Crypto Breaking

Indian agricultural warehousing and lending provider Arya.ag is running tests for a tokenization system that would turn electronic warehouse receipts for stored grain into transferable on-chain tokens. The pilot is built on a dedicated Avalanche layer-1 network and is designed to connect digital records with the real-world lending workflow.
According to Arya.ag and its partners, the approach links grain deposits, warehouse receipts, collateral commitments, and loan status through Finternet’s infrastructure. Devika Mittal, Avalanche’s head of India at Ava Labs, told Cointelegraph that testing is underway and that each tokenized receipt would represent ownership of the stored commodity.
Key takeaways
Arya.ag is testing tokenized warehouse receipts for grain storage on Avalanche’s dedicated layer-1, aiming to strengthen the link between physical collateral and on-chain lending records.
Finternet will combine farmer, commodity, warehouse, and insurance data into a “composite token” intended to help banks evaluate collateral risk.
The pilot focuses on improving shared transparency for lenders—such as whether grain is already pledged and what debt is outstanding—rather than immediately expanding the scale of Arya.ag’s existing loan book.
Verification still depends on accurate confirmation of the underlying physical grain, keeping operational controls central to the model.
The Finternet concept traces back to a 2024 BIS paper calling for unified ledgers for tokenized assets alongside legal and regulatory support.
Tokenizing grain collateral on Avalanche
Arya.ag’s system targets a long-standing bottleneck in commodity-backed lending: lenders need reliable, up-to-date information about what collateral exists, who owns it, and whether it has already been pledged elsewhere. Electronic warehouse receipts can help by enabling financing against stored commodities without requiring immediate sale after harvest. But translating those receipts into shared, verifiable digital records becomes the next hurdle.
In the testing described by Arya.ag and Ava Labs, tokenized warehouse receipts would act as digital representations of ownership in stored grain. Mittal said each receipt token would correspond to the commodity stored in the warehouse network. The intent is for the ledger to function as a shared reference point for lenders, borrowers, and related stakeholders.
Finternet’s role is to bridge more than ownership records. Sanmesh Kalyanpur, a director at Finternet Labs, said Arya.ag’s sampling and verification process collects information about stored grain and feeds it into the company’s portal. Finternet then aggregates multiple types of data—farmer, commodity, warehouse, and insurance—into what Kalyanpur described as a “composite token” that banks can use to assess collateral risk.
How the pilot ties receipts, commitments, and loan status
The announcement frames the system as an end-to-end linkage between deposits, collateral commitments, and lending outcomes. Arya.ag and Finternet say their network connects grain deposits, warehouse receipts, commitments made as collateral, and the evolving status of loans tied to those receipts.
That design matters because collateral risk is not only about existence—it’s also about exclusivity and exposure. A lender needs to know whether the grain behind a particular receipt is already pledged, and whether related debt is already outstanding. The companies said their system is intended to provide lenders with a shared record covering what is stored, who owns it, whether it is already pledged, and what debt remains.
However, the companies also stressed that the system’s effectiveness still depends on accurate verification of the physical commodities represented by the digital records. In practice, that means operational checks and sampling procedures remain crucial. Tokenization can improve the traceability of collateral and the speed of information sharing, but it cannot replace the underlying verification that proves the stored grain exists and matches the receipt’s claims.
Arya.ag reported that it stores about $2 billion in agricultural commodities across its warehouse network and supports roughly 120 billion Indian rupees (about $1.26 billion) in loans annually. Its lending arm, Arya Dhan, issues about $230 million in loans each year. The announcement clarifies that these figures describe Arya.ag’s existing business and do not represent assets or loans already brought on-chain.
Finternet’s deeper architecture and the regulatory question
The Finternet framework behind the pilot is not presented as a purely new idea. The concept traces back to a 2024 paper from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), co-authored by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani and then-BIS General Manager Agustín Carstens. The paper proposed interconnected unified ledgers for tokenized assets, while emphasizing that legal and regulatory frameworks would be required to support such systems.
According to BIS, the model is meant to enable tokenized assets to move through a connected system of records rather than isolated databases. The paper also underscored that technical alignment alone is insufficient; arrangements for legal recognition, operational responsibility, and oversight are central to adoption.
That focus on governance is particularly relevant for collateralized lending, where institutions require clarity on custody, ownership, enforcement, and dispute resolution. In a warehouse receipt context, the “source of truth” cannot be purely software if physical commodity verification is required.
Finternet’s background aligns with wider activity around tokenization on Avalanche. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph reported that the value of tokenized real-world assets on Avalanche exceeded $1.3 billion at the end of 2025, driven by loans and tokenized money-market funds, illustrating that tokenization is already being used in parts of the on-chain finance stack.
Warehouse-backed lending momentum in India
India has been building momentum around warehouse-backed agricultural financing. The core mechanism—electronic warehouse receipts—allows farmers and businesses to borrow against stored commodities instead of selling immediately after harvest. That can help stabilize income and improve access to capital during seasonal price fluctuations.
The policy environment also matters. In 2024, the Indian government launched a 10 billion-rupee credit-guarantee program aimed at encouraging financing against electronic negotiable warehouse receipts, particularly among small and marginal farmers. This kind of program is designed to reduce risk for lenders, making warehouse receipt financing more accessible.
Arya.ag’s test can be seen as an effort to modernize how those electronic receipts are represented and shared when collateral moves into digital lending workflows. If tokenized receipts and composite collateral records function as intended, banks could gain a more synchronized view of pledged assets and associated exposure.
Still, the companies have not disclosed an expected launch date or the initial deployment’s scale—such as how much grain or lending it would cover—so investors and builders will likely need to monitor the pilot closely to understand performance, verification reliability, and how it integrates with existing lending operations.
For now, the most important question is whether the tokenized receipt model can deliver faster, more reliable collateral assessment without weakening controls over physical verification and pledge status; the next public updates from Arya.ag, Finternet, and Ava Labs will likely determine whether this remains a technical test or evolves into a productized pathway for warehouse-backed lending.
This article was originally published as Arya.ag to Store Grain Ownership Records on Avalanche in India on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s near-term sell pressure has eased sharply, with onchain data pointing to a “low sell-side risk” environment as August profit-taking fades into September. Glassnode’s latest weekly onchain report shows Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio has fallen to 7—down from 16 in September—an improvement that can matter for traders who watch realized profits as a trigger for faster, more emotional selling.
The same Glassnode update also highlights how long-term holders are realizing profits more selectively, while US spot Bitcoin ETF investors remain deeply underwater on an aggregate basis relative to their breakeven level near $86,000.
Key takeaways
Glassnode reports Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio reset lower, dropping to 7—among the lowest readings recorded.
Lower selling pressure coincides with Bitcoin holding most of its roughly 25% August gains.
Long-term holders’ share of realized profit fell to 47% from 88% at the August peak.
US spot Bitcoin ETF investors have spent 229 sessions below the aggregate breakeven point near $86,000, with paper losses around $3.9 billion.
Why the sell-side risk ratio matters
Glassnode frames its sell-side risk ratio (SSRR) as a measure of “realized” pressure rather than just price movement. The metric takes the total value of onchain realized profits and losses and divides it by Bitcoin’s realized market capitalization. In other words, it aims to capture how much US-dollar value has actually changed hands versus the size of the realized coin base for the period in question.
In the report, Glassnode says lower SSRR values typically align with conditions such as “macro market bottoms, accumulation phases and relatively low sell-side risk environments.” That interpretation is particularly relevant for markets that have recently rallied, because periods of heavy realized profit can increase the likelihood that holders decide to lock gains if price momentum stalls.
September cooling after August’s rebound
Glassnode ties the SSRR decline to a post-rebound shift in realized behavior. The company noted that SSRR reached 16 when Bitcoin surged to multimonth highs above $80,000 in late August. As of this week, the ratio has more than halved to 7, which Glassnode characterizes as one of the lowest readings on record.
The onchain analytics platform argues that the August price rebound “drawn little supply,” referring to an absence of meaningful supply emergence in onchain activity. Glassnode also contextualizes how unusual this is versus other periods: it pointed out that similar “supply draw” conditions were not observed in the same way at later points in the year, and that only a small share of days across the past year have posted readings lower than today.
That matters because a low SSRR environment can reduce the probability that even a relatively modest pullback immediately triggers aggressive selling. It doesn’t eliminate downside risk—price can still move on macro factors or liquidity—but it can change the balance between who is likely to sell and how much profit exists to be realized.
Profit-taking shifts: long-term holders selling less
Beyond aggregate sell pressure, Glassnode also focused on who is realizing profits onchain. The report defines long-term holders as wallet entities that hold a UTXO without spending it for at least six months. According to Glassnode, these holders are realizing profits at a lower rate this month.
Specifically, Glassnode says long-term holders’ share of realized profit has fallen to 47% from 88% at the August peak. It also notes that September’s realized profit spike on September 3, 2026 was under half the size of August’s. The combined message is that the “profit who sells” dynamic appears to be shifting away from the most patient holders.
“The sellers this month are recent buyers, and even they are selling less.”
For investors, that distinction can be meaningful: recent entrants are often more sensitive to near-term price changes, while long-term holders typically respond differently. If the selling impulse is increasingly concentrated among newer holders—and even they are moderating—it can help explain why SSRR is trending down even after a strong month.
ETF breakevens remain a key reference point
Even with improving sell-side risk, the report underscores that ETF positioning is still a notable overhang. Glassnode says US spot Bitcoin ETF investors would return to aggregate profit at roughly $86,000. According to the report, Bitcoin has closed below that level for the past 229 sessions, and ETF investors’ paper losses are currently around $3.9 billion.
