TheCoinrise Media

The state-backed stablecoin drops its prior cross-chain protocol in favor of Chainlink following an audit of its infrastructure.
Wyoming has completed a migration of its state-issued Frontier Stable Token to Chainlink's Cross-Chain Interoperability Protocol, known as CCIP. The change was reported by CryptoBriefing and crypto.news on August 18 and 19, 2026, respectively. Both outlets tied the move directly to a security review of the token's technical stack.
FRNT is Wyoming's government-backed stablecoin initiative, positioned as a dollar-pegged digital asset issued under state authority. Its cross-chain infrastructure determines how the token moves between different blockchain networks without relying on a single custodial bridge. That infrastructure has now been rebuilt around Chainlink's CCIP framework.
Crypto Economy reported that the migration involved abandoning LayerZero, a rival interoperability protocol, in favor of Chainlink's system. The outlet also referenced a figure of $15 billion in connection with what it described as a broader stablecoin migration trend toward Chainlink infrastructure. The exact scope and composition of that figure was not detailed in the available reporting.
Security reviews of cross-chain infrastructure have become routine practice for stablecoin issuers, particularly government-linked ones. Bridges and interoperability protocols have historically been targets for exploits, with several high-profile hacks in past years draining hundreds of millions of dollars from cross-chain systems. A state-backed token carries added scrutiny given its public accountability.
Chainlink's CCIP has positioned itself as an alternative to bridge-based interoperability models, offering a standardized messaging layer that multiple blockchains and applications can plug into. Its adoption by a state-level stablecoin issuer would mark a notable institutional endorsement for the protocol, though the reporting reviewed here does not specify additional technical details of the integration.
Wyoming has been an early mover among U.S. states in exploring blockchain-based financial instruments, including prior legislative work on stablecoin frameworks. The FRNT migration fits into that broader pattern of the state testing digital asset infrastructure through direct issuance rather than only through regulation.
Neither CryptoBriefing nor crypto.news detailed the specific findings of the security review that preceded the switch. It remains unclear whether the review identified vulnerabilities specific to LayerZero's implementation or whether the decision reflected a broader infrastructure preference.
Market Impact
A migration of this kind can influence how other public-sector or institutional stablecoin issuers evaluate cross-chain infrastructure providers. If Wyoming's move reflects a wider trend, as suggested by Crypto Economy's reference to a large migration figure, Chainlink could see increased adoption among regulated and government-linked digital asset projects. That would reinforce CCIP's positioning as an infrastructure standard rather than one option among several competing protocols.
For LayerZero, losing a state-backed stablecoin as a reference client could raise questions among other institutional users about protocol selection criteria, even without confirmed details on why the switch occurred. Market participants tracking interoperability infrastructure will likely watch for further disclosures on the security review's findings and whether other issuers follow a similar path.
Wyoming's shift of FRNT to Chainlink's CCIP underscores the ongoing scrutiny facing cross-chain infrastructure in stablecoin issuance. Further detail on the security review and the scale of any broader migration trend will likely determine how significant this development proves for the interoperability sector.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Frontier Stable Token?
FRNT is a dollar-pegged stablecoin associated with the state of Wyoming, part of its broader push into state-backed digital asset infrastructure.
Why did Wyoming move FRNT to Chainlink's CCIP?
CryptoBriefing and crypto.news reported the migration followed a security review of the token's cross-chain infrastructure, though specific findings were not disclosed.
What protocol did FRNT use before the migration?
Crypto Economy reported that Wyoming previously relied on LayerZero for cross-chain functionality before switching to Chainlink's CCIP.
What does the $15 billion figure refer to?
Crypto Economy connected the figure to a broader stablecoin migration trend toward Chainlink infrastructure, but did not specify its exact composition.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Daniel Foster. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Chainlink’s CCIP Becomes New Home for Wyoming’s Frontier Stable Token appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Proof of reserves proves that an exchange controls a certain pile of crypto. It does not, in most implementations, prove that the pile is big enough to cover what the exchange owes its customers – and that second question, not the first, is what solvency actually means. An exchange can pass a proof-of-reserves check and still be insolvent if its liabilities exceed those verified assets, or if some of those assets are already pledged elsewhere.
Two separate problems, not one
According to crypto.news, in an article published 25 June 2026, a genuine solvency proof requires two things: proof of assets, showing what an exchange holds, and proof of liabilities, showing what it owes. The article calls the assets side “relatively straightforward,” because blockchains are public – an exchange can point to its wallet addresses or cryptographically sign a message from them, and anyone can check the balance sits there. Crypto.news calls the liabilities side “the hard half,” and illustrates why with a simple comparison: a billion dollars in verified crypto looks reassuring, but on its own says nothing about solvency if the exchange in fact owes its customers twice that amount.
The reason liabilities are harder to verify is structural, not incidental. What an exchange owes each customer sits in its own internal database, not on a public chain anyone can inspect. Proving that figure to an outsider means either trusting the exchange’s own books or building a cryptographic method – typically a Merkle tree or a zero-knowledge proof – that lets the totals be checked without exposing every customer’s individual balance.
What a Merkle-tree or ZK liability proof actually checks
According to crypto.news, Merkle trees and zero-knowledge proofs “help exchanges prove customer balances are included without exposing private account data.” The Cointelegraph reference-desk summary held here describes the same tools in similarly general terms, saying proof-of-reserves methods “like Merkle trees and zero-knowledge proofs” are used “to ensure transparency,” while still leaving liabilities unverified. Neither source, as held here, explains the technical mechanics of how either method works, and this page does not reconstruct that mechanism beyond what they state.
What such a check verifies, on the general logic of an inclusion proof – this page’s own reasoning, not a claim made by any source gathered here – is only what the exchange put into it in the first place. It cannot on its own confirm that every liability was included. A debt, a loan taken against customer collateral, or an obligation sitting off the exchange’s own platform could all sit outside the snapshot without the proof detecting the omission.
Timing raises a related gap. A snapshot taken and published on a given date says something about that date. According to Cointelegraph, proof-of-reserves audits “can verify asset holdings but do not account for liabilities,” which the outlet says can mislead users about an exchange’s actual solvency. Nothing in the mechanism itself prevents a liability from being added, or an asset from being moved out, the day after the snapshot is taken.
Encumbrance: the asset that isn’t really free
Even the easier half, proof of assets, has a quieter failure mode – though the clearest sourced example of it, in the evidence gathered here, concerns stablecoin issuers rather than exchanges. BitGo, in a blog post published 11 June 2026 about stablecoin proof of reserves, notes that reserves “may exist while still being pledged, restricted, or tied to other financial obligations.” A reserve asset disclosed by a stablecoin issuer can still be encumbered – posted as collateral, or otherwise restricted – while still appearing on a reserve snapshot as a free, available asset. Whether the same failure mode applies to centralized-exchange reserve snapshots specifically is not addressed by BitGo, which writes only about stablecoin issuers, or by any other source held here. BitGo also draws a distinction that matters when reading any published reserve report, exchange or stablecoin: a reserve attestation is generally “point in time,” performed by an accounting firm checking whether reported balances matched disclosed assets on a specific date, while a full audit is broader, testing internal controls and, depending on scope, liabilities and governance as well. The two are not interchangeable, per BitGo, even though both get called “proof of reserves” in public.
The worked example: FTX
The clearest illustration of why the liabilities half matters is the event that made proof of reserves a household term. According to crypto.news, in the article published 25 June 2026, FTX’s collapse in late 2022 revealed what the outlet calls “an estimated eight-billion-dollar hole” between what it claimed to hold and what it actually had. Crypto.news describes the underlying mechanism as one where customer account balances kept displaying on screen as though the funds were safe, while the exchange had funneled deposits to an affiliated trading firm that lost them. A proof-of-assets check on FTX’s visible wallets, on its own, would not have surfaced that shortfall, because the missing money was a liability problem – customers were owed more than the exchange actually held – not a question of whether any single wallet’s balance was real.
What this page does not tell you
This page cannot confirm whether any specific exchange operating today publishes a genuine, third-party-audited proof of liabilities, as opposed to a self-reported balance total or an asset-only snapshot; none of the sources gathered here name one. It cannot verify the accuracy of the shortfall figure crypto.news describes as an “eight-billion-dollar hole” beyond attributing it to that outlet’s own published estimate – the figure is not cross-confirmed against a court filing or a second outlet in the evidence used to write this page. The Block, in a piece we hold only as a headline, appears to describe a reserve-ratio formula and a threshold for it; because our access to that outlet is limited to the headline itself, this page does not state that formula or that threshold as confirmed fact. Separately, a Cointelegraph piece on whether reserve audits can prevent another FTX-like collapse is also held here as a headline only, so any quoted commentary reported to appear in that article is not repeated or attributed here. Finally, none of the sources gathered for this page explain how a liability snapshot is kept accurate in the gap between the moment it is taken and the moment it is published – the timing risk described above, and the specifics of what an inclusion proof can and cannot rule out, are this page’s own reading of the mechanism, not a claim any source makes explicitly.
Sources
Every fact above is attributed to one of these reports. Where they disagree, the article says so.
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk (headline only)
TheCoinrise reference desk (headline only)
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
The post Proof of reserves shows an exchange has the coins – so why doesn’t that prove it’s solvent? appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The cross-chain protocol paused operations following reports of a breach worth an estimated $1.7 million.
MAYAChain, a decentralized cross-chain liquidity network, halted operations on August 19 after suffering an exploit estimated at $1.7 million. The move was reported by Cointelegraph and crypto.news within roughly an hour of each other. Both outlets described the protocol as pausing its network in direct response to the incident.
MAYAChain is built as a sister protocol to THORChain, using similar architecture to allow native asset swaps across different blockchains without wrapped tokens or centralized custody. This design relies on decentralized vaults that hold liquidity across multiple chains simultaneously. That structure has made cross-chain bridges and liquidity protocols frequent targets for attackers over the past several years.
Halting a network is a common emergency response when a decentralized protocol detects unusual activity or a confirmed exploit. Pausing transactions can limit further losses by preventing additional withdrawals or swaps while developers assess the damage. It also gives node operators and validators time to coordinate on next steps, whether that involves patching vulnerable code or reviewing affected vaults.
The reported $1.7 million figure represents an early estimate. Exploit totals in decentralized finance often shift as investigators trace fund flows and identify the full scope of drained assets. Cross-chain protocols in particular can complicate accounting, since assets may be spread across several blockchains with different transaction histories and confirmation times.
Neither report detailed the specific vulnerability exploited or named the attacker. This is typical in the earliest hours following a DeFi incident, when protocol teams prioritize halting further damage over publishing forensic detail. Post-mortems, when they follow, typically arrive days or weeks later once security researchers have reviewed transaction data and smart contract code.
