkehren, nachdem die Preise nach starken Rückschlägen gefallen sind. Obwohl BTC am 1. Juli kurz unter die Marke von 58.000 US-Dollar fiel, stieg der Anteil der Coins, die nur für einen Zeitraum von ein bis sieben Tagen inaktiv gewesen waren – ein Indikator für frische Beteiligung – in den darauffolgenden Tagen lediglich marginal an.
Die gedämpfte Reaktion ist der neueste Datenpunkt in einer breiteren Debatte darüber, ob bereits Bitcoins Bärenmarkt-Tiefpunkt gebildet wurde. Der bekannte Analyst Willy Woo deutete an, dass dieses Verhalten auf langsame, stetige Akkumulation hindeuten könnte – statt auf den üblichen „crowd-like“ Eil-Kauf, der neue Tiefs anzieht. Andere Marktteilnehmer argumentieren jedoch weiterhin, dass die bärische Marktstruktur möglicherweise noch immer vorhanden sein könnte.

Indien bringt tokenisierte Unternehmensanleihen von der Theorie in die Umsetzung. Die SEBI, die Securities and Exchange Board of India, und die Reserve Bank of India (RBI) haben einen Pilotversuch gestartet, der ausgewählte Unternehmensanleihen als digitale Token in regulierter Marktinfrastruktur ausgibt und abwickelt.
Im Rahmen des Programms haben drei Emittenten erste Verkäufe im Gesamtvolumen von 10,25 Milliarden Rupien (etwa 107 Millionen US-Dollar) abgeschlossen. SEBI erklärte, die ersten Geschäfte dienten dazu, wie tokenisierte Anleihen ausgegeben, gehalten und auf einem Distributed Ledger abgewickelt werden können, während Zahlungen mit der CBDC der RBI für Zentralbank-Großkundenzahlungen (Wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency) verknüpft sind.

Blockstream sagt, es werde nicht mit den Parteien verhandeln, die es als Hacker hinter dem jüngsten Liquid-Network-Vorfall bezeichnet, und besteht darauf, dass die Forderung nach einer Belohnung Diebstahl darstelle – nicht „verantwortungsvolle Offenlegung“. In einer am Freitag veröffentlichten Stellungnahme erklärte das Unternehmen für Bitcoin-Infrastruktur, es habe in gutem Glauben mit den Angreifern Kontakt aufgenommen, um Gelder der Nutzer zurückzuholen, werde jedoch ihre Bedingungen nicht erfüllen.
Der Streit dreht sich um die verbleibenden Bitcoins, die nach der Störung des Liquid-Federation-Netzwerks Anfang dieses Monats gehalten wurden. Blockstream argumentiert, das Verhalten der Akteure habe eine klare Grenze überschritten: Vermögenswerte ohne Genehmigung zu nehmen und ihre Rückgabe zu verweigern ist ein Verbrechen, nicht der Versuch, die Sicherheit zu verbessern.

Eine überarbeitete Version des CLARITY-Gesetzes würde in den Vereinigten Staaten einen regulatorischen Pfad für bestimmte Krypto-Handelsprotokolle schaffen, die im strengen Sinn keine „Dezentralisierte Finanzierung“ sind. Der aktualisierte Entwurf weist die SEC und die CFTC an, Regeln dafür zu schreiben, wie qualifizierende Protokoll-Controller grundlegende Verpflichtungen wie Registrierung, Marktverhalten, Offenlegungen, Dokumentation und Aufsicht zu behandeln haben – während das Finanzministerium darlegt, wie die bestehenden Anforderungen des Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) gelten.
Der unmittelbare Schwung der Maßnahme hängt von einem entscheidenden Verfahrensschritt im Senat ab. Der überarbeitete Text wurde von Senatorin Cynthia Lummis vor einem für den 15. September angesetzten Senatsverfahren veröffentlicht, und um das Gesetz voranzubringen, sind 60 Stimmen erforderlich – eine Rechnung, die die Republikaner effektiv dazu zwingt, zumindest einen Teil der Unterstützung von Demokraten zu gewinnen, trotz fortbestehender Meinungsverschiedenheiten über Bestimmungen zu Ethik, Anti-Geldwäsche-Schutzmaßnahmen und stablecoin-bezogene Belohnungen.

Trezor hat gewarnt, dass ein Sicherheitsverstoß eines Dritten das Versenden von Phishing-E-Mails über die offizielle Domain des Hardware-Wallet-Anbieters ermöglicht hat.
Der Verstoß kommt kurz nach einem Sicherheitsvorfall bei ShipMonk, bei dem die personenbezogenen Daten von Trezor-Nutzern kompromittiert wurden.
Trezor warnt vor Sicherheitsverletzung eines Drittanbieters
Trezor gab in einem offiziellen X-Beitrag eine Warnung heraus und informierte Nutzer darüber, dass die E-Mail „Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability“ ein Phishing-Versuch war, und forderte sie auf, auf keinen Link zu klicken.