This doesn’t necessarily mean ETF holders are selling aggressively—paper losses can persist through drawdowns when investors maintain exposure through continued inflows or hold through volatility. But from a behavioral perspective, breakeven levels often become a psychological and institutional reference point. If prices revisit $86,000, ETF investors may face pressure to reassess risk, while the opposite scenario (further declines) could intensify the temptation to reduce exposure.
The SSRR decline may therefore help temper fears that a correction automatically forces a cascade of realized selling. At the same time, ETF breakeven dynamics serve as a reminder that a large cohort is still sitting on losses, and that sentiment could change quickly if price action approaches or moves away from that threshold.
Readers should watch whether SSRR stays near these low levels as Bitcoin’s price continues to trade relative to the $80,000 area and whether ETF performance moves ETF investors closer to—or further from—aggregate breakeven near $86,000. The key question is whether September’s “lower sell-side risk” environment persists as realized profit levels evolve.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s sell-side pressure slips to rare lows as $80K sellers exit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Europe’s top securities regulator is urging closer surveillance of how crypto markets are increasingly intertwined with traditional finance, warning that vulnerabilities in digital-asset ecosystems could contribute to wider financial-system shocks.
In a risk monitoring report published Thursday, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) highlighted the “growing linkage between increasingly vulnerable crypto-asset markets and the broader financial system,” pointing to both new forms of market integration and specific activity it says can amplify contagion risk.
Key takeaways
ESMA warns crypto-to-traditional finance links may help shocks spread as crypto activity becomes more connected to mainstream market infrastructure.
Tokenized equities remain small globally but are gaining traction in Europe, potentially changing who participates and how markets are structured.
DeFi exploits are on ESMA’s radar as another channel through which crypto disruptions could spill into the wider system.
Prediction markets are flagged as an emerging concern, with particular focus on insider trading, wash trading, and coordinated manipulation.
The US regulatory fight over prediction markets continues and could ultimately be settled by the US Supreme Court.
Crypto’s growing connection to traditional markets
ESMA’s warning centers on the possibility that vulnerabilities concentrated in crypto markets could be transmitted into the broader financial system—especially as adoption broadens beyond purely crypto-native venues.
The regulator singled out two developments that could deepen these connections: increased interest in tokenized equities and ongoing risks tied to decentralized finance (DeFi).
On tokenized equities, ESMA stressed that their scale is still negligible relative to global stock markets. However, the report argues that even small segments can matter if they begin pulling in new participants, infrastructure, and liquidity pathways that are shared with, or tightly linked to, mainstream markets.
In DeFi, ESMA pointed to the continued occurrence of exploits—an area that can trigger rapid losses, liquidations, and liquidity stress. While ESMA did not claim direct causal links in every case, its broader message was clear: as crypto mechanisms intersect more frequently with traditional systems, risk events may no longer stay contained within crypto.
Prediction markets: harder enforcement, new compliance challenges
Among ESMA’s most notable emerging flags is the growing use of prediction markets. The regulator said concerns could intensify around insider trading and market manipulation, especially when crypto tools are involved.
ESMA’s report indicates that crypto use in prediction-market activity can complicate detection of problematic conduct such as wash trading and coordinated manipulation. The issue is not only who trades, but how activity is routed and recorded—factors that can affect the visibility regulators have into trading intent and coordination.
The warning matters for traders and market operators because enforcement often depends on the practical ability to identify patterns quickly and attribute them to individuals or entities. If crypto mechanics reduce the clarity of market surveillance, regulators may face higher compliance burdens and potentially stricter controls as authorities react.
US jurisdiction battle over event contracts
ESMA’s European concerns arrive as prediction markets in the United States face a separate, but related, regulatory struggle over what rules apply. The core disagreement is whether event contracts are treated as federal derivatives or fall under state gambling frameworks.
According to ESMA’s report context, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued guidance for prediction markets throughout 2026, while defending what it says is its exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated event contracts.
That position has been tested in court. The CFTC has sued multiple states—including Kentucky, New Mexico, Illinois and Connecticut, and Minnesota—after those authorities attempted to apply state gambling laws to prediction market operators.
ESMA’s warning about manipulation and insider trading sits in the middle of this broader policy tension: if legal categories remain contested, compliance requirements can differ sharply depending on how a court characterizes the underlying instrument.
The dispute could also reach the US Supreme Court. On September 2, New Jersey officials petitioned the court to decide whether states may enforce sports gambling laws against prediction markets registered with the CFTC. The officials cited ongoing litigation across at least 20 states.
Whether the Supreme Court will accept the case remains uncertain, but a ruling—if it occurs—could materially affect how market operators structure products and how regulators allocate oversight authority.
What investors and builders should watch next
ESMA’s report is a reminder that regulators are tracking not only crypto trading activity, but also how crypto-native products could plug into mainstream financial plumbing. The next question for investors and market participants is whether measures meant to protect traditional markets will keep pace with fast-evolving crypto linkages—particularly in areas ESMA highlighted, such as tokenized equities, DeFi exploits, and prediction markets.
As enforcement and jurisdiction battles continue—especially in the US—readers should watch for updates to surveillance expectations, compliance requirements, and how courts ultimately define the legal category of prediction-market contracts.
This article was originally published as ESMA Flags Rising Crypto Links as a Potential Risk to TradFi on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

With the growing popularity of the tokenization of sovereign debt on public blockchain platforms, the discussion around the XRP debt case is getting more and more popular. The data available now, however, separates practical activity on blockchain platforms and speculations related to the possible usage of XRP by governments.
According to the measurements provided by RWA.xyz and conducted on August 20, 2026, the amount of tokenized non-U.S. sovereign debt on the Stellar platform is about $490 million. Stellar emphasizes that it has become a leader in this particular type of activity and outperformed even Ethereum in this area.
The point is that Stellar leads in terms of non-U.S. government debt, while Ethereum remains a leader in the market of tokenized Treasuries. In addition, Stellar reports the development of its entire RWA ecosystem.
According to Stellar, in June 2026, tokenized RWA reached $3 billion. They included sovereign bonds, Treasury products, investment funds, credit instruments, and gold.
XRP Is Being Accused in Relation to the U.S. National Debt
The debate about XRP revolves around another possible application of the asset. XRP advocates have argued that this token can eventually be applied within the U.S. financial infrastructure in areas such as payments, liquidity, or settlements.
Some online debates have gone even further and proposed that XRP could be involved in strategies linked to the U.S. national debt. However, there is no policy evidence showing that any such program exists.
The Vice President of the United States, JD Vance, has talked about economic growth and the establishment of a sovereign wealth fund while speaking about the economy of the United States. This discussion did not reveal any XRP-based strategy to manage or repay the national debt.
This distinction is important because the presence of a big national debt does not prove that some specific cryptocurrency will be used to address this problem. Tokenization of the national debt involves presenting an already existing financial instrument on blockchain technology.
XRP and Tokenization Tell Two Separate Tales
The market is continuing to keep an eye on XRP regarding institutional adoption of blockchain technologies. The price of XRP is currently around $1.40, and the recent market data is showing support at around $1.32 and resistance at around $1.46.
But price levels alone cannot confirm adoption by the government or any particular use case associated with debt obligations. A better example would be something that shows actual use and adoption by institutions.
For example, Stellar is giving us a glimpse of how assets, like Mexican CETES or Brazilian government bonds, among others, are being utilized on blockchain networks to give access to selected sovereign assets.
But the case of institutional adoption for XRP would remain somewhat prospective. Possible applications of XRP would include cross-border payments, liquidity, settlement, and other infrastructure applications. Any confirmation from a government or another institution of a debt-based strategy for using XRP will confirm or refute such assumptions.
Therefore, the tokenization trend is demonstrating blockchain adoption by traditional finance, but this alone cannot prove XRP usage in relation to U.S. national debt.
This article was originally published as Debating XRP Debts Challenges Tokenized Financing Stories on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The UK House of Lords has backed an amendment that would force the government to set out a formal digital asset strategy, even as the Labour administration voted against the proposal. The measure passed during Wednesday’s Report Stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill by a 194–138 margin.
The amendment—added to the bill in the Lords—would require the Treasury to prepare, publish, and consult on a strategy within 12 months after the bill becomes law. It is designed to cover cryptoassets, stablecoins, and tokenized securities, along with key issues such as consumer protection and how firms can access banking, payments, and settlement services.
Key takeaways
The House of Lords approved an amendment (194–138) that would require a UK digital asset strategy to be published and consulted within 12 months of the bill becoming law.
The proposed strategy must address multiple digital asset categories, including cryptoassets, stablecoins, and tokenized securities, rather than treating them as a single regulatory problem.
The amendment’s inclusion reflects continued parliamentary debate over whether the government already has an effective strategy in place.
Labour opposed the measure, arguing it did not sufficiently reflect the pace of digital asset development and the need for a cohesive regulatory framework.
The bill now returns to the House of Commons, where MPs can accept, amend, or reject the Lords’ changes.
What the Lords voted for
Wednesday’s vote centred on Amendment 88, introduced by Conservative peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe. According to the amendment details, the Treasury would have to produce a strategy and carry out a consultation process within a year of the Financial Services and Markets Bill receiving Royal Assent.
In practical terms, the strategy is meant to function as a cross-cutting blueprint. It would not be limited to market rules alone; it would also address questions that often determine whether regulated firms can operate smoothly—such as how innovation can proceed while consumers are protected, and how companies gain access to essential banking, payment, and settlement rails.
The amendment further indicates the scope lawmakers want the document to cover. Instead of focusing narrowly on one segment of the market, it calls for coverage spanning cryptoassets, stablecoins, and tokenized securities. That matters for investors and operators because each category typically faces different risk profiles and policy debates, from stablecoin redemption and reserve transparency to the treatment of tokenized real-world assets.