The incident adds to a long list of exploits affecting cross-chain infrastructure since 2021. Bridges and liquidity protocols that manage assets across multiple blockchains have repeatedly proven attractive targets because of the complexity involved in securing them. Attackers have exploited everything from validator key compromises to smart contract logic errors to drain funds from similar systems in the past.
MAYAChain's relationship to THORChain is notable given THORChain's own history of security incidents. THORChain suffered multiple exploits in 2021, prompting the project to overhaul its security practices and bug bounty programs. Whether MAYAChain's current halt stems from a similar class of vulnerability has not been established in the reporting so far.
For now, the protocol's pause leaves liquidity providers and users unable to execute swaps or withdrawals through the network. That freeze will likely remain in place until the team confirms the exploit has been contained and any necessary fixes are implemented. Users with funds locked in MAYAChain vaults will be watching closely for updates on both the cause and the resolution timeline.
Market Impact
An exploit of this size is unlikely to move broader crypto markets given the modest dollar figure involved. Its effects will likely be concentrated among MAYAChain users, liquidity providers, and closely related cross-chain protocols such as THORChain.
The incident may still reinforce caution among traders and institutions evaluating cross-chain bridges and liquidity networks for asset transfers. Repeated exploits across this category of infrastructure have historically prompted users to shift activity toward protocols with stronger audit histories or insurance mechanisms, at least until confidence is restored.
As of publication, MAYAChain's network remains halted while the extent of the exploit is assessed. Further details on the attack vector, recovery plans, and any compensation for affected users are expected as the investigation continues.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is MAYAChain?
MAYAChain is a decentralized cross-chain liquidity protocol that lets users swap native assets across different blockchains without relying on wrapped tokens or centralized custodians.
How much was reportedly lost in the exploit?
Cointelegraph and crypto.news both reported an estimated $1.7 million loss, though this figure may be revised as investigators review transaction data.
Why did MAYAChain halt its network?
Halting the network is a standard emergency measure meant to stop further withdrawals or swaps while the team assesses the breach and prevents additional losses.
Is MAYAChain related to THORChain?
Yes, MAYAChain is built on architecture similar to THORChain and functions as a related but separate cross-chain liquidity network.
Has the cause of the exploit been identified?
Neither report specified the exact vulnerability or attacker involved, which is typical in the early hours following a decentralized finance exploit.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Sophia Bennett. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post MAYAChain Halts Network After Roughly $1.7 Million Exploit appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The asset manager attributes the crash to excess leverage, not a failure of Bitcoin's investment case.
Bitcoin has lost half its value from recent peak levels, a decline severe enough to test the conviction of even its largest institutional backers. Despite the drop, BlackRock has reportedly held to its long-term view on the asset, according to crypto.news and The Cryptonomist.
Both outlets describe BlackRock's position as one that separates price action from fundamentals. The firm reportedly frames the 50% crash as a symptom of excessive leverage in crypto markets. It does not, in this framing, reflect a change in Bitcoin's core investment thesis.
This distinction matters for how institutional investors interpret sharp corrections. Leverage-driven selloffs typically involve forced liquidations, margin calls, and cascading order flow. These mechanics can drive prices down quickly without any change in the asset's long-term utility or adoption trajectory. A thesis-based decline, by contrast, would imply that the reasons for holding Bitcoin no longer apply.
BlackRock has become one of the most closely watched voices in crypto markets since launching its spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund. The firm's public commentary carries weight because of the scale of assets it manages and the influence it holds over allocator behavior. When a firm of that size frames a 50% drawdown as a leverage event rather than a fundamental failure, it can shape how other institutional holders respond.
The scale of the decline is notable regardless of the explanation offered. A 50% drop erases substantial paper gains and tests the resolve of newer entrants to the asset class. Bitcoin has a history of large drawdowns during previous cycles, some of which preceded eventual recoveries to new highs, while others extended into prolonged bear markets.
Neither crypto.news nor The Cryptonomist detailed specific price levels, timeframes, or the exact mechanics of the leverage unwind referenced in BlackRock's reported assessment. The reports focus on the firm's stated posture rather than a granular breakdown of the market structure event itself.
Market Impact
A 50% decline of this magnitude typically triggers renewed scrutiny of leverage across derivatives markets, including perpetual futures and options positioning. If BlackRock's assessment holds, further deleveraging could continue to pressure prices in the near term even as the firm's own outlook remains unchanged over a longer horizon.
Institutional commentary distinguishing leverage-driven selloffs from thesis-breaking events may influence how other large allocators, including pension funds and asset managers, respond to volatility. Reduced panic selling among long-term holders could follow if that framing is broadly adopted, though the reports do not indicate whether other institutions have echoed BlackRock's position.
The reports underscore a recurring tension in crypto markets between short-term price volatility and long-term institutional conviction. Whether BlackRock's framing proves accurate will depend on how the market absorbs further deleveraging in the weeks ahead.
Frequently Asked Questions
What caused Bitcoin's reported 50% decline?
The reports attribute the drop to excessive leverage in crypto markets rather than a change in Bitcoin's underlying investment case, according to BlackRock's reported assessment.
Has BlackRock changed its long-term stance on Bitcoin?
According to crypto.news and The Cryptonomist, BlackRock has maintained its long-term positive view on Bitcoin despite the sharp price decline.
Why does BlackRock's view matter for the broader market?
BlackRock manages substantial assets and operates a spot Bitcoin ETF, giving its public commentary significant influence over institutional investor sentiment.
Does a leverage-driven selloff differ from a fundamental decline?
Yes. Leverage-driven selloffs involve forced liquidations and margin calls, which can push prices down without altering an asset's long-term value proposition, unlike a breakdown in its core investment thesis.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Ethan Mercer. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Bitcoin Drops 50%, BlackRock Says Long-Term Thesis Still Holds appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Read together, this week's filings show regulators writing crypto rules on their own paper, not waiting for a bill that is stuck in the Senate.
Read together, this week's filings show regulators writing crypto rules on their own paper, not waiting for a bill that is stuck in the Senate.
FASB Opens a Path for Stablecoins to Count as Cash
The Financial Accounting Standards Board has proposed guidance that would let qualifying stablecoins sit on corporate balance sheets as cash equivalents under US accounting rules, carried by three independent publishers including Cointelegraph, CryptoBriefing and crypto.news. That is an accounting standard-setter's own proposal, not a law and not a final rule — it decides how firms would be permitted to classify stablecoin holdings, not whether they may hold them, and it has not yet been adopted. What it establishes is narrow: a draft framework, open to whatever comment and revision process FASB proposals go through, that could change disclosure treatment. It does not resolve the separate question of what counts as a "qualifying" stablecoin, which is left to definition elsewhere.
Two Agencies Say They Will Write Rules Congress Has Not
Separately, the SEC has proposed new rules governing crypto asset investment contracts, described by CoinGape as a 'Reg Crypto' framework, a filing reported by five independent publishers with nine feeds carrying it — the best-attested primary document in this batch. That proposal exists alongside a second report, carried by CryptoBriefing and Cryptopolitan, that the CLARITY Act remains stalled in the Senate and the SEC and CFTC are proceeding to draft their own crypto policy. Read together, these are not competing accounts of the same event so much as two documents that corroborate each other's premise: the SEC's actual proposal is the evidence that the agencies are acting without waiting on Congress, and the second report is confirmation, from two more publishers, that this is a considered posture rather than a one-off filing. Neither document sets a date by which any rule takes effect.
Filed Petitions From Kalshi and a Hyperliquid Group Are Not Yet Rules
Kalshi has filed with the CFTC for perpetual futures contracts linked to a US stock index and to copper, an application carried by The Block and crypto.news that extends the platform beyond the event-contract format it built its business on. The Hyperliquid Policy Center and trading platform trade[XYZ] have separately submitted a petition asking the SEC to establish rules for pre-IPO perpetual contracts, reportedly proposing five rule pillars, in a filing carried across Crypto Economy, CryptoBriefing and crypto.news. Both are requests addressed to regulators, not decisions by them: a CFTC filing and an SEC petition record what industry wants written into rule, not what either commission has agreed to write. Nothing in either document commits the CFTC or the SEC to act on the timeline, or in the form, the filers propose.
The best-documented action on the record is FASB's own proposal and the SEC's own "Reg Crypto" filing, actual regulatory text rather than commentary about it. Everything else here, from the Kalshi filing to the Hyperliquid petition, is a request on file, not a rule in force.
Stories in this edition
Publisher counts are as at publication and keep moving; each story page carries the live number.
FASB Proposes Rules to Let Stablecoins Count as Cash Equivalents 3 independent publishers — FASB's own proposed guidance, the primary accounting-standard document in this edition
Crypto Investment Contracts Face New Rules Under SEC Proposal 5 independent publishers — the SEC's own proposal, the best-attested primary filing of the set
Trump-Era SEC and CFTC to Draft Crypto Rules as CLARITY Act Stalls in Senate 2 independent publishers — corroborates the SEC proposal's premise that agencies are acting independently of Congress
Perpetual Futures on Stock Index and Copper Filed With CFTC by Kalshi 2 independent publishers — a primary CFTC filing showing Kalshi's expansion request, not yet a ruling
Hyperliquid Policy Center, trade[XYZ] Ask SEC for Rules on Pre-IPO Perpetual Contracts 2 independent publishers — a primary SEC petition on file, distinct from any adopted rule
The best-documented action on the record is FASB's own proposal and the SEC's own "Reg Crypto" filing, actual regulatory text rather than commentary about it. Everything else here, from the Kalshi filing to the Hyperliquid petition, is a request on file, not a rule in force.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post FASB and the SEC Put Actual Rule Text on File While Congress Stays in Recess appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

GBTC charges an annual expense ratio of 1.50%. IBIT charges 0.25% on an ongoing basis, per CoinFeeds, BTC ETF Calc, Mezzi and Spark Money. Swan Bitcoin cites the same 0.25% figure, but its own article frames it as a promotional rate — “0.25% for the first 6 months or $5 billion” in assets, whichever came first — not a confirmed standing fee, so it isn’t counted among the four outlets confirming the ongoing rate. The fee gap is the number most comparisons stop at. It shouldn’t be the only one. The two funds hold the same asset, bitcoin, but they were built differently, they are taxed differently for existing holders, and the sources disagree on how their share creation actually works today.