„Bitte beachten Sie, dass die E-Mail mit dem Namen ‚Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability‘ nicht von uns stammt und es sich um einen Phishing-Versuch handelt. Klicken Sie auf keinen Link.“

A revised version of the U.S. Senate’s CLARITY Act would steer regulators toward deciding when certain entities that influence “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” must follow securities, commodities, and anti-money laundering (AML) rules. The updated text, posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis, is designed to clarify how oversight would apply to protocol controllers without treating the underlying software as a regulated party on its own.
The proposal arrives ahead of a procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15. Because the bill needs 60 votes to move forward, Republicans are expected to require Democratic support—despite lingering disagreement over ethics provisions, AML protections, and elements tied to stablecoin rewards.
Key takeaways
The revised CLARITY Act defines “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” based on whether a person or coordinated group can materially change protocol functionality, rules, or user access.
Regulators would issue activity-based requirements: the SEC and CFTC would cover registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping, and supervision, while the Treasury would address how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations apply.
The bill explicitly states that software and distributed ledger systems would not need to register in their own capacity.
Participation in an incident-response or security council alone would not automatically establish “control” over a protocol.
The measure faces procedural headwinds, requiring 60 votes to advance and setting up a fast decision window before any broader legislative momentum is lost.
What the revised CLARITY Act would change
According to the revised text posted on Senator Cynthia Lummis’ website (see posted document), the central policy move is a regulator-facing determination: identifying whether those who control certain types of trading protocols—specifically those that are not fully decentralized—should be treated as regulated actors.
The proposal’s definition is not limited to whether a protocol has governance or administrative features. Instead, it focuses on control signals that regulators could evaluate, including whether a person or coordinated group can:
materially alter the protocol’s functionality, operation, or rules;
restrict users; or
operate a system where transactions are not governed solely by transparent, pre-established code.
This framing matters because it shifts the compliance question from abstract decentralization claims to measurable governance and operational power. For investors and users, the likely effect is more predictable enforcement boundaries: entities exerting meaningful influence over how protocol-based trading works would fall within a more conventional regulatory structure, while purely automated code paths would be treated differently.
How enforcement would be split across regulators
Under the bill, the SEC and CFTC would develop rules tied to specific kinds of regulated activity. The text calls for activity-based requirements spanning “registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping and supervision.” In parallel, the Treasury would define how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations apply to covered “controllers.”
That division is significant for market participants because it suggests the CLARITY Act is attempting to map responsibilities to existing U.S. agencies rather than create an entirely new regulatory body. For firms operating across spot trading, derivatives, or cross-border custody and compliance stacks, agency-by-agency guidance will likely be as consequential as the bill’s core definition.
The proposal also includes clarifications meant to reduce overreach. It states that software and distributed ledger systems would not be required to register “in their own capacity.” It further specifies that participating in an incident-response or security council would not, by itself, establish control over a protocol.
These details could be particularly important for developers, security teams, and operational incident coordinators, who otherwise might be concerned that routine cybersecurity and oversight activities could be construed as governance control.
Industry reaction: support for a framework, but ethics questions remain
Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim said the upcoming vote represents a pivotal moment for digital assets and U.S. leadership. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Kim argued the U.S. needs a framework that balances consumer protections with clear standards for business conduct.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, speaking to CNBC, said the CLARITY Act was “ready to get a yes vote.” Armstrong said the “must-have issues” Coinbase previously raised have been resolved, while negotiations over ethics restrictions were still underway and appeared close to a solution. He did not specify which provisions had changed.
Even with that optimism, Cointelegraph previously reported that the ethics section has been one of the main negotiation sticking points. The newly released text appears to preserve that section largely unchanged from an earlier version, leaving open whether the ethics dispute has truly moved from disagreement to compromise.
Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego had earlier warned against rushing ahead before lawmakers resolved issues tied to ethics and stablecoin yield, arguing that a quick vote might not produce the right result. That context helps explain why—despite broad industry interest in a clearer regulatory path—the bill may still be hard to advance without additional support.
Procedural math and what happens if the bill stalls
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the CLARITY Act requires 60 votes to advance. With the procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15, the updated bill must clear a high threshold—meaning Republicans will still need votes from Democrats despite ongoing disagreement.
Armstrong suggested that if the legislation does not move forward, regulators could pursue alternative paths using existing authority—such as rulemaking and innovation exemptions involving the SEC and CFTC. For market participants, that matters because it frames the choice not only as “bill versus no bill,” but as “clear statutory framework versus incremental regulatory action.”
In practical terms, firms planning compliance roadmaps may be forced to decide whether to treat the CLARITY Act as an achievable near-term signal—or as a politically stalled project that could be overtaken by agency initiatives. Either way, the bill’s definitions and regulator split would likely still influence how companies describe decentralization, governance participation, and operational control, even if the statute itself fails to advance.
Readers should watch closely for whether negotiators can resolve the remaining ethics-related disagreement by the procedural vote—and, if the bill fails to clear that threshold, what specific SEC and CFTC rulemaking efforts or exemption approaches regulators choose next.
This article was originally published as Revised CLARITY Act Moves to Regulate “Non-Decentralized” DeFi Operators on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A flaw in Brevo’s email login setup allowed an attacker to access client accounts and launch phishing campaigns that targeted subscribers of multiple crypto companies, including Trezor. Brevo’s post-incident write-up says 138 client accounts were involved, with phishing messages sent through infrastructure connected to hardware wallet maker BitBox and crypto portfolio tracking and tax-reporting platform CoinTracking.
