MoonMan567

Someone buys $GMEB today and considers it a new way to trade a meme stock through a regulated platform. Binance already tried almost the same thing—and shut the project down in three months.

On August 12, GameStop was added to bStocks as collateral for margin. This is not the first time Binance has offered tokenized shares: in April 2021, the exchange launched Stock Tokens—Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, Coinbase, MicroStrategy—through the German CM-Equity AG. The project lasted three months. BaFin said the tokens likely violated securities law and that the emission prospectus had not been published. The FCA in the UK ordered the regulated activity to be halted; Hong Kong and Italy joined in, and on July 16, 2021 Binance closed the product.

Deception? No—bStocks 2026 is a different story, precisely in the point that killed the first project. The tokens are issued by BTech Holdings under an Approved Prospectus in ADGM/FSRA—the very prospectus whose absence BaFin cited as the issue. This isn’t cosmetic—it’s a direct response to the reason for the failure. It’s unknown whether ADGM will withstand pressure again if claims come once more from Germany or the UK.

$GMEB as margin collateral is a separate risk: GameStop’s volatility during the 2021 short squeeze showed how sharply this specific stock can move.

@BinanceCIS , does the 2021 story—somewhere—get mentioned in materials about bStocks? #bStocksCIS

Imagine a transaction only you and the party with legitimate checking rights can see—while the rest of the network participants see nothing. This is Hedger’s promise, Dusk’s privacy module for DuskEVM—privacy you can reveal on demand, not to just anyone.

On dusk.network right now, both DuskEVM and Hedger itself are marked with the testnet status. The public alpha version of the mechanism was first tested on Sepolia, Ethereum’s test network, and only then moved into the Dusk ecosystem.

Combining homomorphic encryption—computing over encrypted amounts without decrypting—with zero-knowledge proofs so that privacy holds and on-demand auditing works is complex crypto engineering. No serious project would roll this straight onto real client funds without a test phase—the stakes are too high.

$DUSK - the fuel of this architecture, covering gas for operations on DuskEVM, including those that go through Hedger.

Reviewable sounds like a ready-made feature already today. In reality, it’s test technology—the logic of selective access is well thought through and documented, but no real regulator on real money has tested it yet. Is it enough to understand the mechanism in advance to trust it on mainnet?

@Dusk $DUSK #dusk

World Liberty Financial ($WLFI ) received from the U.S. regulator conditional preliminary approval to establish a national trust bank.

And it’s important not to say too much here.

The OCC approved the application for World Liberty Trust, a structure associated with the Trump family. After the conditions are met and final approval is granted, it will be able to directly issue, redeem, and hold the stablecoin $USD1 , whose market capitalization is already around $4 billion.

This is not a typical bank: the charter does not allow taking traditional deposits or issuing loans. It’s primarily about custody, asset management, and infrastructure for digital assets.

There’s also a separate political dimension here. The OCC is headed by Jonathan Gould, whom Trump appointed. At the same time, the regulator says the application was reviewed by career staff, while Gould and his team acted in accordance with ethical and legal requirements.

What interests me here isn’t whether “crypto won.” Much more interesting is how quickly a private stablecoin turns from a crypto company’s product into part of regulated financial infrastructure. And that’s where real money politics begins—so subscribe to @MoonMan567

Four days ago, on August 10, @Dusk announced on X - DuskEVM testnet that it is live. You can deploy smart contracts with standard EVM tools, Solidity, and Hardhat.

The word testnet here is not small print— the project itself wrote it in the title of the post. The documentation (doc.dusk.network) confirms this in more detail: the DuskEVM Testnet network, ID 745, and the DUSK token on it is a test token with no real value. This is a layer for developers, not for capital.

This is a normal and honest stage. No serious EVM layer goes straight to mainnet without a test phase, where developers catch bugs before real money is on the line. The fact that Dusk wrote the word testnet itself, rather than hiding it, is a plus for trust. For institutions Dusk wants to attract, the difference is critical— the test network is suitable for verifying contract logic, not for deploying real client assets.

$DUSK on the Dusk mainnet is the native token; it pays for gas and staking. On the DuskEVM testnet, the token version is a test token, with no value.

The difference is simple, but it’s easy to miss when you’re fast-scrolling— the technology is already working, but the network for real capital is not yet. The headline says “live,” while the essence says “for developers for now.” What matters to you more right now— that something is working, or that it’s not ready to carry money yet?
#dusk

On August 7, retail investors in SpaceX became net sellers for the first time since the IPO—selling $4.5 million more than they bought. Over five days, the stock jumped by dozens of percent after the lock-up was lifted.