Two different starting points
Shares of the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust date back to 2013, when the trust traded privately with accredited investors before moving to over-the-counter markets, according to CoinFeeds. Grayscale applied to convert it into a spot ETF in 2017 and the SEC denied the application; the trust had reached $1 billion in assets under management that same year, per CoinFeeds. Grayscale eventually sued the SEC, and a US court ordered the regulator to allow the conversion. GBTC became a spot bitcoin ETF on January 11, 2024, according to BTC ETF Calc, Mezzi and Spark Money — it converted an existing trust rather than launching a new fund.
IBIT took the other path. BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust launched as an ETF from day one on January 11, 2024, per BTC ETF Calc and Spark Money. It never traded over the counter and never carried the pricing quirks of a closed-end trust.
Swan Bitcoin’s own comparison, dated June 30, 2024 — nearly six months after GBTC’s ETF conversion — still describes GBTC as “a trust, not an ETF” that “trades over the counter (OTC)” and can trade “at significant premiums or discounts” to the bitcoin it holds. That characterization looks out of date at the time Swan published it: GBTC had already converted to an ETF structure by January 11, 2024, per BTC ETF Calc, Mezzi and Spark Money. This page flags the inconsistency rather than resolving it. It isn’t clear from the evidence whether Swan was describing GBTC’s pre-conversion behavior loosely, or simply hadn’t updated its structural description after the conversion took effect.
Mezzi, in an update dated July 2, 2026, gives a cleaner account of the same mechanism: before conversion, it says, GBTC traded at premiums or discounts to net asset value because it lacked a redemption program, and after the ETF conversion, the addition of a creation and redemption process brought the market price closer to NAV.
What the fee actually costs
BTC ETF Calc’s article text runs the fee gap through a simple example: on a $50,000 investment, GBTC’s 1.50% fee works out to $750 a year, against $125 a year for IBIT’s 0.25%, per the site’s worked example. The site also hosts a separate interactive fee calculator on the same page, which shows different totals — $728 in fees for GBTC against $124 for IBIT, for a $603 saving — over what the site labels a five-year horizon, without stating the investment amount those totals assume. The two figures on the same page describe different scenarios and shouldn’t be read as the same number. Mezzi, in the same July 2, 2026 update, runs a similar exercise and estimates that on a $50,000 investment held over five years, IBIT could save an investor roughly $603 in fees compared with GBTC, while GBTC’s fee would amount to approximately 0.0410 BTC in bitcoin terms over the same stretch. Spark Money, as of March 2026, widens the lens: on a $100,000 position held five years, the gap between GBTC’s 1.50% fee and Franklin Templeton’s EZBC at 0.19% exceeds $6,500 in cumulative cost, assuming a flat bitcoin price. Spark Money also states that GBTC still generates roughly $223 million a year in fee revenue as of March 2026 — more, it says, than every other spot bitcoin ETF combined, despite the fund’s outflows.
The tax trap
If the fee gap were the whole story, GBTC would have emptied out by now. BTC ETF Calc explains why it hasn’t: many GBTC holders bought in years ago at far lower prices, and selling now to move into a cheaper fund means realizing a capital gain. The site’s worked example: an investor who bought GBTC at $10 a share and sees it trading at $60 owes tax on a $50 gain per share if they sell. Often, BTC ETF Calc argues, that one-time tax bill outweighs years of fee savings from switching. Mezzi makes the same point in its July 2, 2026 update: existing holders with large unrealized gains may face a bigger cost from selling than from staying and absorbing the higher fee.
Grayscale’s answer was to spin off a second, cheaper fund rather than cut GBTC’s own fee. The Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust, ticker BTC, charges 0.15% — the lowest permanent fee among the funds cited by BTC ETF Calc, Mezzi, Swan Bitcoin and Spark Money. Existing GBTC holders received Mini Trust shares proportionally, according to BTC ETF Calc, which lets them shift into a lower-cost vehicle without triggering a taxable sale. Spark Money dates the Mini Trust’s launch to July 31, 2024, and says it was seeded with roughly 10% of GBTC’s bitcoin holdings at the time.
Creation and redemption: the sources disagree
Here the record gets genuinely unresolved. Spark Money, in its March 2026 comparison, states plainly that none of the original 11 spot bitcoin ETFs allow in-kind creation and redemption — meaning authorized participants settle all transactions in cash, not in bitcoin itself, which the site says introduces a small amount of tracking error against the spot price. But Bitcoin.com News, reporting on August 11, 2026, describes BlackRock actively expanding an in-kind conversion mechanism for IBIT specifically. The outlet reports that BlackRock’s head of digital assets, Robbie Mitchnick, said on Bloomberg Television that the minimum size for converting bitcoin directly into IBIT shares had been cut to $1 million from a prior $25 million threshold. Of the previous threshold, Mitchnick said: “It used to be $25 million.” Bitcoin.com News reports that Mitchnick has said BlackRock wants to eventually make in-kind conversion available “at any transaction size.”
Bitcoin.com News’s own account complicates a clean reading of that contradiction. The outlet states that regulators cleared BlackRock and other issuers to offer in-kind conversion on spot bitcoin ETFs “earlier in 2026” — after Spark Money’s March 2026 snapshot. It’s possible the two sources are describing different points in time rather than flatly disagreeing: Spark Money may have been accurate for the period it covered, and the rule may have changed afterward. But neither source pins down the exact date the mechanism became available, so this page cannot confirm which reading is correct. It states both accounts, attributed, and leaves the gap standing rather than picking one.
The practical stakes of that mechanism, per Bitcoin.com News: in-kind conversion lets an institution that already holds bitcoin move into IBIT shares without first selling for cash, which can avoid triggering a taxable event, and a lower minimum widens the pool of authorized participants who can arbitrage the fund’s price against its holdings.
The numbers that won’t line up into one picture
Because these sources were published at different points between 2024 and 2026, none of their asset or holdings figures can be read as a single current snapshot. The table below shows what each source reported, and when.
Metric Figure Source and date GBTC AUM $16.93 billion; 270,770 BTC held Swan Bitcoin, July 26, 2024 GBTC AUM $6.97 billion CoinFeeds, undated GBTC AUM ~$11 billion; ~158,000 BTC Mezzi, February 20, 2026 GBTC AUM ~$14.9 billion Spark Money, March 2026 IBIT AUM 338,127 BTC held Swan Bitcoin, July 26, 2024 IBIT AUM $15.49 billion CoinFeeds, “as of March 27th” (year not stated in the article) IBIT AUM 756,177 BTC; $51.17 billion Mezzi, February 20, 2026 IBIT AUM ~$70.6 billion; $62.88 billion cumulative net inflows since launch Spark Money, March 2026 GBTC cumulative outflow since ETF conversion over $14 billion CoinFeeds, undated GBTC cumulative outflow since ETF conversion $27.47 billion Bitcoin.com News, August 11, 2026
CoinFeeds also notes two one-off events that pressured GBTC’s price in early 2024: a US court allowed Gemini to sell 31.2 million GBTC shares, valued by CoinFeeds at $1.6 billion, and bankrupt exchange FTX was separately cleared to sell its stake in the trust. Neither figure carries a precise date in the CoinFeeds article beyond “the first few weeks of January.”
What this page does not tell you
It cannot state either fund’s current assets under management, bitcoin holdings or cumulative outflow as one number. Every figure above was reported on a different date, by a different outlet, using its own methodology, spanning 2024 to 2026 — they are not a single trend line and should not be averaged or treated as current.
None of the six sources used here is a primary document. There is no fund prospectus, SEC filing, or issuer fee disclosure in the evidence behind this page — the structural claims about how creation and redemption work rest on secondary reporting and third-party comparison tools, not on GBTC’s or IBIT’s own registration statements.
The apparent contradiction between Spark Money’s claim that no spot bitcoin ETF allows in-kind creation and redemption, and Bitcoin.com News’s account of BlackRock expanding in-kind conversion for IBIT, may partly reflect a timing gap rather than a factual disagreement — but neither source dates the change precisely enough for this page to say so with confidence.
CoinFeeds’s figures for GBTC’s price, its $14 billion-plus outflow total and its AUM are given without a specific calendar date beyond “as of this writing” — useful as a data point from whenever that article was written, not as a current figure.
Nothing here is a recommendation to hold, sell or switch between these funds. The tax consequences of selling GBTC depend on an individual investor’s cost basis and circumstances, which none of these sources can assess for a specific reader.
Sources
Every fact above is attributed to one of these reports. Where they disagree, the article says so.
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
The post GBTC vs IBIT: what the fee gap hides about how each fund is built appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The crypto market structure bill is stuck in what the executive calls 'August recess purgatory,' with midterm elections looming.
The Solana Policy Institute's chief executive has offered a blunt assessment of the Clarity Act's prospects. He said the bill is sitting in what he called August recess purgatory. He put its odds of passing before the midterm elections at roughly 10%.
The Clarity Act is a proposed piece of federal legislation aimed at establishing clearer rules for digital asset markets. Supporters say it would define which regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, oversees specific types of tokens and trading activity. That question has lingered for years, fueling enforcement disputes and industry complaints about regulatory uncertainty.
Congress traditionally leaves Washington for an August recess, pausing most legislative business. Lawmakers return in September with a compressed calendar before midterm campaigning intensifies. That timing squeeze is central to the CEO's pessimism. Bills that lack momentum heading into recess often struggle to regain it once members return, especially with elections approaching.
The Solana Policy Institute has been an active voice in Washington on crypto policy matters. Its focus includes market structure legislation that would affect how tokens like SOL and the broader Solana ecosystem are regulated. The organization's assessments carry weight because they reflect direct engagement with lawmakers and staff working on the bill.
A 10% chance of passage before midterms suggests the CEO views near-term movement as unlikely, without ruling it out entirely. The characterization leaves room for the bill to advance later, potentially after the midterms reshape congressional priorities and committee leadership. Industry watchers have grown accustomed to market structure legislation moving in fits and starts over multiple congressional sessions.
The Clarity Act follows years of debate over how to regulate digital assets without existing securities or commodities frameworks fitting cleanly. Previous attempts at comprehensive crypto market structure bills have stalled amid disagreements between the two chief financial regulators, industry lobbying, and partisan divides. Each new legislative cycle brings fresh optimism from advocacy groups, followed often by delays tied to unrelated political priorities.
The CEO's comments arrive as crypto firms continue pressing Congress for regulatory clarity. Many argue that without statutory definitions, companies face compliance risk regardless of good-faith efforts to follow existing law. That uncertainty has been cited repeatedly as a factor pushing some crypto business activity offshore or into legal gray areas.
Market Impact
Delays to the Clarity Act extend the regulatory uncertainty that crypto firms have cited as a barrier to expanding operations onshore. Without statutory clarity on SEC versus CFTC jurisdiction, exchanges, token issuers, and custody providers continue operating under interpretive risk rather than fixed rules.