The incident matters for users because it highlights how widely used marketing and notification providers can become a bridge for account-based compromise—one that can bypass typical email authentication safeguards and reach audiences that expect legitimate updates.
Key takeaways
Brevo said an attacker used a login-system issue to gain access to 138 client accounts and send phishing emails from six of them.
Trezor reported that the initial phishing email was sent to roughly 347,000 newsletter customers, and it disabled the malicious domain within about 20 minutes.
Trezor, BitBox, and CoinTracking share the same email provider for newsletters, which enabled the attacker to pivot across multiple crypto audiences.
Brevo said an intended authorization boundary failed, allowing access beyond the organization where invited Brevo users belonged.
Crypto firms are treating their affected newsletter lists as potentially exposed and possibly reusable for further phishing attempts until more details emerge.
Brevo’s incident report: authorization boundary failure
In a Thursday postmortem, Brevo described how the attacker exploited a vulnerability in its login system to reach other organizations. Brevo said six accounts were used to send phishing emails. It also reported that contacts were exported from 43 accounts, while 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity. The company did not clarify whether those categories overlapped.
According to Brevo’s write-up, the attacker created a Brevo account, enabled single sign-on, and invited legitimate Brevo users into the configuration. Brevo said access should have been confined to a single organization, but the authorization boundary failed—granting the attacker access to every organization the invited users could reach.
Brevo also published its incident details through its status page, including the write-up referenced by affected companies.
Why crypto newsletters looked legitimate
The scope of the phishing effort expanded on earlier warnings from Trezor and BitBox, which had flagged that their shared email provider could be used to deliver convincing messages. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted how the attack was able to pass normal authentication checks and appear genuine to recipients.
That combination—credible branding plus delivery through a familiar provider—makes these campaigns especially dangerous. Users are more likely to trust emails that match the expected tone and format of official newsletters, even when the link or call-to-action is malicious.
Trezor: app request tied to wallet backups
In a separate blog post, Trezor detailed what it said the phishing message contained. The email, titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability,” included a link to an app that asked users for their wallet backups.
Trezor said it disabled the domain at the DNS level within 20 minutes. Even so, it reported that roughly 2,500 people accessed the link before the takedown.
A Trezor spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the initial email was sent to 347,000 customers and that all of those newsletter subscribers were later contacted about the risk. The company said its Brevo account stored only opt-in newsletter email addresses and no other customer data.
Until additional information is provided by Brevo, the spokesperson added that Trezor is treating the roughly 347,000 newsletter addresses as known to the attacker and possibly reusable for future phishing.
BitBox and CoinTracking: lists potentially exposed
BitBox said its unauthorized email was sent through Brevo and appeared to reach its full newsletter and tutorial list. In comments relayed to Cointelegraph, a BitBox spokesperson said the Brevo account stored only email addresses and language preferences.
BitBox reported that it found no evidence of compromised company credentials, did not observe downloads of contacts beyond what would be expected in normal operations, and saw no signs of lost funds or disclosure of recovery phrases. However, it said it is treating the newsletter list as potentially accessed while it awaits Brevo’s logs.
CoinTracking, meanwhile, said its Brevo account distributed an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible.” CoinTracking told recipients not to follow the email’s links.
Taken together, these responses underscore a common pattern: even when companies confirm that no funds were taken and no secret keys or recovery phrases were released, the exposure of email addresses and the ability to reach subscribers can still provide a platform for repeated social engineering.
What to watch next: breach scope and future targeting
Brevo’s report indicates that the attack relied on a failure in access controls tied to single sign-on invitations, but the company’s account-by-account impact remains partially detailed. Readers should watch for additional confirmation of which customer lists were actually exported or contacted, and whether attackers can reuse the exposed addresses for follow-on campaigns.
This article was originally published as Brevo Login Flaw Used to Phish 347K Trezor Users on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Brevo, an email delivery platform used across the crypto industry, disclosed that an attacker leveraged a login-system weakness to gain access to multiple client accounts. The incident allowed phishing messages to be sent to a combined audience of roughly 347,000 Trezor newsletter subscribers, with additional campaigns also reaching audiences tied to BitBox and CoinTracking.
In a Thursday postmortem, Brevo said the attacker used six accounts to send phishing emails. It also reported that contacts were exported from 43 accounts, while 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity—though Brevo did not clarify whether those categories overlap. Brevo added that the access-control boundary that should have limited the attacker’s reach to a single organization failed.
Key takeaways
Brevo reported that an authorization boundary failed after an attacker configured an account with single sign-on and invited real users into the setup.
At least six Brevo accounts were used to send phishing emails.
Trezor says the initial phishing email was sent to about 347,000 newsletter customers, and it is treating those addresses as potentially exposed.
BitBox and CoinTracking also confirmed unauthorized newsletter activity routed through Brevo, though they reported no evidence of lost funds or exposed recovery phrases.
How Brevo’s login flaw enabled cross-account access
Brevo’s postmortem describes a pathway in which an attacker created a Brevo account, turned on single sign-on, and then invited legitimate Brevo users into the configuration. Brevo said the design should have confined access to the organization associated with the configuration, but the authorization boundary did not hold.