$SPCXB provides access to this story 24/7, and the story itself is worth attention. The IPO on June 12 at $135. Then the slide to $108.27—almost -20% from the offering price, trading weeks below par. On August 10, the first return above $135 since July 15, riding the wave of the first quarterly report as a public company: revenue of $7.81 billion versus expected $6.93 billion. And on August 12, the insiders’ lock-up ended without the selloff wave the market feared—the stock surged to $146.

A trick? No, and this isn’t about bStocks. The story itself shows why 24/7 access doesn’t guarantee getting the timing right. The same retail investors who had constant access to the market sold during the five days leading up to the rally—not after it. The constant ability to trade isn’t the same as a constant edge in timing.

The next lock-up is August 20—another tranche of insider shares is released. Not a forecast, just a date from the calendar.

I’m betting most holders of $SPCXB under #bStocksCIS don’t know about August 20. @BinanceCIS , the corporate events calendar is worth a separate reminder—not only for dividend dates.

@Dusk is called a privacy blockchain for finance. The first impression is anonymity, like with familiar private coins, where the transaction is hidden from everyone.

But in the project documentation (docs.dusk.network, Overview), the picture is different. Dusk offers account models—Moonlight, which is public and transparent, and Phoenix, which is confidential. Even in confidential mode, selective transparency is built in: the authorized party receives proof of the transaction without unnecessary details for third parties. Hidden from the public and competitors, not from whoever is allowed to verify.

This is not a substitution of concepts. A regulated asset cannot exist on a public chain with full anonymity—no oversight body will allow an instrument whose transactions are, in principle, impossible to verify. Here, selective transparency is not a compromise made for convenience; it is a prerequisite for launching regulated markets on the blockchain.

$DUSK is the native network token that pays for running this architecture in Dusk and DuskEVM.

The word “privacy” here means something different from what the usual crypto-market audience implies—privacy from a neighbor, not from an inspector. The question remains open: is this the kind of privacy an institution looking to put a regulated asset on the blockchain is really seeking?
#dusk

"Record growth of bStocks!"—that’s what almost every headline in Square says right now. It’s true only halfway.

$11.3 billion in trading volume for tokenized stocks in July, plus 288% versus June—confirmed by CoinDesk Data. bStocks Binance—$9.41 billion of that, 83.3% of the market. But of those $9.41 billion, $9.27 billion—almost all of it—was generated by a single token, $QQQB on the Invesco QQQ Trust, launched on June 30 with a zero-maker-fee until August 31.

What’s most surprising isn’t the concentration, but what happened to the price at the same time. QQQ, the real ETF underlying the token, fell 6.6% over July; at one point it traded 10.2% below the June 30 close. $QQQB hit records as the underlying asset was declining—volume and price moved in opposite directions. This isn’t a picture of demand for growth; it looks more like trading just for a zero fee.

Remove $QQQB from the equation, and the rest of the tokenized stocks market in July was $2.03 billion—about 30% less than June’s $2.91 billion. A volume record was set in the same month when real demand outside that one promo token fell.

Deception? No—zero fees were announced openly, the money is real, and on-chain activity is confirmed. But it’s not a surge in demand for bStocks. @BinanceCIS , after August 31, when the fee returns, we’ll see whether QQQB volume holds up. #bStocksCIS

American inflation didn’t throw any surprises at the market.

In July, CPI rose by 0.1% m/m and 3.4% y/y. Core CPI increased by 0.2% m/m and 2.5% y/y. All four indicators matched forecasts.

At first glance, it’s good news: inflation hasn’t accelerated, and the annual headline CPI fell from 3.5% in June to 3.4%.

But I wouldn’t rush to call it a direct “bullish signal” for crypto. Inflation is still significantly above the Fed’s 2% target, and the next decision on the rate will depend on more than just one CPI.

For the market right now, something else matters more: today’s figures didn’t provide a new argument for either a sharp tightening of policy or a guaranteed easing.

I like releases like this for their predictability: when macro data doesn’t break the scenario, the market doesn’t even have to urgently come up with a new fairy tale. If you want to separate data from fairy tales—follow @MoonMan567

200 thousand Ukrainian hryvnias per month. Yesterday, August 11, the NBU doubled the limit for payments abroad — from 100 thousand.

bStocks provides access via USDT as a minor technical detail. For Ukrainians during wartime, it’s not a trifle—just smaller than the one from the day before yesterday. The new NBU limit, Resolution No. 90 dated 10.08.2026, effective since yesterday: 200k UAH per month for payments abroad, and now it can be done not only by card, but also via bank transfer to an account, for example through SWIFT. Dear @SerhiiUkrKharkiv , who funded $200 in IBKR through a third service, could now do it with a direct transfer.