A stalled legislative timeline does not directly move token prices, but it does shape longer-term planning for firms weighing where to list products or seek licenses. Continued gridlock may reinforce reliance on state-level frameworks or foreign jurisdictions offering more defined rules in the interim.
The Clarity Act's fate now hinges on whether Congress can regain momentum after recess and before election-season distractions dominate the calendar. For now, the Solana Policy Institute's assessment suggests industry advocates should temper expectations for swift passage.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Clarity Act?
It is proposed federal legislation intended to establish clearer market structure rules for digital assets, including how oversight is divided between the SEC and CFTC.
Why did the Solana Policy Institute CEO call it 'August recess purgatory'?
Congress typically pauses legislative work during its August recess, and the CEO used the phrase to describe the bill stalling during that period with no clear path forward.
What are the odds cited for passage before the midterm elections?
The Solana Policy Institute CEO put the chance of the Clarity Act passing before the midterms at about 10%.
Could the bill still pass after the midterms?
The stated odds apply specifically to the pre-midterm window. The CEO's comments do not rule out later action once Congress reconvenes and priorities shift.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Sophia Bennett. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Solana Policy Institute CEO Puts Clarity Act’s Pre-Midterm Odds at Just 10% appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The prediction market platform is asking regulators to greenlight perpetual contracts tied to the US500 index and copper prices.
Kalshi has submitted a filing to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission seeking approval to list perpetual futures contracts. The proposed products would track the US500, a benchmark tied to the broader US stock market, and copper, a widely traded industrial commodity.
Perpetual futures are derivative contracts without a fixed expiration date. They have become a dominant trading instrument in crypto markets, where exchanges use funding-rate mechanisms to keep contract prices aligned with underlying spot prices. Their absence in traditional regulated US markets has made them something of a novelty outside crypto trading venues.
Kalshi built its business around event contracts, allowing users to trade on the outcomes of elections, economic data releases, and other real-world events. The platform operates under CFTC oversight, distinguishing it from many crypto-native derivatives exchanges that trade offshore or in less regulated environments.
Extending into perpetual futures tied to equities and commodities would mark a departure from Kalshi's original product line. It would place the company in more direct competition with established futures exchanges and brokers that already offer regulated derivatives on stock indices and metals.
The filing does not guarantee approval. The CFTC reviews new contract proposals for compliance with existing derivatives rules, including provisions around market manipulation, position limits, and settlement mechanics. Approval timelines for novel contract structures can vary, particularly when a product type, such as a perpetual future on a traditional stock index, has limited precedent in US regulated markets.
Interest in bringing perpetual-style products into regulated US venues has grown as crypto trading platforms popularized the format globally. Some industry participants have argued that a compliant, CFTC-supervised perpetual futures market could pull volume away from offshore crypto derivatives exchanges. Others have raised questions about how funding-rate mechanics, standard in crypto perpetuals, would translate to traditional asset classes under US market structure rules.
Kalshi's push follows a broader pattern of prediction market and derivatives platforms testing the boundaries of CFTC-regulated products. The agency has fielded a range of contract proposals in recent periods as trading platforms seek new instruments that can be offered legally to US retail and institutional users.
Details on contract specifications, including margin requirements, funding intervals, and settlement procedures for the proposed US500 and copper perpetuals, were not disclosed in the filing reports. Further specifics are expected to emerge as the CFTC review process proceeds.
Market Impact
If approved, the contracts would give US-based traders regulated access to a perpetual futures format previously associated mainly with crypto exchanges. That could reshape how retail and institutional users gain leveraged exposure to a stock index and a key industrial metal, without relying on offshore platforms.
The filing also underscores how crypto-derived trading mechanics are migrating into mainstream derivatives markets. Established futures exchanges and brokers may face new competitive pressure if Kalshi's perpetual products gain regulatory clearance and attract meaningful trading volume.
The CFTC filing marks an early step in a review process whose outcome and timeline remain uncertain. Whether perpetual futures on stock indices and copper reach US markets will depend on how regulators weigh the format against existing derivatives rules.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Kalshi seeking approval for?
Kalshi has filed with the CFTC to launch perpetual futures contracts tied to the US500 stock index and to copper prices.
What are perpetual futures?
Perpetual futures are derivative contracts with no fixed expiration date, commonly used in crypto trading and kept aligned to spot prices through funding-rate mechanisms.
Is Kalshi's filing guaranteed to be approved?
No. The CFTC must review the proposal for compliance with existing derivatives regulations before any approval, and the review timeline is not fixed.
How does this differ from Kalshi's existing products?
Kalshi has primarily offered event contracts tied to outcomes like elections and economic data, rather than perpetual derivatives on stock indices or commodities.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Perpetual Futures on Stock Index and Copper Filed With CFTC by Kalshi appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

Crypto derivative markets flagged a valuation four times Unitree's $9B IPO price, but the actual stock opening outran even that forecast.
Unitree, a robotics company known for humanoid machines, priced its initial public offering at roughly $9 billion. Ahead of the debut, crypto futures markets tracking the company's shares implied a valuation closer to $40 billion, according to The Cryptonomist. That figure represented about four times the IPO price, reflecting strong speculative demand on crypto trading platforms before shares even reached public exchanges.
When Unitree stock actually began trading, the opening price came in 629% above the IPO figure, BeInCrypto reported. That surge exceeded the valuation crypto futures traders had already priced in. The gap suggests the derivative markets, despite their bullish stance, still underestimated real-world buying pressure once shares became publicly available.
Crypto futures tied to pre-IPO or newly listed equities have become a growing niche within digital asset markets. These instruments let traders speculate on a company's expected valuation before or immediately after a public listing, often settled in cryptocurrency rather than traditional cash. They function as a form of early price discovery, letting market participants stake positions on how a stock might perform once it starts trading on conventional exchanges.
Unitree's case illustrates both the promise and the limits of that model. The crypto futures market correctly identified strong upside potential, pointing to a valuation multiple far above the IPO price. Yet the actual trading debut moved even further, indicating that demand from broader investors outpaced what derivative traders had modeled. This kind of gap raises questions about how reliably crypto-based futures can forecast real market outcomes for high-profile listings.
Interest in humanoid robotics has been climbing among both retail and institutional investors, partly fueling anticipation around Unitree's listing. Companies operating in artificial intelligence and robotics have drawn outsized attention in recent public offerings, often accompanied by volatile early trading. Unitree's debut adds to that pattern, with crypto markets serving as an early, if imperfect, gauge of investor appetite.
The episode also highlights how crypto trading infrastructure is increasingly intersecting with traditional equity markets. Platforms offering synthetic exposure to pre-IPO companies allow traders outside conventional brokerage systems to participate in speculation around major listings. As more companies attract this kind of crypto-based futures activity, market watchers may look to these instruments as early signals, while remaining cautious about their predictive accuracy.
Market Impact
The scale of the mispricing, with crypto futures undershooting the eventual stock debut, could encourage more exchanges to list similar pre-IPO derivative products tied to high-demand listings. Traders may view this episode as evidence that crypto futures markets, while informative, can still lag behind actual public market enthusiasm, particularly for companies in hot sectors like robotics and artificial intelligence.
The divergence may also draw attention from regulators and exchange operators monitoring leveraged speculation around newly public companies. If crypto-based futures markets consistently underprice major debuts, it could prompt tighter risk controls or renewed scrutiny of how these synthetic instruments are marketed to traders.
Unitree's debut shows how crypto futures markets are becoming an early, though not always accurate, barometer for investor demand around major public listings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Unitree?
Unitree is a robotics company known for developing humanoid robots, which recently completed a public listing with an IPO price valuing it at about $9 billion.
What are crypto futures on a stock like Unitree?
These are derivative contracts on crypto platforms that let traders speculate on a company's expected valuation before or around its public listing, often settled in cryptocurrency.
Why did crypto traders underprice Unitree's debut?
Crypto futures pointed to a valuation about four times the IPO price, but the actual stock opened even higher, according to BeInCrypto, suggesting real demand exceeded those earlier forecasts.
Does this mean crypto futures are unreliable predictors of IPO performance?
The gap shows these markets can flag strong demand but may still underestimate final pricing, especially for highly anticipated listings in fast-growing sectors like robotics.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Unitree Stock Debut Beats Crypto Futures Bets That Pointed to $40B Valuation appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The joint petition seeks a formal regulatory framework covering derivatives tied to private company valuations before they go public.
The Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] have petitioned the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to create a formal framework for pre-IPO perpetual contracts. The two organizations submitted the request jointly, according to reporting from CryptoBriefing and Crypto Economy. The filing asks the SEC to consider how these derivative products should be regulated before any broader adoption in U.S. markets.
Pre-IPO perpetual contracts let traders speculate on the implied valuation of a private company before it lists shares publicly. Unlike traditional equities, these contracts have no expiration date and settle continuously based on a reference price. Platforms offering them have grown in popularity as investors seek exposure to high-profile private firms that have not yet held a public offering.
According to crypto.news, the petition organizes its request around five proposed rule pillars. The exact content of each pillar was not detailed in available reporting. The structure nonetheless signals an attempt to give the SEC a concrete starting point rather than an open-ended request for guidance.
The move fits into a broader pattern of crypto firms seeking clarity from regulators rather than waiting for enforcement actions. Market structure legislation and stablecoin oversight have both advanced in Washington over the past year. Derivatives tied to private companies represent a newer and less-defined corner of that regulatory landscape.
Regulators have historically treated derivatives on private company shares with caution, given limited public disclosure from firms that have not gone through an IPO process. Pre-IPO perpetuals raise questions about price discovery, custody of collateral, and how reference prices are determined without an active public market. The petition appears designed to address some of those concerns directly, rather than leave them to case-by-case scrutiny.
Hyperliquid, the decentralized exchange associated with the Hyperliquid Policy Center, has built a reputation around perpetual futures trading. trade[XYZ] operates in a related segment of the market. Their joint filing suggests an industry effort to shape rules before regulators impose them unilaterally, a strategy other crypto sectors have used with mixed results in recent years.
Market Impact
If the SEC engages with the petition, it could set a precedent for how pre-IPO derivatives are treated under U.S. securities law. That would matter for platforms currently offering similar products, as well as for traditional finance firms watching the pre-IPO trading niche expand. A formal framework could also affect how much collateral, custody, and disclosure obligations apply to exchanges listing these contracts.
For now, the petition is a request rather than a rule. The SEC has not indicated a timeline for review, and any resulting framework would likely take time to develop through public comment and further agency action. Traders and platforms operating in this space should expect continued regulatory uncertainty in the near term.