Why Labour opposed it
Labour members in the Lords voted against the amendment. The party’s position, as described in parliamentary coverage, was that the proposal did not go far enough in responding to the speed at which digital assets are evolving and in delivering what Labour viewed as a genuinely cohesive regulatory approach.
The argument echoes earlier exchanges during the bill’s progress through Parliament. In a July debate, the Treasury’s Minister for Investment, Lord Stockwood, pushed back on calls for a statutory framework. He suggested the government already had a digital asset strategy and that it was simply putting that plan into action.
That framing created the central tension behind Wednesday’s vote: whether an enforceable requirement to publish and consult is necessary, or whether existing government work already amounts to an adequate strategic approach without locking policy into a timeline.
Parliament’s broader digital asset debate
The Financial Services and Markets Bill is moving through a wider reform process for the UK’s financial services regulatory framework. Within that larger effort, the Lords’ push for a dedicated digital asset strategy underscores how Parliament is trying to ensure digital-asset policy is not treated as an afterthought to mainstream finance.
As the vote demonstrates, the UK’s policy direction is still being contested in real time—particularly around the question of implementation. In effect, supporters of the amendment are seeking not only regulatory rules, but also a clear, time-bound plan that explains how the government intends to balance market development with protection of users and the operational realities for regulated firms.
One reason this matters to market participants is that strategy documents can influence how compliance expectations are shaped. They can also affect whether institutions build products, list services, or integrate with payment and settlement providers—areas the amendment explicitly flags.
Industry reaction and what happens next
The UK Cryptoasset Business Council said it worked with lawmakers on the amendment and welcomed the Lords’ vote. In its public statement, the group pointed to a question raised by Lord Chris Holmes: whether the UK is “simply regulating digital assets” or “building a digital assets economy.” That framing speaks to the same policy divide highlighted by the Labour opposition—whether the government approach should be confined to oversight, or structured to actively enable market growth.
Even with the Lords’ approval, the process is not complete. The bill must return to the House of Commons, where MPs can accept the Lords’ changes, amend them further, or reject them outright. That next step will determine whether the amendment becomes law and whether the Treasury will be bound by the 12-month publication and consultation requirement.
For readers tracking UK digital asset policy, the immediate watchpoint is not just the outcome in the Commons, but the practical follow-through implied by the amendment: how the Treasury defines the strategy’s scope, how it structures consultations, and whether it addresses operational concerns—such as banking, payments, and settlement access—that often shape real-world market viability.
This article was originally published as UK House of Lords Supports Mandatory Digital Asset Strategy, Despite Labour Stance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Liquid Network has restarted block production after a major Bitcoin withdrawal tied to a vulnerability in Elements, the open-source software that underpins the sidechain. Liquid said it is bringing the system back in a cautious, staged way—enabling block creation while keeping transaction processing and peg operations paused as it continues recovery and monitoring.
In a Thursday update shared on X, Liquid stated that block production resumed “without transactions” as a safety measure. The network is now being monitored to “confirm full stabilization,” while required updates to its functionary and bridge nodes have been deployed.
Key takeaways
Liquid resumed block production, but transactions and peg-related activities remain suspended during recovery.
Liquid says functionary nodes are now signing and validating blocks properly after updates.
Peg operations, including PAK-authorized peg-outs, are still paused until Liquid restores its BTC/L-BTC reserve.
An earlier emergency Elements update (v23.3.4) targeted a proof-verification cache weakness linked to the incident.
Block production returns—transactions still offline
Liquid’s latest status update frames the restart as a precaution rather than a full operational return. According to the network, block production is running “without transactions,” meaning the chain can produce blocks while the system avoids handling live transaction traffic until the team is satisfied that everything is functioning as intended.
Liquid also emphasized that it has pushed the necessary changes to its functionary and bridge node infrastructure. It said functionary nodes are now signing and validating blocks as expected, which is a critical capability for the network’s consensus behavior.
For users and builders, the distinction matters. Restarting block generation can help confirm that parts of the network stack are functioning, but suspending transaction processing reduces operational risk and prevents additional complexity during an ongoing stabilization period.
Peg operations remain paused pending reserve restoration
Even with block production back online, Liquid made clear that peg operations are not restarting yet. Peg processes—specifically including PAK-authorized peg-outs—remain suspended while the network works to restore its BTC/L-BTC reserve.
That pause underscores the core issue behind the exploit: the withdrawal affected the network’s ability to honor the peg mechanism safely. Liquid’s next steps therefore hinge not only on software hardening, but also on whether the relevant reserves and linked components are returned to a fully healthy state.
Emergency Elements patch hardened proof verification caches
The resumed activity comes on the heels of an earlier intervention. A day before the restart, Liquid released an emergency update to Elements—version 23.3.4—after the incident was tied to a proof-verification cache vulnerability.
Liquid’s emergency update focused on “hardening cache keys used for range proofs” as part of its recovery plan. In practical terms, range proofs are part of how confidential transaction values can be verified without revealing the underlying amounts. If proof verification behavior can be influenced in unexpected ways due to caching or keying issues, an attacker may find routes to disrupt assumptions about what has been validated.
By addressing cache key handling, Liquid signaled that the recovery plan requires both patching the software layer and verifying that the patched infrastructure behaves correctly across the federation’s node operators.
What happened during the September withdrawal
Liquid paused operations on Sept. 6 after actors claiming to be “white-hat hackers” withdrew about 4,000 BTC—worth roughly $320 million at the time—from the network’s federation wallet. This withdrawal represented about 95% of the wallet’s roughly 4,200 BTC balance.
According to earlier coverage referenced by the Liquid Network’s own updates, the withdrawal involved L-BTC originating from a bug in Elements, the open-source software that underlies Liquid. That linkage is important because it narrows the scope of the underlying cause to a specific layer of the system: the confidential transaction/proof verification components and how they interact with caching and range proof validation.
Following the withdrawal, the actors returned 3,400 BTC—worth about $270 million at the time—after Blockstream confirmed that affected bridge nodes had been patched. Earlier reporting also indicated that 598 BTC (roughly $46 million at current prices) remained outstanding as of Sept. 7.
That sequence—withdrawal, patch confirmation, partial return—helps explain why recovery is taking multiple steps. Even after software changes are deployed and some funds are returned, the peg mechanism can’t safely resume until reserves and operational invariants are fully restored.
Liquid’s current “without transactions” approach appears designed to separate network health verification (block signing/validation) from settlement and peg flows that require complete confidence in reserves and security assumptions.
What to watch next for Liquid users
Liquid has not given a restart timeline for transaction processing or peg-outs, so the immediate watchpoints are whether the network confirms “full stabilization” under live conditions and whether the BTC/L-BTC reserve is restored sufficiently to lift the peg suspension. For anyone using Liquid for token transfers or peg activity, the next operational update on peg resumption will likely be the most consequential signal.
This article was originally published as Liquid Network restarts block production after $320M exploit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

European financial and tokenization stakeholders have escalated their push for changes to the EU’s Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Pilot Regime, warning that a proposed cap of 100 billion euros could choke off scaling. In a letter dated Sept. 7 and addressed to members of the European Council and the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, a coalition urged lawmakers to remove the limit entirely or, if it remains, raise it to at least 500 billion euros.
The group argues that some existing European tokenization efforts have already reached a scale of about 350 billion euros and are planning further expansion. They also claim the EU’s proposed cap is mismatched to how global markets size up, noting that the threshold would be based on the market value of instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure rather than trading volumes.
Key takeaways
A coalition of European financial and tokenization firms wants EU lawmakers to remove the proposed 100 billion euro cap on tokenized financial instruments or raise it to at least 500 billion euros.
The letter, dated Sept. 7, is directed to EU Council members and the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee.
Signatories include Nasdaq, Boerse Stuttgart Group, Securitize, the European Ethereum Institute and Axiology.
The DLT Pilot Regime’s thresholds are described as based on admitted market value, making the EU cap small relative to global equity markets.
Backers point to the US as an example of tokenization without volume-style limits, arguing Europe risks falling behind.
Why the 100 billion euro cap is drawing fire
The coalition’s central concern is the scale implied by the EU’s draft proposal. The letter states that lawmakers should treat 500 billion euros as a baseline if they decide to keep any cap on tokenized financial instruments.
In their view, the proposed 100 billion euro ceiling would be too low for Europe’s tokenization trajectory. They cite that certain regional projects already approach 350 billion euros in scale and plan additional growth, suggesting that a tighter cap would effectively force regulatory bottlenecks before the market has a chance to expand.
The industry letter also frames the limitation as structurally restrictive because of how it is measured. According to the signatories, the thresholds apply to the market value of financial instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure—rather than the volume of trading activity. That distinction, they argue, makes the proposed 100 billion euro number relatively small when compared with the size of global equity markets.
What the EU is proposing under its Market Integration package
The debate is linked to the European Commission’s Market Integration and Supervision Package. As described in the source, the Commission has proposed increasing the current cap—set at 6 billion euros—to as much as 100 billion euros, as part of revisions to the DLT Pilot Regime.
The DLT Pilot Regime, which took effect in 2023, allows eligible financial firms to test blockchain-based trading and settlement of assets such as stocks and bonds. It does so through exemptions from certain EU financial rules, enabling experimentation without fully stripping away regulatory guardrails.
For participants in the ecosystem, however, the issue is not whether the program should exist—it is whether the limits imposed on tokenized instruments are calibrated to real-world growth. The coalition’s letter argues that the proposed tighter ceiling would limit the ability of regulated on-chain markets to scale within Europe.
US comparison: “no volume caps” for tokenized equities
A major part of the coalition’s argument is comparative. In the letter, signatories contrast the EU framework with the United States, claiming that in the US, a dominant settlement platform enables tokenization of equities and other assets without volume caps.