As a result, the attacker was able to reach every organization the invited users could access. Brevo’s write-up links the exposure directly to this breakdown in access controls, rather than to a breach of the affected organizations’ own systems.
The incident surfaced publicly after warnings from Trezor and BitBox earlier in the week, which pointed to their shared email provider and explained why the fraudulent emails appeared credible and passed ordinary authentication checks.
Phishing mechanics: what recipients were asked to do
Trezor said the phishing email—titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability”—included a link to an app designed to solicit wallet backups. According to Trezor, the company disabled the domain at the DNS level within about 20 minutes. Even with the rapid takedown, Trezor reported that about 2,500 people accessed the link before it was blocked.
Trezor also emphasized the broader risk to its subscriber list. In comments provided to Cointelegraph, a Trezor spokesperson said the initial email was sent to 347,000 customers, and that all recipients were subsequently contacted about the danger.
The spokesperson added: “Until we hear more from Brevo, we are treating all roughly 347,000 newsletter addresses as known to the attacker and possibly reusable for phishing.” Trezor further stated that its Brevo account stored only opt-in newsletter email addresses and no other customer data.
Hardware wallet and crypto services respond: exposure without confirmed credential theft
BitBox told Cointelegraph that its unauthorized email was delivered through Brevo and appeared to reach its full newsletter and tutorial audience.
In its response, BitBox said Brevo held only email addresses and language preferences for it. BitBox reported no evidence of compromised company credentials, no indication that attackers downloaded data beyond the newsletter contacts, and no signs of funds being stolen or recovery phrases disclosed. Still, it said it is treating the list as potentially accessed while awaiting Brevo’s logs.
CoinTracking, meanwhile, reported separate phishing activity. The company said its Brevo account distributed an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible.” CoinTracking warned recipients not to click the links in the message, indicating that the main threat was credential-related phishing rather than immediate compromise of underlying systems.
Together, the responses underline a common pattern in third-party email incidents: the most immediate harm may be messaging-based, but the bigger operational concern is whether contact lists can be reused for follow-on attacks.
What Brevo disclosed—and what remains unclear
Brevo’s incident report focuses on the account-access path, but some details remain ambiguous for downstream victims. Brevo said contact exports occurred across 43 accounts and that 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity, without specifying whether those numbers overlap or how many organizations were fully affected end-to-end.
Brevo also did not provide, in the disclosed summary, a precise mapping from the six sending accounts to the different affected crypto companies’ audiences. Cointelegraph attempted to request additional information from Brevo but received no response before publication.
For investors, traders, and builders, the relevance extends beyond the immediate phishing harm: reputable crypto firms rely on email service providers to communicate security alerts, product updates, and documentation. When those communications channels can be abused—especially when phishing content looks authentic—users may face repeated attempts that target them again using addresses already in the attacker’s possession.
Going forward, recipients of such newsletters should be cautious about any unexpected security prompts, verify warnings through official channels, and avoid entering sensitive data into links from unsolicited messages. The core uncertainty now is how thoroughly Brevo’s investigation identifies which organizations’ contacts were exported versus merely accessed, and whether the attacker obtained broader metadata that could support additional phishing campaigns.
Crypto firms and their customers should watch for follow-on updates from Brevo’s incident findings—particularly any clarification on which accounts were used for exports and whether any categories of access overlap—while continuing to educate users to treat “urgent security alerts” sent via newsletter channels as untrusted until verified independently.
This article was originally published as Brevo Login Flaw Linked to Phishing Attacks on 347K Trezor Users on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A coalition of European market infrastructure and tokenization groups is urging EU lawmakers to rethink a proposed cap on tokenized financial instruments, arguing that the current ceiling is too low for Europe to scale blockchain-based trading and settlement.
In a draft letter dated Sept. 7 and addressed to EU Council members and the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, the signatories ask that a proposed limit of 100 billion euros be either removed or lifted to at least 500 billion euros if lawmakers decide to keep any cap at all.
Key takeaways
A Sept. 7 industry letter calls the EU’s proposed 100 billion euro cap on tokenized financial instruments “insufficient” for scaling.
The coalition proposes 500 billion euros as a baseline threshold if a cap remains.
Signatories argue the EU limit is tied to market value of instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure, which they say makes it small versus global equity markets.
The letter points to differences with the US approach, where it claims tokenization can proceed without comparable volume caps.
The push follows earlier EU industry campaigns in February and April aimed at expanding the DLT Pilot Regime’s scope and thresholds.
Why the coalition is targeting the 100 billion euro threshold
The letter—available via industry site ADAN—states that some existing European tokenized-finance initiatives already reach a scale of roughly 350 billion euros and are planning further growth. Against that backdrop, the coalition says the European Commission’s proposed 100 billion euro ceiling would constrain development during a period when tokenized markets are still trying to find liquidity, operational scale, and investor reach.
Rather than focusing on trading activity, the letter highlights that the regime’s thresholds are applied to the market value of financial instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure. The groups argue that, in practice, this design makes the proposed 100 billion euro figure look relatively small when compared with the size of global equity markets.