The petition marks an early step toward defining how pre-IPO perpetual contracts might be regulated in the United States. Whether the SEC formally responds, and what any resulting framework would require, remains to be seen.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are pre-IPO perpetual contracts?
They are derivative products that let traders speculate on the implied valuation of a private company before it holds a public offering. Unlike standard futures, they have no set expiration date.
Who filed the petition with the SEC?
The Hyperliquid Policy Center and trade[XYZ] jointly submitted the request, according to reporting from CryptoBriefing and Crypto Economy.
What does the petition ask the SEC to do?
It asks the agency to consider establishing a regulatory framework for pre-IPO perpetual contracts, reportedly organized around five proposed rule pillars, according to crypto.news.
Has the SEC responded to the request?
No response or timeline from the SEC has been reported as of this writing.
Why does this matter for the crypto derivatives market?
A formal framework could clarify custody, disclosure, and trading requirements for products tied to private companies, an area regulators have not clearly addressed to date.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Amelia Brooks. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Hyperliquid Policy Center, trade[XYZ] Ask SEC for Rules on Pre-IPO Perpetual Contracts appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The clearest difference between GBTC and IBIT is the fee: Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust charges 1.50% a year, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust charges 0.25%, a gap reported by CoinFeeds, BTC ETF Calc, Mezzi, Swan Bitcoin and Spark Money. The less obvious difference is structural — GBTC spent a decade as a closed-end trust with no way to redeem shares for the underlying Bitcoin, while IBIT was built as an ETF from the start, and the evidence on how each fund’s redemption mechanism works today does not agree.
The fee gap, in dollars
BTC ETF Calc’s fee calculator puts a number on the gap: on a $50,000 position, GBTC’s 1.50% fee costs $750 a year against $125 for IBIT, according to BTC ETF Calc, which is undated. Run out five years and the same calculator shows IBIT saving an investor $603 in fees relative to GBTC — a figure Mezzi also arrives at independently, citing the same $50,000 example and the same five-year, $603 savings estimate, with its underlying data dated February 20, 2026 and the article published July 2, 2026. Two separate write-ups landing on the same number is the closest thing to confirmation in this evidence set.
According to BTC ETF Calc’s own FAQ, undated, GBTC’s fee was originally 2% when it operated as a closed-end trust; Grayscale lowered it to 1.50% at the ETF conversion but kept it well above rivals. Spark Money, describing its comparison table as reflecting data current to March 2026, adds a further data point: it estimates GBTC still generates roughly $223 million a year in fee revenue, more than every other spot Bitcoin ETF combined, despite the fund’s outflows.
Why GBTC’s history matters here
GBTC began trading privately with accredited investors in 2013 and later moved to over-the-counter public trading, according to CoinFeeds, which is undated. In 2017 Grayscale applied for ETF status, was denied by the SEC, and the trust crossed $1 billion in assets under management that same year, per CoinFeeds. Grayscale sued, and CoinFeeds reports that the DC Circuit Court ruled in Grayscale’s favor and asked the SEC to uplift GBTC to a spot Bitcoin ETF. The SEC approved 11 spot Bitcoin ETFs on January 10, 2024, per CoinFeeds; trading began the next day, January 11, according to Spark Money and BTC ETF Calc’s launch-date table. GBTC converted from trust to ETF on that date rather than launching fresh, according to Mezzi and BTC ETF Calc.
Before that conversion, Grayscale could not offer share redemption “during the early periods,” unlike BlackRock’s iShares structure, according to CoinFeeds. The lack of a redemption mechanism is why GBTC’s share price could drift away from the value of the Bitcoin it actually held — trading at a premium or a discount to net asset value, a pattern described by Swan Bitcoin in an article dated June 30, 2024. Since conversion, Mezzi reports that as of February 20, 2026 the gap between GBTC’s price and its net asset value had narrowed to around 0.02%, which it attributes to the creation-and-redemption mechanism that ETF status introduced.
What creation and redemption actually do
According to Bitcoin.com News, an authorized participant is generally a bank or trading firm with the licence to deal directly with a fund’s issuer, creating new shares or redeeming existing ones. It can create new ETF shares by delivering assets to the fund, or redeem shares by handing them back in exchange for assets. When that exchange happens in Bitcoin itself rather than in dollars, it is called in-kind creation or redemption. Bitcoin.com News explains that this lets an authorized participant hand over actual Bitcoin and receive IBIT shares directly, instead of settling in cash. The more participants who can do this, the faster any gap between the ETF’s share price and Bitcoin’s spot price tends to close, because arbitrage corrects the mispricing — a mechanism Bitcoin.com News lays out in its report.
The contradiction this page cannot resolve
Here the two sources disagree outright. Spark Money’s comparison table, describing data as of March 2026, states plainly that none of the spot Bitcoin ETFs — its count runs to 12 funds including IBIT and GBTC — allow in-kind creation and redemption, and that every authorized-participant transaction settles in cash. Bitcoin.com News, in a report dated August 11, 2026, says the opposite for IBIT specifically: BlackRock’s head of digital assets, Robbie Mitchnick, confirmed on Bloomberg Television that the fund’s in-kind conversion minimum had just been cut from $25 million to $1 million. Mitchnick is quoted saying, “It used to be $25 million,” and BlackRock has said it wants to eventually make the mechanism available “at any transaction size,” per the same report.
One possible reconciliation, offered here as analysis rather than as a confirmed fact: Bitcoin.com News reports that regulators cleared BlackRock and other issuers to offer in-kind conversion only earlier in 2026, which would postdate Spark Money’s March 2026 snapshot. Neither outlet references the other’s claim, so that timeline cannot be verified from this evidence. What can be said is that a reader trying to determine, today, whether IBIT settles creations and redemptions in cash or in Bitcoin will find two credible-looking sources saying different things, and neither is a regulatory filing or the fund’s own prospectus.
The distinction is not academic. Bitcoin.com News notes that in-kind conversion lets an institution that already holds Bitcoin move into IBIT shares without first selling that Bitcoin for cash — avoiding a taxable sale that a cash-settled transaction would likely trigger. If Spark Money is right that no cash-free path exists, that tax advantage would not be available to anyone through the ETF mechanism itself.
The tax trap, and Grayscale’s workaround
For long-time GBTC holders, the fee gap and the redemption question both run into a third problem: tax. BTC ETF Calc lays out an illustrative example, described as hypothetical: an investor who bought GBTC at $10 a share and now sees it trading at $60 would owe capital-gains tax on a $50-per-share gain if they sold to move into a cheaper fund. Both BTC ETF Calc and Mezzi describe this as the reason GBTC has kept assets despite its fee — not because holders prefer it, but because leaving is expensive.
Grayscale’s response was the Bitcoin Mini Trust, ticker BTC, which charges 0.15% and was distributed to existing GBTC holders without forcing a sale, according to BTC ETF Calc, Mezzi and Spark Money. Spark Money dates the Mini Trust’s launch to July 31, 2024, seeded with roughly 10% of GBTC’s Bitcoin holdings.
AUM and outflows: the numbers don’t agree
Every figure below is self-reported by the outlet that published it, drawn from different dates, and none derives from an SEC filing or the funds’ own reserve pages held in this evidence set.
Outlet As-of date GBTC AUM IBIT AUM / holdings CoinFeeds undated (“as of this writing”) $6.97 billion $15.49 billion (dated only “March 27th”; year not stated) Swan Bitcoin July 26, 2024 $16.93 billion 338,127 BTC held (no dollar figure given) Mezzi February 20, 2026 $11 billion (about 158,000 BTC) $51.17 billion (about 756,177 BTC) Spark Money March 2026 $14.9 billion $70.6 billion (about 77% of total spot Bitcoin ETF assets)
On outflows, CoinFeeds reports GBTC’s cumulative outflows since conversion had surpassed $14 billion, undated, citing data from Farside; Bitcoin.com News, dated August 11, 2026, puts the cumulative figure at roughly $27.47 billion. These are not the same measurement and should not be averaged or treated as updates of one another — they are separate outlets counting at separate points nearly two years apart. On the inflow side, Bitcoin.com News reports IBIT captured $479 million over a three-day stretch in early August 2026, about 76% of total spot Bitcoin ETF inflows in that window, as spot Bitcoin ETFs together logged more than $750 million for the week while Bitcoin’s price wobbled below $65,000. Spark Money separately credits IBIT with $62.88 billion in cumulative net inflows since its January 2024 launch, as of March 2026, and says the category as a whole pulled in more than $56 billion in its first year of trading.
What this page does not tell you
No SEC filing, fund prospectus, or issuer reserves page was reviewed to write this page. Every fee, AUM and outflow figure above traces to a secondary write-up — some financial newsrooms, some comparison tools — and none of them share a common as-of date, so none of the AUM figures can be reconciled into a single current number.
This page cannot tell you, as of today, whether IBIT settles creations and redemptions in cash only or offers in-kind conversion, because Spark Money and Bitcoin.com News say opposite things and neither is a primary document. Anyone who needs a definitive answer on that point should check BlackRock’s own prospectus or authorized-participant agreement rather than either source used here.
It also cannot tell you what GBTC’s or IBIT’s AUM, holdings or fee terms are right now. The most recent figures cited — Bitcoin.com News’s August 11, 2026 report and Spark Money’s March 2026 table — are themselves already dated by the time this page is read, and fee waivers, minimums and redemption terms have changed before, per the sources cited above.
Finally, none of this is tax advice. The worked example of a $50-per-share taxable gain is BTC ETF Calc’s own hypothetical, not a case history, and BTC ETF Calc itself notes that IRS guidance on some aspects of Bitcoin ETF taxation, including wash-sale treatment, remains unsettled.
Sources
Every fact above is attributed to one of these reports. Where they disagree, the article says so.
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
The post GBTC vs IBIT: the fee gap, the redemption history, and what’s still unresolved appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

The US accounting standard-setter has outlined conditions under which certain stablecoins could be classified as cash equivalents on corporate balance sheets.
The Financial Accounting Standards Board, the body that sets US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, has proposed new guidance addressing how stablecoins should be classified on corporate financial statements. Under the proposal, certain stablecoins could qualify as cash equivalents, a designation currently reserved for highly liquid, low-risk assets like Treasury bills and money market funds.
Cash equivalents occupy a specific place in accounting rules. Companies report them separately from other investments because they are viewed as readily convertible to known amounts of cash with minimal risk of value change. Stablecoins, despite being marketed as dollar-pegged digital tokens, have not previously fit cleanly into this category under US accounting standards.
FASB's proposal reportedly sets out specific conditions that stablecoins would need to meet to earn the classification. These conditions are expected to touch on factors such as backing composition, redemption mechanics, and the stability of the peg to the US dollar. Not every stablecoin in circulation would automatically qualify.