The letter goes further by asserting that such an approach could cover as much as 150 trillion euros in assets. While the claim is presented as the coalition’s assessment, the underlying message is consistent: if Europe places restrictive caps on tokenized assets, global liquidity may gravitate to jurisdictions with fewer scaling constraints.
That comparison matters for investors and market operators because tokenization’s promise—especially for liquidity, settlement efficiency, and potentially broader access—depends on scale. Caps that are tight relative to market size can turn what should be regulatory sandboxes into permanent ceilings, reducing the economic case for deploying infrastructure in the region.
A repeated pattern: pressure on DLT rules over multiple months
This latest letter is not the first time firms have urged EU policymakers to adjust the DLT Pilot Regime. The coalition’s push follows earlier industry campaigns aimed at changing both the limits and the operational boundaries of the regime.
In April, 39 financial firms and industry groups—including Nasdaq and Boerse Stuttgart—called on EU policymakers to fast-track amendments and raise the regime’s overall limit to a range between 100 billion euros and 150 billion euros. That April proposal also sought broader asset eligibility and the removal of time limits on licenses issued under the program.
Earlier still, in February, tokenization and market infrastructure firms including Securitize, 21X and Boerse Stuttgart issued warnings that existing asset limits, volume caps and time-limited licenses were restricting the growth of regulated on-chain markets in Europe. That warning argued that without faster changes, liquidity could shift toward US markets as US regulators move toward larger-scale tokenization and onchain settlement.
Taken together, these efforts point to a recurring tension in the EU’s approach: the DLT Pilot Regime is designed as a testing framework, but industry participants want it to function more like a scalable launchpad for regulated tokenized markets. The letter from Sept. 7 reflects that shift in emphasis—from enabling pilots to ensuring they can grow beyond the early phase without hitting regulatory ceilings.
The push also arrives as distributed real-world assets (RWA) continue to build, even if the sector remains smaller than traditional capital markets. One cited figure in the source places the total value of distributed RWA at about $39.15 billion, excluding stablecoins, with US Treasury debt as the largest category at roughly $15.8 billion, according to RWA.xyz.
What to watch next
Lawmakers will now have to weigh whether the EU’s cap structure should be recalibrated to support tokenization scale, or whether limits should remain tighter for oversight reasons. For market participants, the key follow-up will be how the EU responds to the Sept. 7 request for either removal of the cap or a major increase to at least 500 billion euros—and whether revised thresholds continue to be based on admitted market value rather than other measures.
This article was originally published as EU Finance Groups Seek to Lift Tokenized Securities Cap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped below $77,000 around the start of Thursday’s Wall Street session, dragged down by a sharp reversal in broader risk sentiment. Macro pressure intensified as fresh US inflation data and a surge in oil prices pushed yields higher, tightening the conditions that typically support non-yielding assets like BTC.
Market pricing also reflected renewed concern over Federal Reserve policy. The US 30-year bond yield climbed to 5.353%, the highest level since June 2007, even after the Treasury repurchased $6 billion in Treasurys as part of stepped-up debt buyback operations.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin’s move below $77,000 coincided with risk assets weakening after US PPI printed hotter than expected.
August US Producer Price Index rose 5.4% year-on-year, reinforcing expectations of tighter financial conditions.
WTI crude broke above $100 per barrel for the first time since May 21, lifting inflation sensitivity across markets.
Long-dated US yields rose despite a $6 billion Treasury buyback, with the 30-year yield reaching 5.353%.
CME Group FedWatch showed the probability of a 0.25% Fed hike at the September 16 meeting increasing to 69.8%.
Hot inflation and oil spill into crypto’s risk trade
According to TradingView, BTC/USD was on track for roughly 2% losses on the day as equities weakened and macro variables tightened. While Bitcoin’s short-term trading is often driven by liquidity and broader risk appetite, Thursday’s catalyst mix was hard to ignore: hotter inflation expectations and renewed energy-driven price pressure.
Earlier in the session, escalation in the Middle East pushed crude higher. WTI crude moved above $100 per barrel for the first time since May 21, while Brent crude topped $105, approaching a 16-week high. Higher energy prices can quickly filter into inflation expectations, which then feed into bond yields and interest-rate forecasts—key inputs for investors rotating between growth and defensive assets.
That link is especially relevant for crypto markets because higher real yields and expectations of firmer central bank policy typically reduce the relative attractiveness of risk assets. With no cash flows or coupon to offset discount-rate moves, Bitcoin often trades as a high-beta proxy for global liquidity conditions.
Yields press higher despite Treasury intervention
The bond market’s momentum was central to the risk-off tone. The US 30-year yield rose to 5.353%, a level last seen in June 2007, while the 10-year yield hit its highest levels since November 2023 at 4.924%. Notably, this came even after the Treasury carried out the first of its stepped-up debt buyback operations, repurchasing $6 billion worth of Treasurys on Wednesday.
The contrast matters: if intervention doesn’t dampen yield pressure, investors can interpret that as a sign that underlying demand for long-duration risk is weakening—or that inflation and rate expectations are dominating the narrative. In other words, the “help” from buybacks was outweighed by macro forces.
Trading-focused commentary echoed the idea that markets were fighting the Treasury. The Kobeissi Letter, commenting on X, warned that “the bond market is quite literally fighting the US Treasury.”
PPI reinforces Fed hike odds as markets look to CPI
US inflation data added another layer of pressure. The August Producer Price Index came in at 5.4% year-on-year, exceeding expectations by 0.1 percentage points. The Bureau of Labor Statistics said July’s headline PPI print was also revised higher.
In the BLS release, the agency highlighted that the index for final demand less foods, energy, and trade services rose 0.3% in August after moving up 0.4% in July. Over the 12 months ending in August, prices for that measure advanced 4.7%, according to the same official news release from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/ppi.nr0.htm.
Markets responded quickly. CME Group’s FedWatch Tool showed expectations for a 0.25% rate hike at the Fed’s Sept. 16 meeting rising to 69.8% at the time of writing, up from 61.2% the previous day. That shift underscores how sensitive risk assets can be when inflation prints keep pushing the central bank path toward additional tightening.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph had already pointed to rising concerns over Fed policy after stronger-than-expected nonfarm payrolls data sent Bitcoin back below $80,000. Thursday’s PPI adds to that same tightening narrative rather than easing it.
What to watch into the next inflation report and central bank moves
Friday is set to bring another major US inflation release: the Consumer Price Index (CPI). As Cointelegraph noted in earlier coverage, CPI is expected to be the last major inflation print before the Fed rate decision. For Bitcoin traders and investors, that matters because CPI can either validate the market’s “higher-for-longer” fears or introduce enough cooling to shift expectations back toward easing.
Meanwhile, policy tightening is not limited to the US. On Thursday, the European Central Bank approved a 0.25% rate hike, its second such move in 2026. While the ECB’s rate actions don’t directly determine US Fed policy, additional tightening outside the US can reinforce a global “less liquidity” backdrop, which generally weighs on high-duration, risk-sensitive markets.
Bitcoin’s drop below $77,000 therefore looks less like a single-coin story and more like the outcome of a broader macro re-pricing: oil-driven inflation concerns, accelerating bond yields, and a Fed path that investors are increasingly pricing as restrictive.
Going forward, the key uncertainty for crypto is whether the next CPI reading cools the inflation picture enough to stabilize yields—or whether oil and producer-price momentum keep expectations for Fed hikes elevated. Until that becomes clearer, BTC is likely to remain highly responsive to macro headlines rather than crypto-specific catalysts.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops After US PPI Beat as 30-Year Yield Hits 19-Year High on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Solana has not only maintained its position as the dominant chain for retail token experiments—it is currently seeing an unusually high burst of new token creation. On Wednesday, the network recorded an all-time high in daily token issuance, with more than 263,000 new Solana Program Library (SPL) tokens minted.
That volume eclipses the scale seen during the late-2024 memecoin boom, when daily issuance was roughly in the 40,000–50,000 range. The latest jump underscores how quickly Solana’s ecosystem can shift when meme trading and launchpad activity pick up momentum.
Key takeaways
Solscan data shows Solana minted 263,000+ new SPL tokens in a single day, a new record.
Daily token creation in December 2024 during the memecoin cycle peaked at about 40,000–50,000 tokens.
According to Blockworks, 40,360 tokens were issued via launchpads, with Pump.fun creating 34,184.
DefiLlama reports Pump.fun generated $1.8 million in revenue over the past 24 hours, indicating that new token minting is being matched by monetized activity.
Record SPL token creation signals a memecoin-heavy issuance wave
The core data point comes from Solscan, which tracks newly created tokens on-chain. On Wednesday, more than 263,000 SPL tokens were minted—an all-time high for daily issuance on the network.
For readers trying to gauge whether this is “noise” or a structural shift, the comparison to December 2024 matters. During the peak of the memecoin cycle in late 2024, between 40,000 and 50,000 new tokens were issued per day. Wednesday’s total is several multiples higher than that earlier high-water mark, suggesting issuance activity has moved into a new tier.
Importantly, token minting volume alone does not guarantee market quality. Still, sustained bursts of creation typically correlate with periods when launchpad usage, speculative token demand, and retail attention align—especially in meme-driven segments.
Launchpads are driving the bulk of new tokens
Most of this issuance appears to be concentrated through established token-launch infrastructure. Blockworks’ dashboard shows that 40,360 tokens were issued through launchpads, and within that subset, the dominant share came from Pump.fun.
Blockworks reports that Pump.fun created 34,184 of those launchpad-issued tokens, accounting for the majority of launchpad-driven issuance. That concentration is notable: instead of many independent token creation paths competing evenly, a single protocol is capturing the most momentum.
In practical terms, launchpads lower the friction needed to bring tokens to market. They automate token creation and help deliver immediate liquidity and visibility—features that can speed up the “meme-to-trade” loop that retail traders tend to favor.