Among the signatories are Nasdaq, Boerse Stuttgart Group, Securitize, the European Ethereum Institute, and Axiology. The groups frame the request as a practical issue for regulated tokenization, not a theoretical policy debate about whether digital securities should exist.
Reference points: Europe’s DLT Pilot Regime vs. US tokenization capacity
One of the letter’s central comparisons is with the United States. The signatories claim that in the US, “a dominant settlement platform is enabled to tokenise US equities and other assets without volume caps,” adding that such a structure could support tokenization exposure on the order of 150 trillion euros in assets.
While the EU coalition’s statement is written as an argument for policy adjustment, it is also a signal about where scaling pressure is heading. If European rules impose tighter quantitative limits than US arrangements, tokenized issuance, settlement, or liquidity development may be more attractive elsewhere—especially for institutions that want to operate across jurisdictions using consistent infrastructures.
The coalition also notes that the EU Commission’s broader revision effort is part of its Market Integration and Supervision Package. That package includes changes to the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Pilot Regime—an EU framework designed to let regulated firms test blockchain-based trading and settlement under exemptions from certain financial rules.
What the EU regime currently allows—and what’s proposed
The DLT Pilot Regime, according to ESMA, took effect in 2023. It enables financial firms to trial blockchain settlement for assets including stocks and bonds under specific conditions, with regulatory exemptions meant to reduce friction while authorities observe how onchain systems perform.
Under the Commission proposal referenced in the industry letter, the regime’s current 6 billion euro limit could rise to as much as 100 billion euros. The coalition argues that any meaningful scaling step should correspond better to market reality—especially if the limit is assessed based on admitted instrument market value rather than transaction volume.
In its Sept. 7 draft letter, the industry group suggests that lawmakers should adopt 500 billion euros as an interim “baseline” threshold if they retain a cap at all. The request effectively pushes for a step-change in the headroom available for tokenized financial instruments rather than a modest increase.
The pressure campaign: from February warnings to April and now September
This Sept. 7 intervention follows earlier public pushes from the same broad ecosystem of tokenization and market infrastructure firms.
In February, tokenization and market infrastructure companies—including Securitize, 21X, and Boerse Stuttgart—warned that existing asset limits, volume caps, and time-limited licenses were preventing regulated onchain markets from scaling within Europe. That earlier warning also argued that, without policy changes, liquidity could migrate to US markets as regulators there move toward larger-scale tokenization and onchain settlement.
In April, the effort broadened to include 39 financial firms and industry groups. That campaign, which included Nasdaq and Boerse Stuttgart, urged EU policymakers to fast-track changes to the DLT Pilot Regime and raise its overall limit to between 100 billion euros and 150 billion euros. The April letter also asked for broader asset eligibility and for removing time limits on licenses issued under the regime.
By Sept. 7, the coalition’s requested threshold has moved higher—shifting from an upper band of 100–150 billion euros previously to a minimum baseline of 500 billion euros, or no cap at all.
The underlying context for these arguments is that distributed real-world assets (RWA) are growing but remain concentrated in a limited set of categories. A frequently cited industry metric, RWA.xyz, places the total value of distributed RWA at about $39.15 billion (excluding stablecoins), with US Treasury debt described as the largest category at roughly $15.8 billion.
What to watch next
Lawmakers now have competing inputs: the Commission’s proposed 100 billion euro ceiling inside the Market Integration and Supervision Package, and the industry coalition’s demand for either removal of the cap or a substantial increase to at least 500 billion euros. The next key question for market participants is whether EU regulators will treat capacity limits as a temporary pilot constraint—or as a scaling throttle—and how that choice affects where liquidity and tokenized issuance concentrate as the DLT Pilot Regime evolves.
This article was originally published as EU Finance Groups Urge Removal of Cap on Tokenized Securities on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Liquid Network has restarted block production after a major Bitcoin withdrawal from its federation wallet, but it is still operating in a limited recovery mode. According to a Thursday update posted on X by Liquid_BTC, the network resumed producing blocks “without transactions” while teams monitor the system for “full stabilization.”
Peg operations—including peg-outs authorized via PAK—remain suspended as Liquid works to restore its BTC/L-BTC reserve. The restart comes after emergency software changes to Elements, the open-source platform that underpins Liquid.
Key takeaways
Liquid resumed block production, but transaction processing and peg-outs are still paused during recovery.
Liquid says functionary and bridge node updates have been deployed, with functionary nodes now signing and validating blocks.
Peg operations remain halted until the network can rebuild its BTC/L-BTC reserve.
The incident was tied to a vulnerability involving proof verification cache handling in Elements, addressed by an emergency update.
Block production returns—transactions stay paused
Liquid’s latest status update emphasizes caution. In the X post, Liquid states that block production has resumed as a precautionary measure, but “without transactions.” The network is being monitored to confirm that it has fully stabilized before broader functionality is restored.
Alongside the operational restart, Liquid says required upgrades to critical infrastructure nodes have already been pushed. Functionary nodes are now signing and validating blocks “as intended,” which suggests that core consensus duties are functioning again—even though user-facing activity is still constrained.
For participants, this distinction matters. Restarting block production can help ensure the system remains synchronized and responsive, but pausing transactions and peg operations reduces the risk of further complications while the reserve and related state are repaired.