The timing of the proposal follows a period of increased regulatory attention on stablecoins in the United States. Lawmakers and regulators have spent the past two years working to clarify how these tokens should be issued, backed, and supervised. Accounting treatment is a separate but related question, since it determines how corporate holders report stablecoin exposure to investors and auditors.
For companies that hold stablecoins as part of treasury management or payment operations, the classification question carries real consequences. Cash equivalent status generally allows for simpler balance sheet presentation and can affect financial ratios used by lenders and investors. Without that status, stablecoins might be classified as other investments, potentially subject to different disclosure and valuation requirements.
The proposal is expected to go through FASB's standard process, which includes a public comment period before any final rule is adopted. Accounting professionals, corporate finance teams, and stablecoin issuers are likely to weigh in during that process. The outcome could take months to finalize, and the conditions attached to qualification may change based on feedback received.
Market Impact
If finalized, the guidance could make stablecoins more attractive for corporate treasuries seeking a digital alternative to traditional cash management tools. Clearer accounting treatment tends to reduce compliance uncertainty, which has been cited as a barrier to broader institutional use of stablecoins. Companies that already hold significant stablecoin balances, including some payment processors and crypto-native firms, would likely benefit most from simplified reporting.
The proposal also arrives as stablecoin issuers face growing scrutiny over reserve composition and redemption practices. Accounting rules that specify qualifying conditions could indirectly pressure issuers to maintain more conservative backing, since only stablecoins meeting those standards would offer this reporting benefit to corporate holders.
The proposal marks an early but significant step toward integrating stablecoins into mainstream corporate accounting practices. Its final form, and the specific conditions attached, will determine how much of the stablecoin market can actually benefit from cash equivalent treatment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is FASB and why does its guidance matter?
FASB is the independent body responsible for setting US accounting standards known as GAAP. Its guidance determines how companies must classify and report assets, including digital ones like stablecoins, on financial statements.
What does it mean for a stablecoin to qualify as a cash equivalent?
Cash equivalent status is given to assets viewed as highly liquid and low-risk, similar to Treasury bills. It typically allows companies to report holdings more simply on their balance sheets.
Will all stablecoins automatically qualify under the new guidance?
No. The proposal reportedly sets specific conditions related to backing and redemption that a stablecoin must meet, meaning only some tokens are likely to qualify.
When could this guidance take effect?
The proposal must go through FASB's standard review process, including a public comment period, before any final rule is adopted. A firm timeline has not been specified.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Olivia Hayes. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post FASB Proposes Rules to Let Stablecoins Count as Cash Equivalents appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

A semiconductor-led selloff weighed on major Asian indices, with Samsung and SK Hynix among the hardest hit names.
Asian equities dropped in trading as a semiconductor-focused selloff spread across the region. Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, two of South Korea's largest chipmakers, were among the companies most affected, according to CryptoBriefing.
The decline reflects renewed pressure on technology-heavy indices, which have often moved in tandem with global sentiment toward chip demand and memory pricing. Semiconductor stocks tend to act as a bellwether for broader risk appetite, given their central role in electronics, data centers, and increasingly in artificial intelligence infrastructure.
Samsung and SK Hynix are both major producers of memory chips, a segment sensitive to shifts in global demand cycles. When these firms see selling pressure, it often signals wider caution among investors about technology valuations or supply-chain conditions. The extent of the losses and specific percentage moves were not detailed in the available reporting.
Regional equity weakness of this kind can ripple beyond traditional markets. Investors watching macro conditions often use moves in major Asian indices as a gauge of global risk sentiment. A selloff concentrated in a strategically important sector like semiconductors can be read as a signal of broader unease, even when the immediate cause is sector-specific.
For readers focused on digital assets, equity market swings matter because crypto markets have historically shown periods of correlation with risk assets, including technology stocks. When traditional markets turn cautious, that mood can sometimes extend into how traders approach bitcoin, ether, and other digital assets, though the relationship is not constant and varies by market cycle.
The report did not specify whether the selloff was tied to a particular catalyst, such as earnings guidance, supply data, or macroeconomic news. Nor did it detail the scale of losses at the index level or provide specific price levels for Samsung or SK Hynix shares. As with many single-day market moves, the underlying drivers may become clearer as trading continues and additional market commentary emerges.
Semiconductor companies operate within a globally interconnected supply chain, meaning shifts in one region can quickly influence sentiment elsewhere. South Korea's chip sector, in particular, is closely watched given its outsized role in global memory chip production. Movements in Samsung and SK Hynix shares are frequently used by analysts as an early indicator of broader technology-sector health.
Market participants across asset classes, including those in crypto, often monitor such developments for signs of a broader shift in risk appetite. Whether this particular selloff proves to be an isolated sector event or part of a wider pullback remains to be seen based on the information currently available.
Market Impact
A semiconductor-led decline in Asian equities can influence broader investor sentiment, particularly given the sector's weight in regional indices and its symbolic role as a proxy for global technology demand. Traders who track cross-asset correlations sometimes view weakness in chip stocks as an early signal of caution spreading to other risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.
Without further detail on the scale or cause of the selloff, it is not possible to say how lasting or contained the impact will be. Markets, including crypto, will likely watch subsequent sessions in Samsung and SK Hynix shares, along with broader Asian indices, for signs of whether the pressure eases or continues to spread.
The semiconductor selloff underscores how sector-specific pressure can quickly weigh on broader Asian markets. Further clarity on the cause and duration of the decline may emerge as trading continues and more data becomes available.
Frequently Asked Questions
What caused the drop in Asian equities?
The decline was linked to a semiconductor sector selloff that particularly affected Samsung and SK Hynix, according to CryptoBriefing. The specific catalyst behind the selloff was not detailed in available reporting.
Why do Samsung and SK Hynix matter to global markets?
Both companies are major producers of memory chips used across electronics and data infrastructure. Their stock performance is often watched as an indicator of broader technology sector health.
Does this selloff affect cryptocurrency markets?
Equity and crypto markets have at times shown correlated risk sentiment, but the relationship is not constant. No specific crypto market impact was reported in connection with this equity selloff.
How large was the decline in the affected stocks?
Specific figures on the size of the losses for Samsung, SK Hynix, or regional indices were not included in the available reporting.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Olivia Hayes. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Asian Stocks Slide as Chip Selloff Drags Down Samsung, SK Hynix appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

A token approval is an on-chain permission, granted by calling a smart contract’s approve() function, that lets another contract move a set amount of a specific token out of your wallet whenever it wants, without asking again. Revoking one sets that allowance back to zero – it stops future use of that permission, but it does not undo a transfer that has already happened.
What approve() actually grants
Most ERC-20 tokens, the standard used by the large majority of tokens on Ethereum and compatible chains, follow a pattern that gives a smart contract no default access to a wallet’s balance. Before a decentralized exchange, lending protocol or NFT marketplace can move a user’s tokens, the user must call approve() on the token’s own contract, naming a spender address and an amount, according to Blockscout, Coin98, Ledger Academy and MetaMask. Once that transaction confirms, the spender contract can call a second function, transferFrom(), to move up to the approved amount at any time – without a further signature from the wallet owner, per the same sources. MetaMask illustrates the everyday version of this: swapping USDC for ETH on a decentralized exchange requires one transaction to approve the exchange’s contract to spend the USDC, and a second to execute the swap itself.
Two details matter, per MetaMask’s account. The approval is specific to one token and one spender – approving a decentralized exchange to spend USDC gives it no access to ETH or any other token in the wallet. And the approval itself is a blockchain transaction that costs a network fee, separate from whatever action prompted it.
Limited versus unlimited approvals
The amount field in an approval determines the ceiling. A limited approval authorizes a specific quantity – MetaMask’s example is exactly the 500 USDC needed for one swap – and once that amount is used, a fresh approval transaction is required for the next one. An unlimited approval authorizes the maximum possible value a token contract can express, 2^256-1, a number MetaMask notes is far larger than the total supply of any real token. Practically, that means the spender can move the wallet’s entire balance of that token, at any point in the future, with no further approval needed.
Most dApps default to requesting unlimited approvals because it removes repeat transaction fees for the user, a tradeoff described by Blockscout, Coin98 and MetaMask alike. The cost of that convenience is that the permission never expires on its own. Blockscout puts it plainly: token approvals do not expire automatically. If the contract that holds an unlimited approval is later exploited, upgraded maliciously, or turns out to have been untrustworthy from the start, an attacker can drain the full approved balance without the victim signing anything at that moment.
How the exploit actually runs
MetaMask’s account of wallet-drainer operations breaks the sequence into three steps: a lure (a phishing site, fake airdrop link, or cloned app interface), a signature request dressed up as a routine connection or claim, and then the drain, in which the attacker calls transferFrom() from a separate wallet to pull the tokens the approval already authorized. MetaMask notes that sophisticated kits batch multiple approvals – ERC-20s, NFTs, Permit2 signatures – into a single multicall that can empty a wallet in seconds, then route funds through exchanges and bridges. Coin98 cites a concrete case: in January 2026, the SwapNet exploit on the Matcha Meta platform drained approximately $13.4 million from 20 users, according to The Block as cited by Coin98, specifically those who had disabled the platform’s default one-time approval and granted direct unlimited allowances instead. Attackers then exploited an input-validation flaw to call transferFrom() against those standing approvals. Coin98 separately cites Ledger Academy for a $3 million theft on the NFT Trader platform, attributed to attackers exploiting forgotten SetApprovalForAll grants; no date is given for that incident.
The scale cited by Coin98, drawing on DeepStrike’s figures, is that approval scams and compromised contracts drained more than $410 million from crypto users in the first half of 2025. Separately, MetaMask’s own February 2026 Crypto Security Report recorded a 207% rise in signature-phishing exploits, the term MetaMask uses for approval phishing conducted through signed messages rather than on-chain transactions.
Reading and revoking an approval
An approval shows up on-chain as an Approval event, with three fields visible on a block explorer: the owner wallet, the spender contract, and the value approved, per Blockscout’s walkthrough. Revoking means submitting a new transaction that sets that allowance back to zero for a given spender – Coin98 and MetaMask both describe this as an on-chain action that itself costs a network fee. Named tools for doing this across the sources held include Etherscan’s Token Approval Checker, per Coin98; block explorers such as Etherscan and Polygonscan more broadly, described by Cointelegraph as having approval sections with token approval tools, though Cointelegraph does not name a specific tool; the standalone site Revoke.cash, per Coin98; Coin98’s own Wallet Approval feature built into its Super Wallet; and Blockscout’s Revokescout, built directly into its explorers across chains including Ethereum, Base, Optimism and Arbitrum. Coin98 suggests auditing approvals after a major protocol incident, after ending use of a dApp, or on a monthly schedule; none of the sources describe this as a complete defense, only as one specific habit that closes one specific exposure.