Pump.fun’s revenue underscores real economic pull behind the minting surge
While higher token issuance reflects technical and user behavior, the economics show whether activity is translating into fees and sustained engagement. According to DefiLlama, Pump.fun generated $1.8 million in revenue over the past 24 hours.
DefiLlama data also indicates that revenue leadership can shift even within short windows. The article notes that last Friday Pump.fun’s daily revenue was briefly overtaken by Fomo, a trading app that combines crypto trading with social feed-like features.
This matters because it suggests the market is not simply “minting for minting’s sake.” Instead, at least part of the token creation surge is being backed by monetization engines that traders interact with—potentially strengthening liquidity discovery and keeping token launches within a tighter promotional feedback loop.
Why this is more than just another memecoin headline
Solana’s record issuance should be read alongside what the ecosystem has been doing with memecoin cycles. Earlier coverage referenced in the source highlights that Pump.fun accounted for one-third of Solana’s first-quarter revenue in 2026, or $124 million out of $342 million, even as memecoin activity cooled.
That combination—meaningful contribution to revenue during a slowdown—implies that Pump.fun’s role may be larger than day-to-day memecoin volatility. If a protocol captures a substantial portion of both token creation and fees, then periods of accelerated issuance can have outsized impact on chain-level economic flows, not just token counts.
Still, uncertainty remains. A spike in minted tokens can also mean an increase in lower-quality launches, duplicates, or short-lived experiments that do not attract sustained trading. For investors and traders, the key watch items are therefore less about raw issuance and more about whether liquidity and trading interest remain strong after launch cycles pass.
In the next few sessions, market participants should monitor whether the daily token creation record persists, whether launchpad concentration continues to widen toward Pump.fun, and how competing social-trading apps perform relative to Pump.fun’s revenue. Those signals will help clarify whether Wednesday’s surge is the start of a new sustained regime—or simply a temporary peak driven by retail timing.
This article was originally published as Solana mints 263,000 tokens in one day, setting a new record on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Fnality, the blockchain-based settlement company behind the UK’s regulated sterling payment system, has appointed experienced central bank officials to lead its governance as it pushes toward euro and US dollar payment rails. The latest move puts former Bank of England deputy governor Jon Cunliffe at the head of Fnality’s UK board, following new supervisory board appointments connected to Europe’s payments and settlement ecosystem.
In an announcement made Thursday, Fnality said Jochen Metzger—formerly a Deutsche Bundesbank director general for payments and settlement systems—is joining the supervisory board of its European subsidiary and is expected to chair it. Ron Berndsen, previously a senior official at the Dutch central bank, also joined the board.
Key takeaways
Fnality named Jon Cunliffe, former Bank of England deputy governor, as chair of its UK board while it develops new euro and US dollar settlement systems.
Jochen Metzger is set to chair Fnality’s European supervisory board after joining from the Deutsche Bundesbank.
Fnality’s sterling system—regulated by the Bank of England—already supports settlement using central bank money balances.
The company positions its blockchain infrastructure as a foundation for tokenized asset markets and stablecoin/tokenized deposit activity by banks.
Fnality is building its euro initiative through a Germany-based subsidiary and its dollar initiative via Fnality Bank U.S. in Connecticut.
Central banking experience at the governance layer
Fnality’s leadership appointments signal a deliberate strategy: pairing its distributed-ledger settlement approach with deep familiarity of central bank payment and market infrastructure. Cunliffe’s role is particularly notable given the Bank of England’s regulatory oversight of Fnality’s sterling payment system. By placing a former senior BoE official at the top of its UK board, Fnality is reinforcing the close alignment between its technology roadmap and the compliance expectations that accompany central bank money settlement.
The governance expansion in Europe follows a similar theme. Metzger’s background at the Deutsche Bundesbank is directly relevant to payment and settlement policy, while Berndsen’s previous senior role at the Dutch central bank ties into the broader supervisory and operational concerns that regulators typically focus on in cross-border financial market infrastructure.
Fnality said it made the appointments as it develops euro and US dollar payment systems. That timing matters: building settlement networks for different currencies generally requires not only technical interoperability, but also regulator confidence in risk controls, operational resilience, and the integrity of the settlement model.
How Fnality’s sterling system works—and why it matters for tokenization
Fnality launched its sterling payment system in 2023, and the system is regulated by the Bank of England. According to Fnality, it allows market participants to settle obligations using central bank money balances. That feature is important for anyone following tokenization narratives: tokenized markets still depend on settlement finality and credible asset custody, and central bank money is often viewed as the “safest asset” baseline for settlement.
Fnality’s infrastructure is designed to support tokenized asset markets and to enable banks’ activity involving stablecoins and tokenized deposits. The company framed the work as a financial stability issue, not only an innovation story. In the announcement, Cunliffe said: “As the tokenisation of financial markets gathers pace, settlement in the safest assets available will be crucial to maintaining financial stability.”
While that statement is strategic rather than technical, it clarifies Fnality’s intended role in the evolving digital-asset stack: not replacing all of traditional market infrastructure, but providing a settlement layer that can handle new instruments while keeping settlement quality anchored to central bank money for participating jurisdictions.
Euro plans in Germany and a US dollar initiative in Connecticut
To expand beyond sterling, Fnality has already set up a corporate footprint aimed at the euro and dollar initiatives. The company said it established a subsidiary in Eschborn, Germany, to develop its proposed euro payment system. Separately, it has set up Fnality Bank U.S. in Stamford, Connecticut, where it is developing plans for a dollar system and engaging with US regulators.
Those structural choices are more than administrative. Moving a prospective euro system through a Germany-based entity aligns with Europe’s dense payments and securities settlement landscape, where coordination among multiple institutions and oversight bodies is typically essential. On the US side, the involvement of a US banking entity suggests Fnality expects the dollar system to operate within a framework that regulators will closely scrutinize—especially given how stablecoin-related activity and tokenized deposits have drawn increased attention from supervisory authorities.
Investors and market participants watching this space will likely focus on how Fnality translates the sterling model—regulated by the Bank of England—into systems that meet euro- and dollar-specific regulatory requirements, including governance, settlement mechanics, and operational resilience.
Funding momentum and what to watch next
Fnality’s broader expansion also comes amid continued capital formation. The company raised $136 million in a Series C funding round in September 2025, with participation reported by Traxcn to include investors such as Temasek, Euroclear, and Goldman Sachs.
As governance leadership strengthens across the UK and Europe, the next question for observers is whether Fnality can progress its euro and US dollar settlement rails from planning toward implementation at a pace that keeps them competitive with other market-infrastructure and tokenization initiatives.
For the months ahead, readers should watch for signals of regulatory engagement turning into concrete milestones—particularly in how Fnality structures settlement access, finality guarantees, and the integration path for stablecoin and tokenized deposit use cases across additional jurisdictions.
This article was originally published as Former BoE Deputy Governor Leads Trio of Ex–Central Bankers to Fnality on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw another day of redemptions on Wednesday, with total net outflows of $120.2 million, according to Farside Investors data. This follows Tuesday’s $46.6 million outflow, bringing withdrawals across the first two sessions of the holiday-shortened week to $166.8 million.
The pullback largely came from ARK 21Shares’ Bitcoin ETF (ARKB), which led Wednesday’s withdrawals with $78 million. Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust ETF (GBTC) followed with $27.2 million in net outflows and BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) recorded $19.5 million in withdrawals. The only Bitcoin ETF to post inflows on the day was Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), which added $4.5 million.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded $120.2 million in net outflows on Wednesday, extending the week’s two-session total withdrawals to $166.8 million.
ARKB was the dominant source of outflows, pulling $78 million on Wednesday, while GBTC and IBIT together accounted for an additional $46.7 million.
Ether spot ETFs bounced back with $34.7 million in net inflows on Wednesday after Tuesday’s outflows.
Solana spot ETFs reversed Tuesday’s outflow, attracting $11.2 million on Wednesday, with inflows concentrated in Bitwise’s BSOL.
Bitcoin ETFs unwind after a strong run
Wednesday’s outflows capped a brief shift in investor positioning after the funds’ recent momentum. Tuesday’s $46.6 million outflow marked the category’s first back-to-back net redemptions since a three-day outflow streak ended on Aug. 14, according to the figures cited.
Looking at the two-day window, GBTC accounted for the largest share of losses, with $92.7 million in net outflows over Tuesday and Wednesday. ARKB and IBIT recorded net redemptions of $69.9 million and $8.8 million, respectively, during the same period.
Despite the pullback, the wider context still matters for assessing whether the outflows are a reversal or a pause. The two-session decline erased roughly 4.4% of the $3.8 billion attracted during what Farside Investors data described as the funds’ strongest three-week stretch of 2026.
Since launch, Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated about $55 billion in cumulative net inflows, while combined net flows for 2026 stand at about $1.07 billion in outflows, based on Farside Investors’ reporting. The contrast highlights why even large day-to-day movements are best interpreted against long-running accumulation and the year-to-date flow profile.
Where Wednesday’s outflows came from
ETF-by-ETF flows show a clear pattern: the majority of Wednesday’s withdrawals were concentrated in a small group of funds. ARKB’s $78 million outflow was more than half of the day’s total, and the remaining majority gap was covered by GBTC and IBIT.
MSBT was the exception, adding $4.5 million to offset only a fraction of the net redemptions across the category. For traders and portfolio managers, that kind of split can signal short-term reallocations within the ETF complex rather than uniformly negative sentiment across all access points.
Wednesday’s data also followed Tuesday’s broader category outflow. Together, Tuesday and Wednesday produced $166.8 million in net withdrawals across the week’s first two sessions—an important checkpoint when evaluating whether the prior inflow streak has fully run out or whether investors are simply pacing their allocations during the holiday-shortened calendar.