Elements emergency update addressed a proof-verification cache issue
A day before the block production restart, Liquid issued an emergency update to Elements, the software underlying the network. In an earlier X update from Liquid_BTC, the organization described the fix as a response to a vulnerability involving proof-verification cache handling tied to the incident.
Liquid’s recovery plan includes hardening cache keys used for range proofs as part of the software update. The post states the new release is Elements v23.3.4, designed to strengthen how the system verifies proofs during recovery-related operations.
From an investor and builder standpoint, the key takeaway is that Liquid is not just “restarting”—it is changing the underlying mechanics that were implicated in the exploit pathway. That generally reduces the likelihood of a repeat incident once peg functions and transaction handling return.
What happened to the federation wallet balance
The operational pause was triggered on Sept. 6 after actors described as “white-hat hackers” withdrew approximately 4,000 BTC—valued around $320 million at the time—from Liquid’s federation wallet, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Liquid previously indicated that the withdrawal involved L-BTC originating from a bug in Elements. The withdrawing portion represented about 95% of the federation wallet’s balance, which was roughly 4,200 BTC.
Subsequently, Cointelegraph reported that 3,400 BTC—worth about $270 million at the time—was returned after Blockstream confirmed that affected bridge nodes had been patched. Even with the return, 598 BTC—roughly $46 million at current prices—remained outstanding as of Sept. 7.
Liquid’s current emphasis on rebuilding its BTC/L-BTC reserve aligns with that earlier balance reality: peg operations are effectively the bridge between the reserve and minted/burned representations. Until the reserve is restored to safe levels and the system’s node components are verified to be operating correctly, resuming peg-outs would create avoidable settlement and redemption risk.
Why the “no transactions” restart is a meaningful step
The move to resume block production—while still withholding transactions—signals that Liquid believes its recovery controls are working, but that it is not yet comfortable restoring normal user workflows. In practice, it lets the network keep progressing at the protocol level, while limiting the number of moving pieces that could interact with remaining reserve and peg-state uncertainty.
As Liquid continues monitoring, the next practical question for market participants is whether peg operations will resume once reserve restoration is confirmed and node updates have been validated under real operating conditions.
Readers should watch Liquid’s follow-up status updates for any change in peg-out authorization and for confirmation that transaction processing can safely return—especially after the Elements v23.3.4 fix and the earlier bridge-node patching are fully validated against the incident’s root cause.
This article was originally published as Liquid Network Restarts Block Production After $320M Exploit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Das britische Oberhaus hat einen Vorstoß für einen klareren Regierungsfahrplan für digitale Vermögenswerte unterstützt und eine Änderung gebilligt, die vorsieht, dass das Schatzamt eine formale Strategie erstellen und dazu konsultieren soll. Die Maßnahme wurde am Mittwoch mit einer Stimmenzahl von 194 zu 138 verabschiedet, trotz des Widerstands der Labour-Regierung.
Die Änderung wurde während der Beratungsphase (Report Stage) des Gesetzes über Finanzdienstleistungen und Märkte eingefügt, da es weiter durch das Parlament geht. Wenn die Änderung weiteren Prüfungen im Unterhaus standhält, würde sie einen Zeitplan für die politische Arbeit festlegen, der derzeit weitgehend auf dem bestehenden Ansatz der Regierung zu digitalen Vermögenswerten beruht.

Europe’s securities regulator is warning that the lines between crypto markets and traditional finance are getting thinner—and that this could make systemic shocks travel farther. In a new risk monitoring report, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) says the growing linkage between vulnerable crypto-asset markets and the wider financial system deserves closer watch.
ESMA’s report, published Thursday, highlights tokenized equities and ongoing decentralized finance (DeFi) vulnerabilities as key channels through which shocks could spill over. It also flags prediction markets as an emerging concern, citing risks around insider trading, wash trading, and coordinated manipulation—issues that may be harder to detect when crypto is involved.
Key takeaways
ESMA warns that increasing connectivity between crypto and traditional finance could amplify the impact of financial shocks.
Tokenized equities are still small in global terms, but ESMA says they are gaining traction and could change market structure over time.
Recent DeFi exploits are viewed as a factor that may deepen crypto’s links to broader markets.
Prediction markets face heightened regulatory scrutiny, with ESMA concerned that crypto involvement can obscure trading misconduct.
In the US, an ongoing jurisdiction dispute over event contracts could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
ESMA’s systemic-risk warning on crypto–traditional finance links
ESMA’s latest assessment focuses on the “growing linkage” between crypto-asset markets—described as increasingly vulnerable—and the broader financial system. The regulator argues that greater adoption of crypto-adjacent instruments can introduce new pathways for stress to move between sectors, potentially affecting market participants beyond the crypto ecosystem.
The report points to two developments in particular: the spread of tokenized equities and the continued problem of DeFi exploits. ESMA does not suggest tokenization has already reshaped global equities markets, but it emphasizes that momentum matters because infrastructure and participant behavior tend to evolve quickly once adoption takes hold.
Tokenized equities: still small, but becoming more consequential
ESMA says tokenized equities remain negligible compared with global stock markets. Still, it notes that the segment is gaining traction, with the possibility of drawing in new participants and building additional market infrastructure. That combination—more entities connected to more rails—can increase the complexity of market plumbing and raise the risk that problems elsewhere propagate into equity-linked products.