Permit2: moving the risk off-chain
Uniswap Labs deployed a contract called Permit2 in November 2022, according to MetaMask, to reduce both the friction and the standing-approval risk of the legacy model. Instead of granting a separate on-chain approval to every app, a user approves the Permit2 contract once per token; individual app interactions after that are authorized by an off-chain signature specifying the token, amount, spender and a deadline. MetaMask reports that more than 3.1 million Ethereum mainnet addresses had authorized Permit2 by 2025, and that it is used by Uniswap, 1inch, CowSwap and other protocols. Ledger Academy describes Permit2 as extending the benefits of the ERC-2612 permit standard to all tokens, with what it calls automatic expiration built in. The tradeoff, per MetaMask, is a shift in attack surface rather than its removal: legacy approvals were exploited through dormant on-chain permissions discovered later; Permit2 signatures are instead exploited at the moment of signing, because they appear in a wallet as a message to sign rather than a transaction to confirm, and a phishing site can present a disguised Permit2 authorization as a routine request.
What this page does not tell you
This page cannot tell a reader how much value is currently exposed across all wallets. The loss figures cited here – DeepStrike’s $410 million for the first half of 2025, The Block’s $13.4 million SwapNet figure for January 2026, Coin98’s $3 million NFT Trader figure citing Ledger Academy with no date attached – are single-outlet or third-party estimates for specific periods or incidents, not an audited running total, and none of the newsrooms held in full offer a reconciled figure across all of them. Revoking an approval does not reverse a theft that has already occurred; it only prevents further use of that specific allowance going forward. Based on the mechanism as MetaMask and Ledger Academy describe it – a single on-chain approval to the Permit2 contract, followed by off-chain signatures per app – the read here is that revoking an unrelated legacy ERC-20 approval would not undo a Permit2 signature already given; ending that would require either the signature’s own deadline passing or revoking the underlying Permit2-level authorization. None of the sources held, however, spell out the exact revocation procedure for a live Permit2 signature, so this is an inference from the mechanism, not a reported fact. Neither action – legacy revocation or Permit2 revocation – addresses private-key theft or seed-phrase phishing, which are separate attack surfaces this page does not cover in depth. Whether MetaMask’s 3.1-million-address Permit2 figure has been verified independently on-chain, or reflects MetaMask’s own count, is not stated in the material reviewed for this page.
Sources
Every fact above is attributed to one of these reports. Where they disagree, the article says so.
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk (headline only)
TheCoinrise reference desk (headline only)
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
The post What a token approval grants, and how to revoke one appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

A steep selloff in chip shares and rising borrowing costs pressured Japan's benchmark index, according to a report from CryptoBriefing.
Japan's Nikkei 225 index dropped 2.5% in a session marked by heavy selling in chip-related shares, according to a report from CryptoBriefing. The report described bond yields simultaneously climbing to multi-decade highs, a combination that traders often read as a signal of tightening financial conditions.
Chip stocks have played an outsized role in driving Asian equity gains over the past several years. Semiconductor demand tied to artificial intelligence infrastructure has powered much of that rally. A sharp pullback in this sector can therefore weigh heavily on broad indexes like the Nikkei, given how concentrated recent gains have been in a handful of technology-linked names.
Rising bond yields add another layer of pressure. When yields climb to levels not seen in decades, borrowing costs for companies and consumers rise in tandem. Higher yields also make bonds more attractive relative to equities, which can pull capital away from riskier assets, including stocks and, at times, cryptocurrencies.
The interplay between equity selloffs and bond market moves is closely watched by macro traders. A simultaneous drop in stocks and rise in yields can reflect concerns about inflation, monetary policy tightening, or shifting expectations around central bank action. CryptoBriefing's report did not specify the precise cause behind the yield spike or the extent of losses across individual chip companies.
Japan's equity market has been a focal point for global investors this year, given the country's exposure to semiconductor supply chains and its central bank's evolving policy stance. Moves in Japanese government bond yields carry significance beyond domestic markets, since Japan remains one of the largest holders of foreign assets globally. Shifts in Japanese yields can influence capital flows into and out of other markets, including U.S. Treasuries.
For crypto market participants, macro events like this one matter because digital assets increasingly trade in correlation with broader risk sentiment. Sharp equity selloffs tied to rate concerns have, at various points over the past few years, coincided with volatility in Bitcoin and other major tokens. Whether this particular Nikkei decline produces a similar spillover into crypto markets remains to be seen, and no such correlation was confirmed in the available reporting.
Investors will likely watch subsequent trading sessions in Tokyo, along with any commentary from the Bank of Japan, for further signals. Additional reporting on the specific catalysts behind the bond yield move, and on which chip companies drove the steepest declines, would help clarify the scope of the selloff.
Market Impact
A 2.5% drop in the Nikkei, paired with multi-decade-high bond yields, points to tightening conditions that historically pressure risk assets broadly. Semiconductor stocks often serve as a bellwether for technology-driven market sentiment, so weakness there can extend into other growth-oriented sectors, including crypto-adjacent equities and tokens tied to AI narratives.
Crypto traders often monitor Asian equity sessions and bond yield trends as early indicators of shifting risk appetite heading into U.S. and European trading hours. If elevated yields persist, capital could continue rotating toward fixed-income instruments, a dynamic that has previously coincided with reduced inflows into digital assets. The full extent of any crypto market reaction to this specific event was not detailed in current reporting.
The Nikkei's decline underscores how closely chip stock performance and bond yield movements are being watched across global markets. Further reporting should clarify the underlying drivers and whether the volatility extends into other asset classes, including crypto.
Frequently Asked Questions
What caused the Nikkei's 2.5% drop?
CryptoBriefing reported that the decline coincided with a selloff in chip stocks and bond yields reaching multi-decade highs, though the exact catalyst was not specified.
Why do chip stocks have such a big impact on the Nikkei?
Semiconductor companies have driven much of the recent gains in Asian equity indexes, making the Nikkei sensitive to swings in that sector's performance.
How could this affect crypto markets?
Rising bond yields and equity selloffs can reduce appetite for riskier assets, including cryptocurrencies, though no direct crypto market impact was confirmed in the available reporting.
Are multi-decade-high bond yields unusual?
Yes, yields reaching levels not seen in decades typically reflect significant shifts in inflation expectations or monetary policy, and can raise borrowing costs across the economy.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Ethan Mercer. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Nikkei Sinks 2.5% as Semiconductor Stocks Slide and Bond Yields Reach Multi-Decade Highs appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

CryptoBriefing und Coinfomania berichten beide von 18,3 Mio. $ an SPYx-Einlagen über DeFi, aber sie sind sich in keiner Weise einig darüber, wie viel davon auf Morpho entfällt und welches der beiden Angebote führt.
CryptoBriefing und Coinfomania berichten beide von 18,3 Mio. $ an SPYx-Einlagen über DeFi, aber sie sind sich in keiner Weise einig darüber, wie viel davon auf Morpho entfällt und welches der beiden Angebote führt.
Worauf sich alle Quellen einigen
SPYx hat 18,3 Millionen $ an Einlagen über mehrere DeFi-Plattformen angesammelt.
Kamino Finance wird als Plattform genannt, die SPYx-Einlagen hält.
Das Produkt steht für wachsendes Interesse an tokenisierten Vermögenswerten innerhalb von DeFi.

For BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), the custody arrangement is a matter of public record: a Form 8-K filed with the SEC and dated April 7, 2025 discloses that BlackRock Fund Advisors signed a Master Custody Service Agreement adding Anchorage Digital Bank N.A. as a second custodian, with Coinbase remaining the primary holder of the trust’s Bitcoin, according to CryptoSlate’s reporting on the filing. For Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust (GBTC), no such filing appears in the evidence gathered for this page. The only claim that GBTC uses Coinbase Custody Trust Company comes from Spark Money, a third-party ETF comparison tool, which does not cite a filing to support it.
What a spot Bitcoin ETF custody agreement actually covers
A spot Bitcoin ETF does not hold futures or derivatives. It holds actual Bitcoin, and something has to physically secure the private keys that control that Bitcoin. That entity is the custodian, and the agreement between the fund’s sponsor and the custodian typically spells out how keys are stored, what insurance applies, and what happens in edge cases like a blockchain fork.
The April 2025 IBIT filing is a useful worked example of what such an agreement contains, per CryptoSlate. It requires Anchorage to use cold storage for all private keys, to maintain insurance coverage, and to comply with provisions addressing blockchain forks and indemnification responsibilities. Anchorage is a federally chartered digital asset bank regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, a detail CryptoSlate frames as relevant to the trust’s compliance posture.
Crucially, per CryptoSlate’s reporting, this was not a custody handover. Coinbase remained fully responsible for IBIT’s current custodial functions at the time of the filing, and no Bitcoin had been moved to Anchorage. CryptoSlate describes Anchorage’s role as standby, built for operational redundancy rather than immediate use. The trust’s fee arrangement, structure and investment objectives were unchanged.
The common misreading
A filing that adds a second custodian is easy to misread as a filing that moves the Bitcoin. It does not. Per CryptoSlate’s account of the 8-K, Anchorage was brought on as a contractual backup, not an active holder, and BlackRock’s public description of the move ties it to risk mitigation and long-term operational redundancy rather than any dissatisfaction with Coinbase.
What is known, and not known, about GBTC’s custody
Spark Money’s comparison table states that Coinbase Custody Trust Company serves as custodian for 8 of the 11 original spot Bitcoin ETFs, a group that would include GBTC by elimination, since Spark Money separately identifies Fidelity’s FBTC as the only major fund that does not rely on Coinbase at all, using Fidelity Digital Assets instead. Spark Money also states that BRRR added BitGo Trust Company alongside Coinbase, and that ARKB and HODL have adopted multi-custodian models. None of these custody claims are attributed to a specific SEC filing, prospectus, or other primary document in the evidence gathered here. They should be read as claims from a comparison and marketing tool, not as confirmed fact on the level of the IBIT 8-K.
This matters because the two funds are not symmetrical in what a reader can verify. IBIT’s custody structure traces to a dated regulatory filing with specific contractual terms. GBTC’s traces to an aggregator’s summary table with no equivalent citation.