Ether ETFs regain inflows; Solana flips to net buying
While Bitcoin ETFs pulled back, US spot Ether ETFs returned to net inflows on Wednesday. Ether ETFs attracted $34.7 million on the day after recording $24.3 million in withdrawals on Tuesday, leaving the group with $10.4 million in net inflows for the week.
BlackRock’s ETHB led inflows with $22.9 million, followed by ETHA with $9.7 million. The 21Shares TETH fund added $2.1 million, and the remaining Ether ETFs recorded no net flows.
Solana ETFs also reversed Tuesday’s outflow dynamic. After Tuesday’s withdrawals of about $700,000, the funds attracted $11.2 million on Wednesday. That brought their combined two-session total to $10.5 million in net inflows, with all Wednesday inflows going to Bitwise’s BSOL.
Not every Solana-related product participated in the broader rebound, however. Hyperliquid ETFs recorded net outflows for a second consecutive session, losing $5.3 million on Wednesday after $13 million in Tuesday outflows. Those redemptions pushed the week’s total outflow for Hyperliquid ETFs to $18.3 million.
Price backdrop: crypto trades modestly lower as ETF flows diverge
The mixed ETF results arrived while spot crypto prices were slightly down versus the earlier timeframe referenced in the report. Bitcoin traded near $78,000 on Thursday, down from roughly $79,700 when the earlier three-week inflow figures were reported. Ether was around $2,470 and Solana hovered near $101, according to CoinGecko.
This combination—ETF outflows for Bitcoin paired with renewed inflows for Ether and Solana—reinforces that investor behavior is not moving in a single direction across the market. For readers monitoring fund flows as a sentiment barometer, the key is to track whether Wednesday’s withdrawals represent a one-off repositioning or the start of a more sustained trend.
As trading continues through the remainder of the week, the next sign to watch is whether Bitcoin ETFs can stabilize after two consecutive outflow days, and whether Ether’s Wednesday inflow follow-through persists into subsequent sessions alongside Solana’s rebound.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs Pull $167M as 2026’s Best Inflow Run Slows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has pushed the Senate to advance the CLARITY Act ahead of a key vote. He cautioned that abandoning the bill would signal weakness to rivals in digital finance. The Senate is set to hold a cloture vote on the CLARITY Act on September 15.
Bessent shared his appeal on social media, and the post gained wide attention within hours. He argued that rejecting the CLARITY Act would mean giving up national security tools. His remarks reframed the bill as a security measure rather than a simple market rule.
This shift builds on earlier comments Bessent made in July. At that time, he stressed market structure and timing over security concerns. Now, Treasury and defense officials appear aligned behind the same national security argument.
The Vote and the Numbers
The September 15 vote will not decide the CLARITY Act outright. Instead, it is a cloture vote on a motion to proceed. A yes vote would open the bill to full floor debate.
Republicans control 53 Senate seats, but cloture requires 60 votes. Therefore, at least seven Democrats must cross the aisle. That math remains uncertain heading into next week.
Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the CLARITY Act last week. Senator Cynthia Lummis backed Bessent’s appeal soon afterward. She said the bill would protect consumers and support law enforcement.
Sticking Points Remain
Ethics language is still the biggest obstacle to the CLARITY Act. Republicans added a provision banning officials from issuing crypto tokens. Senator Thom Tillis said the bill needs White House support for that clause.
Law enforcement concerns have eased somewhat in recent weeks. The National Sheriffs’ Association dropped its opposition and now stays neutral. Lummis noted the bill would direct $150 million toward tracking crypto scammers.
Even so, skepticism persists among some legal observers. A former federal prosecutor recently argued that the bill is effectively finished. Congressional friction behind closed doors has not matched public optimism.
Industry Pressure Builds
Crypto companies are pushing hard for the CLARITY Act to pass. Ripple’s chief legal officer urged senators to hear from everyday crypto holders. Ripple’s chief executive also called for lawmakers to finish the process.
The National Crypto Association placed ads in major newspapers this week. The ads noted that roughly one in four American adults hold crypto. That figure underscores the scale of interest tied to this vote.
Meanwhile, Treasury has already moved forward on related stablecoin rules. It opened a comment period tied to the GENIUS Act framework. Officials say the CLARITY Act would complete that broader regulatory structure.
This article was originally published as Bessent Presses Senate to Pass Clarity Act Before Sept 15 Deadline on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hunter Biden has rejected claims that he profited from his “LAPTOP” memecoin after its launch triggered an early selloff and widespread accusations of a “rug pull.” In an X post Wednesday, Biden said neither he nor anyone on his side sold tokens, adding that he “personally” has not earned money from the project.
The token initially traded at about $0.05 at launch, but it later experienced a sharp drop in the first hour, losing more than 95% in value according to social media reports. At the time of writing, CoinGecko data showed LAPTOP trading around $0.8562.
Key takeaways
Biden denied any token sales, saying his team’s allocation is “locked,” and claimed he has not made a single dollar from LAPTOP.
The project pointed to liquidity shortfalls and fast “snipers” (trading bots) as drivers of the early price crash.
In a public community update, the LAPTOP team said it had no presale and published contract details, allocations, an audit, and a white paper before trading began.
Project disclosures describe founder allocations, vesting, prediction-linked burns, and reserves earmarked for losses tied to a separate TRUMP memecoin and subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack.
Nansen tracking shared with Cointelegraph reported large unrealized losses across selected wallets and ongoing liquidity activity, while Bubblemaps flagged that many top-holder wallets appear to be “fresh.”
Biden rejects “rug pull” accusations
After launch day volatility fueled accusations from X users, Hunter Biden responded directly to the allegations. He said the “team’s allocation is locked” and insisted that “nobody on our side sold,” adding that “nobody could have.” Biden further claimed, “I, personally, have not made a single dollar.”
In his explanation for the price action, Biden pointed to two factors: insufficient liquidity and activity from “snipers.” In crypto market structure, snipers are typically automated bots that attempt to buy rapidly at launch, often worsening early slippage and contributing to sharp price swings when available liquidity can’t match demand.
Cointelegraph reported that Biden did not respond to its request for comment.
What the LAPTOP team says happened at launch
Alongside Biden’s denial, the LAPTOP project pushed back against the “stealth” narrative in a community update posted to Medium. The team claimed it had no token presale and did not allocate tokens to investors or influencers ahead of time. According to the post, relevant information—such as the contract address, token allocations, a Hacken security audit, and a white paper—was published before trading began.
The project said there was “no stealth deployment, no hidden supply, and no surprise to benefit insiders,” arguing that the early market behavior was primarily an execution problem rather than insider profiteering.
Specifically, the team said the initial liquidity pool began at $0.05 per token, but the market maker’s liquidity was insufficient to meet demand when trading opened—allowing rapid buying pressure from automated traders to drive volatility.
To address liquidity and ongoing incentives, the team announced plans to deploy 4 million tokens (0.4% of the total supply) as liquidity incentives for Aerodrome pools starting at midnight UTC on Thursday. It also said it would burn 10 million tokens within the first week of launch through its predictions program, describing that as equivalent to 1% of the original total supply.
Disclosures outline allocations, burns, and reserves
The project’s disclosures, published via a document hosted at laptoptoken.com/disclosures.pdf, provide the clearest view of how supply is intended to be distributed and how certain mechanisms are expected to work.
According to those disclosures, founders are allocated 300 million tokens—30% of the 1 billion token total. The document says those founder tokens are locked for six months, then vest monthly over a subsequent 24-month period.
A further 30% allocation is tied to predictions related to political, cultural, and crypto events. The disclosures state that when specific outcomes occur, tokens are burned; if the specified conditions are not met, tokens are allocated to charity. The document also indicates that prediction-related burns affect unvested tokens.
The remaining reserved portions described in the disclosures include 2% set aside for wallets that lost money on the TRUMP memecoin and 8% for eligible subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack newsletter. Additionally, it reserves 10% for future airdrops at the foundation’s discretion.
Wallet analytics: large unrealized losses and “fresh” holders
While the debate centers on whether insiders sold, blockchain analytics help map what traders actually did during the earliest trading window. Nansen data shared with Cointelegraph on Thursday analyzed five selected LAPTOP wallets.
That snapshot reported one LAPTOP wallet with an unrealized loss of $117,800 and another with an unrealized paper loss of $12,300. At the same time, two other wallets showed unrealized gains of $13,100 and $1,800. Cointelegraph noted that none of those four addresses had sold LAPTOP at the time of the snapshot.
Nansen also tracked broader activity during the 24-hour period covered by its data: 46,675 buy transactions and 16,038 sell transactions among 20,085 unique buyers and 8,714 unique sellers.
Separately, blockchain analytics firm Bubblemaps raised attention to holder behavior in a post on X Wednesday. It said 60% of LAPTOP’s top-holder wallets had no prior activity. In a follow-up, Bubblemaps defined “fresh” wallets as those funded within the previous 10 days, adding that most appear to have been funded on launch day.
Taken together, these on-chain observations suggest a market dominated by new participants rather than long-standing holders—consistent with a launch-driven memecoin environment, though they do not by themselves confirm who traded or whether allocations were sold.
As liquidity incentives, predicted burns, and vesting schedules move from announcement into execution, the next key signals for investors and traders will be whether early buyers continue to unwind positions, how liquidity providers respond on Aerodrome pools, and whether wallet-level movement aligns with claims that no insider selling occurred.
This article was originally published as Hunter Biden Denies Memecoin Profits After Laptop Crash Claims on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A company behind the Unicoin brand has filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Uniswap Labs, seeking a court ruling that its UNICOIN trademark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s asserted marks. TransparentBusiness Inc., which does business as Unicoin, is also asking the court to cancel a US trademark registration for UNI.