For investors and market operators, the practical takeaway is that “small today” does not necessarily mean “irrelevant tomorrow.” ESMA’s framing implies that regulators are watching early-stage adoption not only for fraud or conduct issues, but for how rapidly the market’s risk surface could change as participation broadens.
DeFi exploits as another spillover channel
Beyond tokenization, ESMA also highlights decentralized finance (DeFi) exploits as another factor that could strengthen the bond between crypto markets and the traditional system. While DeFi largely operates on its own rails, losses from hacks and vulnerabilities can still reverberate through liquidity conditions, counterpart risk, and sentiment—especially as some financial services and investors increasingly interact with crypto venues and products.
ESMA’s risk monitoring approach indicates that the regulator views these events not as isolated incidents but as part of a broader linkage story: shocks that start in crypto can gain traction if they affect liquidity, exposure, or cross-market positioning.
Prediction markets: tougher oversight, harder detection
ESMA also flagged prediction markets as an emerging risk area. The regulator warned of heightened concerns about insider trading and market manipulation. In particular, ESMA said crypto use in prediction markets can make it harder to detect behaviors such as insider trading, wash trading, and coordinated manipulation.
That caution matters because prediction markets are designed to reflect and trade on information about future events. If trading misconduct becomes harder to identify, regulators may face a steeper enforcement challenge—especially where on-chain activity and cross-border trading blur investigative boundaries.
ESMA’s warning arrives as prediction markets continue to face regulatory conflict in the United States. The dispute centers on whether “event contracts” should be treated as federal derivatives or fall under state gambling laws.
US jurisdiction fight over event contracts continues
In the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued guidance for prediction markets throughout 2026 while maintaining what it says is exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated event contracts. The agency has also pursued legal action against multiple states after authorities attempted to apply state gambling laws to prediction market operators.
Earlier coverage noted that the litigation includes efforts involving Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, and Connecticut. The overall dispute could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
According to reporting in the broader US context, New Jersey officials petitioned the Supreme Court on September 2 to determine whether states can enforce sports gambling laws against prediction markets registered with the CFTC. The petition is described as referencing litigation spanning at least 20 states. Whether the Supreme Court will take up the issue remains unclear, but any ruling could reshape which regulatory regime governs event contracts nationwide.
What to watch next for EU and cross-border markets
ESMA’s report suggests regulators are preparing for a world where tokenized instruments, DeFi liquidity flows, and crypto-enabled market platforms could intersect more often. Investors and builders should watch how enforcement and surveillance capabilities evolve—especially around prediction markets—while US jurisdiction developments may further determine how participants design compliant products across borders. The key uncertainty remains the speed at which early crypto adoption turns into mainstream market infrastructure, and how regulators will manage systemic-risk spillovers as that happens.
This article was originally published as ESMA Warns Crypto-Market Linkages May Heighten Risks for TradFi on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japanese Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet is facing renewed shareholder criticism after it continued expanding an executive share option pool that automatically grows as new shares are issued to support the company’s Bitcoin accumulation strategy. Multiple investors have raised dilution concerns and are urging the company to rescind the additional shares created under the plan.
Across Asia, the crypto sector also saw a mix of regulatory movement, enforcement actions, and corporate dealmaking—from Singapore granting Gemini a payment license to South Korea laying out a roadmap for tokenized securities and India moving forward with a tokenization test for grain warehouse receipts.
Key takeaways
Metaplanet shareholders are objecting to dilution tied to a 20% fully diluted share executive option pool that expands when new shares are issued for Bitcoin buying.
Singapore’s crypto funding performance strengthened sharply in 2026, with private market data cited as showing 25 rounds totaling $680 million.
Gemini received a Singapore Major Payment Institution (MPI) license from MAS, removing the earlier “in-principle” approval step.
South Korea’s Financial Services Commission introduced a three-phase plan for legally recognizing tokenized securities and eventually enabling stablecoin-linked onchain payments.
US authorities moved to restrain over $52 million in crypto linked to alleged scam marketplace Xinbi Guarantee and related wallets; OFAC also designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization.
Metaplanet executive pool under scrutiny as dilution concerns escalate
Metaplanet’s executive stock pool has again become a flashpoint among shareholders, according to reporting linked by Cointelegraph. The plan in question is the company’s 10th Series executive option pool, structured to represent 20% of fully diluted shares and to expand automatically as Metaplanet issues additional shares to fund its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation.
According to investor posts referenced in the coverage, some shareholders are asking Metaplanet to cancel an additional 273 million shares created from changes tied to the pool. They are also requesting greater transparency around future decisions, arguing that the mechanism’s built-in growth can materially dilute existing holders.
In response to the backlash, Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended the approach, characterizing the allocation of 20% of the cap table over a five-year period as not “crazy.” Still, the disagreement underscores the tension common to treasury-style Bitcoin strategies: while token issuance can fund BTC purchases, investors may view the share mechanics as insufficiently predictable or too aggressive relative to what they believe is warranted for long-term alignment.