Deception? No. The barrier hasn’t disappeared—if anything, it’s now half as high, and still slower because SWIFT is slower than instant USDT. For amounts within 200k, the difference is now more about convenience than about feasibility. For amounts above the limit — the NBU ceiling is there, and it’s still missing with $SNDKB and other bStocks. And the advantage is temporary by design of the NBU itself: gradual liberalization tied to the end of the active phase of hostilities; not a structural feature of the product.

Honestly, #bStocksCIS : has anyone already tested the new limit in practice, or is it still easier to just use USDT, which is already at hand? @BinanceCIS , it’s worth telling the audience that changes in currency rules and the growth of bStocks are part of one story about access.

Coinsbuy had crypto assets stolen for approximately $7.9 million. But the most interesting part started already after the attack.

According to on-chain analytics by Specter, on August 9 at around 13:00 UTC more than $7.9 million was withdrawn from Ethereum and TRON wallets associated with Coinsbuy. Part of the funds were started being converted via exchange services into Monero. As the analyst noted, after contacting ChangeNOW, it was possible to freeze a six-figure amount.

Later, Coinsbuy stated that it covered its customers’ losses with its own reserves, restored service operations, and offered $100,000 for information that would help recover the stolen funds.

But there is a detail that’s easy to miss behind the loud number: the reason for the compromise has not been disclosed so far.

In stories like this, I’m most interested in that “blank sheet.” The amount of the theft is visible on the blockchain almost right away. But the answer to the question “how exactly did it happen?” sometimes comes much later.

I keep an eye on details like these—no detective fantasies where there are still only facts—so subscribe to @MoonMan567

I just re-read my own Day 2 post, where I warned: when the market is closed, the bStocks price is just a guideline from Binance and may differ from reality. The mechanism I described is correct. A fresh Binance blog from 06.08.2026 shows that I underestimated how well this guideline works.

Over seven weekends, 12.06–27.07, the on-chain price $NVDAB and other bStocks over weekends reflected the median-wise 92% of Monday’s price gap. For moves of more than 3%—all 41 out of 41 observations correctly predicted the direction, with a median reflection of 99.6%. Accuracy increases with the size of the move: 81% for small fluctuations, nearly full reflection for larger ones. This is no longer noise—it's a real price identification, confirmed by statistics.

Honesty also requires the other side: in the same blog, Binance itself admits that seven weekends are a small sample; a series of Sunday news items could have inflated the trend. I’ll add this: 41 out of 41 sounds convincing until you remember that on the five days of my own campaign I already once mistakenly looked for a pattern where there were only fluctuations. A small sample stays small, even when it works in your favor.

@BinanceCIS —over the next seven weekends, we’ll see whether this is a pattern or just a sampling effect. Someone among #bStocksCIS is watching this personally, or does everyone simply believe the headline?

Crypto investor Harry Ye, associated with Quantum Fintech and the Fantom ecosystem, died in Paraguay after falling from the 30th floor of the Jade Park residential complex.

Police have not yet determined what exactly happened. Among the versions are an accident, suicide, or the involvement of another person. Investigators inspected apartments connected to Ye and seized evidence. The cause of death and the circumstances of the fall are to be clarified by forensic medical experts.

Ye positioned himself as an early investor in $BTC and the founder of Quantum Fintech. The company claimed to have more than $2.4 billion in assets and investments under management, but these figures have no independent verification.

For the crypto market, the important thing is not the “mystical” storyline surrounding the death, but something else: when a person has a large private portfolio and dozens of connections in DeFi, an information vacuum is filled by rumors very quickly.

I wouldn’t rush to conclusions here, in particular. In crypto, there are already plenty of detectives who solve cases before the police. If you prefer that kind of approach—without sensationalism and premature conclusions—follow @MoonMan567

The situation with the Ukrainian money exchange network Money 24/7 has taken another procedural step forward.

The organizer of the network, which the investigation links to a fraudulent scheme operating under the guise of currency exchange and crypto-assets, was notified of suspicion. The court chose a preventive measure in the form of detention.

According to the investigation, the scheme was disguised as a legitimate financial service: a website, Telegram, a trademark, and an office styled as a cash collection point were used. Clients handed over money for exchange into cryptocurrency, but the obligations were not fulfilled. One victim, according to the investigation, suffered losses of more than UAH 1.59 million.

Back in July, law enforcement conducted more than 20 searches across seven regions and seized more than UAH 20 million in cash in various currencies.

In stories like this, what interests me most isn’t the cryptocurrency itself. Fraud is indifferent to what is written on the sign—bank, exchange office, or crypto service. When trust is replaced with the “decor” of a legitimate business, the technology here has nothing to do with it.