The dispute centers on trademark claims and alleged brand misuse that Uniswap’s representatives raised through a series of demand letters sent over several months. Unicoin’s complaint, filed Tuesday, requests declarations on non-infringement and non-dilution, along with determinations related to whether Unicoin’s domain names violate US anti-cybersquatting laws.
Key takeaways
TransparentBusiness Inc. (Unicoin) sued in New York federal court seeking declarations that UNICOIN does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks.
The complaint asks the court to cancel a US trademark registration for “UNI,” which Uniswap alleges it owns or has rights to.
Uniswap’s counsel reportedly sent three demand letters—June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14—accusing Unicoin of infringement, dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.
Unicoin is also challenging claims tied to its “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains under the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act.
The legal filing comes shortly before a listed Sept. 28 public launch date for Unicoin’s UNCN token.
Unicoin’s lawsuit targets Uniswap’s asserted trademark rights
According to Unicoin’s complaint filed in the Southern District of New York, TransparentBusiness Inc. is seeking court declarations that its UNICOIN mark does not infringe or dilute Uniswap’s claimed marks, including UNI, UNISWAP, and UNICHAIN.
The company further requests cancellation of a US trademark registration for UNI. That request is significant because it directly challenges the scope of whichever trademark rights Uniswap is asserting. If the cancellation is granted, it could narrow or remove a foundation for future enforcement arguments tied to the “UNI” branding.
The filing also asks for a legal declaration that the company’s “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains do not violate the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). That portion of the case targets whether the domains were acquired or used in a manner that meets the federal standard for cybersquatting.
Demand letters frame Uniswap’s allegations
Unicoin’s complaint states that Uniswap’s counsel issued three demand letters on June 3, July 17, and Aug. 14. In those letters, Uniswap reportedly accused Unicoin of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, cybersquatting, and unfair competition.
The demand letters, as described in the lawsuit, required several actions from Unicoin, including:
Stopping use of “UNICOIN” and other “UNI”-formative marks.
Transferring the “unicoin.com” and “unicoin.org” domains.
Providing an accounting of revenue and profits.
Reimbursing Uniswap’s legal fees.
These demands indicate Uniswap’s approach extended beyond stopping trademark use to seeking financial disclosures and fee reimbursement. That broad enforcement posture is part of why the litigation matters: court outcomes could shape how aggressively Uniswap and similar brands police overlaps in naming and web presence.
Cointelegraph reached out to Uniswap for comment regarding the lawsuit.
Why trademark cases matter in crypto branding
While the dispute is framed in legal trademark terms, it has practical implications for crypto projects because naming and domain strategy are tightly connected to user discovery, marketing, and community recognition. In markets where tokens and apps proliferate quickly, brand identifiers and web domains often become the first point of contact for users who are looking for official services, documentation, and liquidity.
In this case, Unicoin is contesting both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In plain terms, that puts two different legal theories in play: whether Unicoin’s use of its mark is likely to cause confusion with Uniswap’s asserted marks, and whether it nonetheless harms or weakens those marks even absent direct confusion. Unicoin’s inclusion of dilution and cybersquatting claims suggests it is treating Uniswap’s enforcement threats as multi-pronged.
Investors and builders will likely watch how the court approaches similarity between the “UNI” family of terms and whether the case turns on marketplace confusion, the strength of Uniswap’s claims to the cited marks, or the specific use of the Unicoin domains.
Timing: filing before Unicoin’s listed token launch
The lawsuit was filed weeks before a Sept. 28 public launch date that Unicoin lists on its website for the UNCN token.
This timing may matter for participants evaluating execution risk and operational continuity. Token launches in crypto frequently depend on marketing, websites, and community onboarding—areas that can become collateral in trademark and domain disputes. Although the filing itself does not indicate the launch will be delayed, the presence of active federal litigation is the kind of uncertainty that can affect planning, partner relationships, and user-facing communications.
Separately, Unicoin’s competitive context can also provide background for why enforcement attention might intensify around well-known brands. At the time of writing, DeFiLlama ranked the Uniswap protocol first among decentralized exchanges by 24-hour volume, with more than $3.9 billion. A leading position in the DeFi trading stack can make brand-related enforcement more consequential, since other services may be measured against widely recognized naming and user expectations.
What to watch next in the case
The next developments to track are how Unicoin and Uniswap argue the legal standards for infringement, dilution, and ACPA-related domain issues, and whether the court addresses the requested cancellation of the UNI trademark registration. With a token launch date already on the calendar and multiple demand letters documented in the complaint, the litigation’s pace and interim rulings could determine how both sides manage branding and online presence going forward.
This article was originally published as Unicoin Files Suit Against Uniswap Labs to Cancel UNI Registration on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane says the bank’s 2023 voluntary wind-down was driven less by internal weaknesses and more by political and regulatory pressure, arguing that Silvergate remained solvent after meeting withdrawal demands in late 2022.
In an inaugural post on his Substack published Tuesday, Lane claimed Silvergate could have continued operating after satisfying withdrawals equal to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022, and he characterized the decision to liquidate as a response to “political pressure” rather than an inability to access liquidity.
Key takeaways
Lane argues Silvergate had sufficient liquid resources to withstand heavy withdrawals in Q4 2022 and that liquidation followed political pressure.
Federal regulators’ accounts emphasize different causes, pointing to concentrated crypto deposits, funding and governance risks, and compliance shortcomings.
Lane disputes claims that regulators proved Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed, even as enforcement actions followed.
The SEC alleged failures in monitoring certain high-volume transaction flows tied to FTX entities; the case resulted in a settlement without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
Regulatory guidance on crypto issued in 2023 was later withdrawn in April 2025, adding another layer to the debate over pressure versus policy.
Lane’s liquidity argument and the Q4 2022 numbers
Lane’s core claim is that Silvergate’s balance sheet gave it options even amid stress. He said the bank had held liquid assets that could be sold or pledged as collateral as withdrawals accelerated.
He also pointed to Silvergate’s own January 2023 business update, which reported a sharp contraction in digital asset-related deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022. According to the update, digital asset deposits fell 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion over the quarter.
In that same update, Silvergate said it sold $5.2 billion of debt securities and recorded a $718 million loss. The bank reported $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. Lane’s Substack post uses these figures to support the argument that the bank had liquidity capacity and therefore did not necessarily face unavoidable collapse at that stage.
Still, Lane’s narrative directly challenges the dominant regulator view that Silvergate’s issues were structural—rooted in how quickly its funding base eroded, how its risk controls were implemented, and how governance handled the rapidly changing environment.
What regulators said instead: governance, risk management, and compliance
A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General concluded that Silvergate’s reliance on crypto depositors, its rapid growth, and multilayered funding risks contributed to its liquidation. The review also cited weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management, and said supervisory actions could have been more aggressive and decisive.
That assessment contrasts with Lane’s position that the wind-down was not evidence of a solvency crisis driven by internal failure. Lane said he had not seen a regulator demonstrate that Silvergate’s AML program had been proven to be ineffective.
The regulatory record he referenced is more complicated. After the bank’s winding down, the SEC moved to enforce against Silvergate Capital and its leadership. In July 2024, the SEC charged Silvergate Capital, Alan Lane, and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors about the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers.
Per the SEC’s allegations, Silvergate’s automated system did not monitor more than $1 trillion in transactions, and the bank allegedly failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers among FTX entities.
Enforcement outcomes and the stakes for the crypto-banking debate
Lane said he settled rather than contested the SEC’s case. According to the reporting linked in the source material, Lane settled the charges without admitting or denying wrongdoing, agreeing to a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar.
Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies. Those actions, while not identical in scope to the Office of Inspector General review, reinforce the regulator emphasis on compliance and monitoring failures rather than solely on funding concentration.
For investors and market participants tracking whether banking access to crypto is shrinking due to policy pressure, the Silvergate dispute has become a proxy for a larger question: was the outcome primarily caused by crypto-adjacent funding volatility, or by how risk management and controls were applied to that business model?
Lane’s Substack intervention matters because it adds a first-person account that highlights a timeline in which the bank still had liquidity tools available and depositors withdrew only up to a point that Lane says could have been managed without liquidation.
Policy guidance, then withdrawal: did “pressure” shift bank behavior?
Lane also pointed to interagency statements about crypto risk that were issued in early 2023. He cited them as evidence that US regulators were applying pressure to banks operating in crypto-adjacent markets.
According to the source material, those statements urged banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities. However, the Federal Reserve said institutions were not prohibited from serving any specific customer class and were not discouraged in a way that barred particular types of relationships.
In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the statements. That development is significant to the broader debate because it suggests the guidance—at least as originally formulated—was not meant to remain authoritative indefinitely.
Lane’s argument is therefore best understood as a claim about decision-making under regulatory uncertainty: even if regulators did not formally ban banks from serving crypto clients, he argues that the tone and direction of policy encouraged a conservative posture that became difficult to reverse as deposit pressures intensified.
As the debate continues, readers should watch whether further details emerge from Lane’s account that directly address the regulator findings on monitoring and governance, and whether regulators provide clearer guidance on how banks can balance crypto services with demonstrable controls—particularly now that the earlier 2023 crypto-risk statements have been withdrawn.
This article was originally published as Silvergate’s ex-CEO cites Biden pressure as factor in 2023 wind-down on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) has issued non-compliance notices to 15 crypto platforms, or what it calls Virtual Digital Asset Service Providers (VDA SPs), under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The notified entities could face access blocks in the country, with the FIU directing them to take down their applications and URLs.
India’s FIU Cracks Down On Crypto Entities
According to the Financial Intelligence Unit, the platforms failed to comply with several provisions of the PMLA and were operating illegally in the country. The platforms included in the list are Weex, Blofin, Bitunix, DigiFinex, Toobit, Razorex, XT.com, Latoken, WOO X, Pionex, ChangeNow, SimpleSwap, FixedFloat, WhiteBIT, and Guardarian.