Funding momentum in Southeast Asia tilts toward Singapore
In Southeast Asia, investment activity in crypto-related firms accelerated over the past year. A report cited by Cointelegraph states that funding doubled between 2025 and 2026, reaching 25 funding rounds and $680 million in 2026, based on private market data from Tracxn.
While the headline growth is notable, the data cited also suggests concentration risk: the number of rounds fell compared with the previous year (46 funding rounds reported for 2025), implying that more capital is flowing into fewer companies. Singapore, in the same coverage, is described as taking the lead as a regional crypto hub, with 2,285 of 3,957 blockchain companies in the region and 82.5% of all time blockchain equity funding tracked.
For investors and founders, the implication is straightforward: capital availability appears stronger, but competition for funding may be more intense as fewer deals capture larger sums. Builders looking for traction may need to sharpen their differentiation while fund managers may focus on a narrower set of “wins” as funding concentrates.
Singapore and other regulators: licensing upgrades, tokenization roadmaps, and enforcement actions
Singapore added regulatory clarity for crypto services when Gemini received a Major Payment Institution (MPI) license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), completing a transition that had been underway since the exchange received in-principle approval nearly two years earlier. Cointelegraph’s coverage notes that MPI license holders can provide regulated payment services without the transaction-volume limits that apply to standard payment institutions.
Gemini has served Singapore customers since 2020, with the company describing Singapore as a strategic hub for both retail and institutional clients in its commentary as reported. The development matters because payment licensing often affects how quickly regulated exchanges and wallet providers can scale product features, especially where transaction processing and cross-border settlement capabilities are involved.
Meanwhile, South Korea’s Financial Services Commission introduced a three-phase roadmap to build infrastructure for tokenized securities issuance for assets such as stocks, bonds, and funds. Cointelegraph reports that starting February 4, 2027, tokenized securities will be legally recognized as digitized forms of securities following an update to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds.
The plan is staged: the first phase covers legal recognition for certain tokenized products (including institutional money market funds, bonds, unlisted stocks, and fractional investment securities). Phase two would broaden recognition to all publicly offered securities, while phase three targets onchain payments linked to stablecoins. This sequencing is important for market participants because it indicates where compliance and infrastructure investment may land first—legal status tends to precede broader market rollout.
Related to payments economics, the South Korea National Assembly Budget Office estimates that won-denominated stablecoins could reduce merchant payment fees by between $275 million and $3.8 billion annually, as cited in the same coverage. Whether those savings materialize will likely depend on adoption and competitive dynamics among payment rails.
Enforcement also featured prominently. According to Cointelegraph, US authorities restrained more than $52 million in crypto linked to the alleged scam marketplace Xinbi Guarantee and its vendor network. The US Justice Department said its Scam Center Strike Force seized two wallets used by Xinbi to collect vendor payments containing about $12 million, and sought restraints against 47 additional wallets believed to be connected to money laundering across Xinbi’s network. Separately, OFAC designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization and sanctioned SafeW Technology (Singapore-based) and Anwen Technology (Cambodia-based) for allegedly providing technological and financial support to Xinbi.
Corporate and cross-border moves: payments, tokenization pilots, and treasury expansion
Several business developments highlighted how crypto is being tested and integrated into traditional finance workflows. Citi plans to offer Japanese companies near-instant international payments using blockchain-based infrastructure, including outside standard banking hours, according to Cointelegraph’s report.
In Singapore, Circle agreed to acquire Tazapay for $400 million, with the company described as having more than 60 bank and fintech partners across 100 markets. The reported strategic logic is to deepen cross-border payments capability, an area where stablecoins and compliant rails often intersect.
In India, Arya.ag is testing a system to tokenize warehouse receipts representing ownership of stored grain on a dedicated Avalanche layer-1 blockchain, according to Cointelegraph. The coverage states Arya.ag is working with Finternet to connect grain deposits, warehouse receipts, collateral commitments, and loan status through the network. Devika Mittal of Ava Labs’ India team said each tokenized receipt would represent ownership of the stored commodity, while the companies did not disclose an expected launch date or the scale of the initial deployment.
Separately, the Indian Financial Intelligence Unit issued non-compliance notices to 15 offshore virtual digital-asset service providers for alleged AML failures and sought takedowns of relevant applications and URLs, accusing them of serving Indian customers without proper controls. And India’s Finance Ministry is expected—per Cointelegraph’s coverage—to appear before a parliamentary panel on September 16, with discussion focusing on taxation and regulation of virtual digital assets.
In Hong Kong, Circle’s USDC jersey sponsorship with Chelsea Football Club created complications, with the issue reportedly linked to the jurisdiction’s stricter approach to unlicensed crypto promotions and local merchant hesitation to sell the jersey. In another corporate treasury item, Hong Kong-listed gaming company Boyaa Interactive purchased an additional 115 Bitcoin, adding to its existing treasury holdings, as cited by Cointelegraph.
As these stories develop, the clearest watchpoints are shareholder governance in Bitcoin-treasury companies, the pace at which Singapore and South Korea turn licensing and tokenization roadmaps into real market products, and enforcement signals that may tighten how global payment providers and tokenized finance rails operate across borders.
This article was originally published as Metaplanet Equity Fallout as SE Asia Crypto Funding Doubles on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.