But suspicion is not a verdict. The investigation continues, and guilt must ultimately be determined by the court.

If you value facts and context without information noise—follow @MoonMan567

2026 so far for Bitcoin is turning out quite differently than many expected.

The chart clearly shows the scale of the divergence: approximately -34.6% for $BTC versus +60.4% for gold, +107% for silver, +37.7% for the Nasdaq 100, and +31.4% for the Russell 2000.

And what’s interesting here isn’t so much Bitcoin’s decline itself as the shift in capital behavior. Tech stocks—and even traditional defensive assets—look much stronger this year, while the crypto market ended up at the bottom of this lineup.

Bitcoin used to be called “digital gold,” and then a high-beta version of the Nasdaq. So far, 2026 hasn’t really confirmed either of these simple analogies.

What I find especially compelling in charts like this is the divergence itself: when almost the entire market is moving upward, but an asset that people have grown used to seeing as one of the main beneficiaries of risk appetite remains behind. This isn’t just another red percentage point—it’s a reason to ask what exactly has changed in demand for crypto.

If you want to see, in numbers, what they might mean as well—subscribe to @MoonMan567

I wanted to verify Proof of Collateral bStocks on-chain myself, without anyone else’s words. It turned out only halfway.

The application is straightforward: the SPV buys and holds the underlying shares, Proof of Collateral is updated daily, and publicly—each token is backed, and this is proven.

The asterisk is what exactly you can verify independently, and what you can’t. The blockchain only shows the number of issued $CRCLB and the mint-burn operations. The actual shares Circle has are held by the custodian, and that they are there and segregated—the daily attestation is done by BTech Holdings itself, not something I can independently query from the blockchain like a bitcoin balance.

Deception? No. Bankruptcy-remote SPV is a real protection: assets are isolated from Binance’s balance, smart contracts have undergone formal verification. More transparent than most competitors.

But on-chain and trustless are not synonyms here: half the trust lies with the custodian and BTech Holdings, not with cryptography.

Self-custody of $CRCLB theoretically adds control, but optional—I honestly also didn’t withdraw the token from the exchange in order to actually verify that option.

For now, I cautiously trust BTech Holdings’ report—not the way I would trust a shareholders’ register, but as a more convenient form of the same underlying assumption. @BinanceCIS , for #bStocksCIS : has anyone among the holders of $CRCLB verified it themselves, or does everyone just believe it as a matter of trust, like I do?

$AAPLB , $TSLAB , $METAB - in words it looks like a company share. Legally, this is untrue even in the softer sense than it seems.

Request from an advertisement: bStocks METAB - the same Meta, just on-chain. Binance’s disclaimer says otherwise, verbatim: bStocks do not imply any affiliation with the issuer of the underlying asset. METAB has no legal relationship with Meta Platforms — the counterparty is exclusively BTech Holdings, SPV, affiliated with Binance. Meta doesn’t know about your token and has no obligations to you.

The regulatory classification is also more precise than simply “a regulated stock.” bStocks are not a Digital Security with direct voting rights and redemption, but a certificate representing a financial instrument, paragraph 92 of Annex 1 to FSMR. This is a different, lower level than if the token itself granted shareholder rights.

Deception? No. CFD contracts and other derivatives are set up the same way — the connection to the underlying asset is synthetic; they don’t hide it, it’s just rarely read. ADGM/FSRA — a real regulator; it simply regulates the certificate, not the Meta company itself.

I bet most METAB holders haven’t read the disclaimer under their own bStocks post, where it’s written in plain text. @BinanceCIS , move this phrase out of the small print and into the main text of at least one post under #bStocksCIS — that will help many people understand the bStocks mechanics more accurately

The U.S. labor market gave the Fed a very interesting argument—and at the same time took away one simple argument from those who look only at the unemployment figure.

In July, the U.S. economy unexpectedly lost 23 thousand jobs. The market was expecting +85 thousand. Growth in the average hourly wage slowed to 0.1% versus the expected 0.3%.

At first glance, unemployment also was encouraging—4.1% instead of the forecast 4.2%. But there’s a catch: the unemployment rate fell not because employment strengthened. Some people simply dropped out of the labor force, and the participation rate fell to 61.4%—a minimum of about 5.5 years.

For the market, this is a weak report. Expectations of a Fed rate hike in September after it noticeably declined. This could be a potentially positive backdrop for $BTC , but I definitely wouldn’t call it a signal for growth.

I’m always amazed how a single unemployment figure can create a sense of labor market strength when people are simply stopping participating in it.

If you value facts and context without information noise—follow @MoonMan567