The broader concentration question
Spark Money frames Coinbase’s role across most of the original 11 funds as a concentration risk, and says several issuers have responded with multi-custodian arrangements: IBIT with Coinbase and Anchorage, BRRR with Coinbase and BitGo, and ARKB and HODL also described as multi-custodian. If accurate, a large share of the roughly $91 billion in combined US spot Bitcoin ETF assets that Spark Money reports as of March 2026 would rest, for primary custody, on a single company. But that figure and the underlying custodian count are single-sourced to Spark Money in this evidence set, with no SEC filing behind the ‘8 of 11’ claim.
Spark Money also describes all spot Bitcoin ETFs, including GBTC and IBIT, as structured as grantor trusts that hold physical Bitcoin and settle authorized-participant transactions in cash rather than in-kind, which it says introduces minor tracking error against spot price. This is presented as an industry-wide structural feature rather than something specific to either fund.
The size and fee gap, for context
The custody question sits alongside a fee and size gap that has been documented since the two funds’ first months of trading. Bitcoin Magazine reported that, as of May 28, 2024, IBIT held over $20 billion in assets and 288,670 Bitcoin, overtaking GBTC’s $19.7 billion in assets and 287,450 Bitcoin holdings; on the Tuesday it described, GBTC saw a $105 million outflow while IBIT gained over $100 million, and Fidelity’s Bitcoin ETF trailed both at $11 billion. Bloomberg’s coverage of the same event, which this page can cite only by headline, also described IBIT overtaking GBTC as the world’s largest Bitcoin ETF; CoinDesk’s markets column that day likewise flagged the flip as a market event, per its headline. Neither headline-only source is quoted here beyond that description, because the underlying article text was not available for verification.
By March 2026, per Spark Money, the gap had widened. IBIT’s expense ratio stood at 0.25% against roughly $70.6 billion in assets, while GBTC’s stood at 1.50% against roughly $14.9 billion. Spark Money also reports that the first year of all 11 original spot Bitcoin ETFs combined drew over $56 billion in net inflows, and that the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust, a separate lower-fee fund launched July 31, 2024, was seeded with roughly 10% of GBTC’s Bitcoin holdings.
What this page does not tell you
This page cannot confirm GBTC’s custodian from a Grayscale SEC filing. The only claim in the evidence gathered comes from Spark Money, a comparison and marketing tool that names no underlying document, so that claim is reported here as unverified, not as fact.
The custody detail on IBIT is accurate only as of CryptoSlate’s reporting on the April 7, 2025 filing. Any custodian change since then, including whether Anchorage has moved from standby to active use, would not appear on this page.
Spark Money’s AUM and fee figures are tied to a March 2026 reference point inside the article, but the page itself carries no clear publication date and is a comparison tool rather than a newsroom. Its numbers are treated here as unaudited and are not attributed to any primary filing.
This page does not independently verify the custody terms Spark Money describes for other funds, including BRRR, ARKB, HODL and FBTC. Those claims are repeated here as single-sourced statements, not confirmed facts.
Finally, what insurance, indemnification or fork-handling terms, if any, govern GBTC’s custody arrangement is not addressed anywhere in the evidence gathered for this page. Whether Grayscale has any plan for a backup or multi-custodian structure comparable to IBIT’s is likewise unknown from this evidence.
Sources
Every fact above is attributed to one of these reports. Where they disagree, the article says so.
TheCoinrise reference desk (headline only)
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk (headline only)
TheCoinrise reference desk
TheCoinrise reference desk
The post GBTC vs IBIT: who actually custodies the Bitcoin, and on what terms appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

CryptoBriefing and Coinfomania both report SPYb's $6.3M DeFi liquidity but disagree on whether the token has any trading volume.
CryptoBriefing and Coinfomania both report SPYb's $6.3M DeFi liquidity but disagree on whether the token has any trading volume.
What all sources agree on
SPYb is a tokenized S&P 500 product issued by Binance bStocks.
SPYb has attracted roughly $6.3 million in liquidity across DeFi platforms.
Where the reports disagree
1Whether SPYb has trading volume
Daily trading volumes for SPYb have been running in the millions, with on-chain metrics showing increasing DEX volume and growing deposits.
CryptoBriefing 2026-08-18 22:41
As of now, SPYb has no reported trading volume, indicating that while liquidity is building, active trading may still be developing.
Coinfomania 2026-08-19 01:44
What would settle it: On-chain DEX trading data for SPYb (e.g., Uniswap V4 and PancakeSwap V2 transaction history) or bStocks' own volume reporting.
What to make of it
Treat the $6.3M DeFi liquidity figure as established since both outlets agree on it, but the question of whether SPYb has any active trading volume is unresolved between these two reports.
Treat the $6.3M DeFi liquidity figure as established since both outlets agree on it, but the question of whether SPYb has any active trading volume is unresolved between these two reports.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post SPYb Token: Reports Clash on Trading Volume appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

CryptoBriefing and Coinfomania disagree on whether CryptoQuant's apparent demand metric has already turned positive or is merely nearing that shift.
CryptoBriefing and Coinfomania disagree on whether CryptoQuant's apparent demand metric has already turned positive or is merely nearing that shift.
What all sources agree on
The metric in question is CryptoQuant's 'apparent demand' measure for Bitcoin.
Both reports describe this as the first time the metric would turn positive since February.
Both reports link the development to CryptoQuant.
Where the reports disagree
1Whether the positive reading is already confirmed or still pending
CryptoQuant confirmed the positive reading on August 18, marking the first time the metric broke above zero since February 2026 (apparent demand climbed to roughly +25,000 BTC).
CryptoBriefing 2026-08-18 15:14
Bitcoin’s spot demand is reportedly on the verge of turning positive for the first time since February, according to a tweet from CryptoQuant.
Coinfomania 2026-08-19 01:49
What would settle it: CryptoQuant's own published dataset or dashboard reading for the apparent demand metric on the dates in question.
2Whether specific figures (+25,000 BTC current, -147,000 BTC low) have been established
has climbed to roughly +25,000 BTC. That’s the first positive reading in six months. … bottoming out at approximately -147,000 BTC in May
CryptoBriefing 2026-08-18 15:14
This lack of trading activity may reflect caution among investors as they await confirmation of the demand shift.
Coinfomania 2026-08-19 01:49
What would settle it: CryptoQuant's on-chain apparent demand data release or API figures for the relevant period.
What to make of it
Treat the identity of the metric and its link to CryptoQuant as established, but do not treat the specific figures or the claim that the shift has already occurred as settled until CryptoQuant's own data is checked.
Treat the identity of the metric and its link to CryptoQuant as established, but do not treat the specific figures or the claim that the shift has already occurred as settled until CryptoQuant's own data is checked.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Noah Sullivan. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Bitcoin Demand Metric: Confirmed Positive or Still Pending? appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.

A fresh incident tied to the Strait of Hormuz has reignited concerns over Middle East energy supply, pushing crude to its highest level in weeks.
Crude oil prices rose sharply, touching their highest level since late July, after news of a fresh strike near the Strait of Hormuz rattled energy markets. Invezz reported the price move directly, tying it to renewed fears over supply disruptions in one of the world's most strategically important waterways.
A separate report from CryptoBriefing, citing the Wall Street Journal, described rising oil prices amid broader concerns about Middle East supply disruptions. Both accounts point to the same underlying driver: uncertainty over whether shipping and export flows through the Strait of Hormuz could be interrupted.
The Strait of Hormuz sits between Iran and Oman and serves as the primary route for a large share of the world's seaborne oil exports. Any threat to vessel traffic through the strait tends to trigger swift reactions in energy markets, given the limited alternative routes available to exporters in the region. Traders and analysts have long treated the strait as a key geopolitical risk point for oil supply.
The latest price jump suggests markets are pricing in the possibility of further escalation rather than treating the reported strike as an isolated event. Energy traders often respond to headline risk in the region well before confirmation of lasting supply impact, since even temporary disruptions can tighten global inventories. This pattern has repeated across past periods of tension in the Gulf, where price spikes preceded clearer information about the scale of any actual damage or blockage.
Rising oil prices carry implications well beyond energy markets. Higher crude costs feed into inflation expectations, which in turn can influence central bank policy decisions and broader investor risk appetite. Equity markets, currency markets, and commodity-linked assets often react to sudden oil price moves, particularly when the catalyst is geopolitical rather than driven by demand or inventory data.
For readers tracking digital assets, energy-driven volatility is worth watching as part of the wider macro backdrop. Crypto markets have at times shown sensitivity to broader risk-off moves triggered by geopolitical shocks, though the degree of correlation varies by episode. Neither Invezz nor CryptoBriefing's report on the Wall Street Journal account included details on how digital asset markets responded to this specific oil price move.
The reported strike near Hormuz adds to a string of recent developments that have kept Middle East supply risk on investors' radar throughout the year. Details on the scale, target, and confirmed impact of the incident remain limited in the available reporting. Markets will likely look for further confirmation from shipping data, tanker tracking services, and official statements from regional authorities before drawing firmer conclusions about lasting supply effects.
Market Impact
A sustained rise in oil prices tends to ripple through inflation-sensitive assets, transportation costs, and corporate earnings tied to fuel expenses. If the Hormuz-linked disruption proves temporary, the price reaction could unwind quickly once shipping risk clears. A prolonged or escalating disruption, however, could keep energy costs elevated and add pressure to central banks already balancing inflation and growth concerns.
Broader financial markets, including equities and commodity-linked currencies, often move in tandem with sharp oil price swings driven by geopolitical events. Crypto markets have occasionally tracked risk-off sentiment during past Middle East tensions, though the available reporting does not specify any direct digital asset market reaction to this particular event.
Markets are watching closely for further details on the reported Hormuz strike and its actual impact on shipping and supply. Until confirmation emerges, oil prices are likely to remain sensitive to any additional headlines from the region.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did oil prices rise to a late-July high?
Reports of a fresh strike near the Strait of Hormuz raised concerns about potential disruptions to Middle East oil supply, pushing crude prices higher, according to Invezz and a Wall Street Journal report cited by CryptoBriefing.
Why does the Strait of Hormuz matter for oil markets?
The strait is a major route for global seaborne oil exports, and any threat to shipping through it tends to trigger significant price reactions due to limited alternative export routes.
Did the reports confirm lasting damage to oil supply?
The available reporting from Invezz and CryptoBriefing's account of the Wall Street Journal did not specify confirmed lasting supply impact, only that the incident raised disruption concerns.
Could this oil price move affect crypto markets?
Geopolitical shocks that raise energy prices can influence broader risk sentiment across financial markets, though no specific crypto market reaction was detailed in the source reports.
Originally reported by AltcoinGordon, written by Grace Mitchell. Republished with permission.
View the original on AltcoinGordon →
The post Oil Prices Climb to Late-July High After Reported Strike Near Hormuz Strait appeared first on TheCoinrise.com.