India expanded its anti-money laundering and counter-financing of terrorism framework in 2023, bringing VDA service providers in India under the ambit of FIU registration and PMLA obligations.
The PMLA mandates that companies registered as reporting entities with the Financial Intelligence Unit must report transactions and keep detailed records. These requirements are not contingent on whether the platform has a physical presence in the country. The agency stated in its press release,
“These obligations are activity-based, and are not contingent on the physical presence of the entity in India. The regulation casts reporting, record-keeping, and other obligations on the VDA SPs under the PMLA Act, which also includes registration with the FIU-IND.”
Prior Notices
Several cryptocurrency platforms have previously restricted operations in India for failing to comply with regulatory requirements. Bybit operations in India were temporarily restricted in January 2025. Access to Bybit services was fully restored once the platform completed its FIU registration. Coinbase, which suspended operations after failing to comply with regulatory requirements, returned to the Indian market after registering with the FIU, and Binance returned in 2024 after paying a $2.25 million penalty.
Investor Impact
The FIU and Ministry of Finance also cautioned against NFTs and other crypto products, stating they remain unregulated and carry substantial risk.
“There may be no regulatory recourse for any loss from such transactions.”
India’s Financial Intelligence Unit is responsible for monitoring suspicious financial transactions and reporting them to relevant agencies. Ankit Ghosh, Partner at King Stubb & Kasiva, Advocates and Attorneys, explained how crypto entities fell under the FIU, stating,
“FIU-IND has always looked at the activity rather than the place of incorporation, so an offshore exchange serving Indian users comes within the reporting framework wherever it is based. Alongside the Section-13 notice, FIU-IND directed that the apps and URLs be removed under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, and that directly affects user access.”
Cryptocurrency platform WazirX called the FIU’s compliance requirements critical for protecting users, stating,
“FIU-IND’s compliance standards are critical to protecting users and preventing the misuse of VDA platforms and illegal fund transfers. Measures like KYC, AML, geotagging, and liveness verification have made India’s VDA system safer over the years, and the same rules must apply to every platform serving Indian users, whether it operates from India or overseas.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as India’s Financial Intelligence Unit Issues Non-Compliance Notices To 15 Crypto Platforms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japanese Bitcoin treasury firm Metaplanet is facing renewed shareholder pressure after objections over its ongoing executive stock option pool, which is tied to how the company finances and expands its Bitcoin accumulation. Critics argue the mechanism has led to heavy dilution for existing shareholders as new shares are issued—while Metaplanet says it has taken steps to freeze part of the pool.
The dispute centers on Metaplanet’s “10th Series” executive option pool, structured to represent 20% of fully diluted shares and to automatically expand when additional shares are issued to fund its Bitcoin purchases. The backlash has now broadened from social media commentary to demands for clearer governance and compensation decisions.
Key takeaways
Shareholders are disputing the design of Metaplanet’s 10th Series executive option pool, arguing it mechanically increases dilution as the company issues new shares for Bitcoin buys.
Metaplanet says it froze the executive pool at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18, but critics say that still magnifies dilution because the pool expanded from 46 million shares.
Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended the incentive structure publicly, while some holders claim the awards benefited him personally.
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich said the company will review governance and compensation policies and clarified his relationship to shareholder MMXX Ventures.
VanEck’s Matthew Sigel urged further action, recommending Metaplanet freeze remaining exercise rights and consider a shareholder-approved replacement plan.
Shareholder backlash over the “10th Series” pool
Multiple Metaplanet shareholders have criticized the company’s 10th Series executive option pool on X, focusing on how it scales. The pool was described as being set at 20% of fully diluted shares, then expanding when Metaplanet issues additional shares to finance its Bitcoin accumulation.
According to Metaplanet’s own materials, the company acknowledged on Aug. 18 that expanding the share pool “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders.” While Metaplanet states it froze the pool at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18, critics argue the damage was already done—claiming the pool grew from 46 million shares to 319.5 million, effectively increasing the dilution experienced by earlier holders.
One pseudonymous shareholder account, Bitcoin Pharaoh, alleged that the stock-option structure created a situation where management participation disproportionately benefits the team relative to what shareholders contributed. In a Wednesday reply on X to David Bailey, Bitcoin Pharaoh summarized the argument as a “cut” that management takes from each unit of bitcoin financed by shareholder money, framing the mechanism as one that disadvantages existing holders.
David Bailey defends the incentive model
Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey pushed back against the criticism. In a Tuesday X post, Bailey defended Metaplanet’s executive stock model, arguing that granting the team 20% of the cap table over a multi-year period “isn’t some crazy number.” He also said his company has been invested in Metaplanet since “day zero,” positioning his comments as aligned with long-term support rather than short-term gain.
Bailey’s defense has not ended the debate. Bitcoin Pharaoh claimed Bailey personally benefited from Metaplanet’s stock options, stating Bailey received 300,000 options at a 105 Japanese yen strike price when the shares were trading at 510 yen, describing this as compensation tied to Bailey’s role as a strategic board advisor.
While Bailey’s public remarks focus on the reasonableness of the percentage allocation, the core disagreement remains practical: whether the pool’s automatic expansion tied to new share issuance creates dilution levels that shareholders consider excessive, and whether Metaplanet should have designed compensation that doesn’t scale in lockstep with funding mechanics.
Source: David Bailey (X)
Metaplanet CEO: governance review and MMXX clarification
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich responded to the wider controversy by indicating the company would reassess governance and compensation arrangements. In a Sunday X post, Gerovich said the firm is continuing to review governance and compensation policies and will share updates when the work is complete.
Gerovich also attempted to address questions tied to shareholder MMXX Ventures. In his post, he said he is a significant but non-majority shareholder in MMXX’s parent company and that he holds no executive role within it. The clarification appears intended to separate Metaplanet’s executive compensation decisions from any perceived influence by MMXX-related stakeholders.
On Aug. 31, Metaplanet disclosed that the CEO exercised 92,000 shares from the 10th Series executive option pool. That disclosure adds specificity to the discussion about how executives are participating in the incentive framework currently under scrutiny.
Source: Simon Gerovich (X)
VanEck’s Matthew Sigel urges freeze and shareholder-approved redesign
External analysts have joined the discussion, particularly around whether the executive option pool should continue to operate as designed. Matthew Sigel, head of digital asset research at VanEck, advised in a Wednesday X post that Metaplanet should “freeze” further exercise rights from the 10th Series pool. He also suggested holders voluntarily surrender any excess rights and weigh additional options related to shares already exercised.
Sigel further argued that Metaplanet should replace Series 10 with an incentive plan that is approved by shareholders and tied primarily to BTC performance on a per fully diluted share basis. The suggestion is a direct attempt to change the incentive structure from one that scales through dilution mechanics to one that is more directly anchored to outcomes shareholders choose to authorize.
Source: Matthew Sigel (X)
Metaplanet has already acknowledged the dilution impact of its pool-expansion decision in an Aug. 18 notice, and a separate question now hangs over the company: whether it will extend the freeze to remaining portions of the 10th Series option pool or restructure future incentives to address the concerns raised by shareholders. Cointelegraph reported that it requested comment from Metaplanet on whether it would consider freezing the remaining shares in the executive pool.
Stock reaction in Tokyo as the dispute continues
As the debate unfolds publicly, Metaplanet’s share performance has been mixed. According to Yahoo Finance, the company’s stock closed up in Wednesday’s Tokyo trading, reducing its five-day decline to roughly 16.3%. While price action does not settle the governance argument, it shows that the market is still actively repricing near-term sentiment while investors wait for any company response beyond the existing freeze and promised policy review.
Source: Yahoo Finance
For investors, the key uncertainty is what Metaplanet will do next with the remaining rights and whether it will move toward a shareholder-approved compensation redesign. The combination of a stated pause on the pool, promised governance review, and calls from both shareholders and external analysts sets up a clear watchpoint: whether compensation becomes more outcome-tied and less dilution-linked, and how Metaplanet demonstrates transparency around future decisions.
This article was originally published as Metaplanet Faces Shareholder Pushback Over Executive Stock Pool Plans on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMart has appointed Alvarez & Marsal as a financial adviser as part of its restructuring process, according to an announcement shared on Wednesday—despite previously signaling that a restructuring and business resumption roadmap was nearing completion by a self-imposed deadline of Sept. 9. The exchange did not publish the roadmap along with the appointment.
Alvarez & Marsal will work alongside BitMart’s legal advisers to assess the exchange’s assets, financial condition, stakeholder issues, and potential options for moving forward. The review will also consider proposals submitted by third parties, BitMart said on X.
Key takeaways
BitMart named Alvarez & Marsal as financial adviser, but did not release the promised restructuring and resumption roadmap alongside the appointment.
The appointed team will evaluate assets, financial position, stakeholder concerns, and alternative paths forward, including third-party proposals.
BitMart plans to launch a dedicated web portal within five working days to collect user feedback on its action plan and direction.
Echo Base’s CEO said the appointment is more consistent with restructuring proceedings than with a sale-focused advisory track.
Advisor appointment comes without the roadmap
BitMart said it reached Wednesday’s milestone as part of its own process, citing Sept. 9 as the deadline it had set for an update. However, the exchange’s announcement did not include the restructuring and business resumption roadmap it had stated it was developing.
Instead, the company framed the next steps around an assessment effort. Alvarez & Marsal will coordinate with legal advisers to evaluate what resources are available and what constraints exist—elements that can shape whether a recovery plan focuses on restructuring, asset disposition, or other resolution mechanisms.
BitMart also indicated that it is remaining open to outside inputs. It said the review will consider proposals from unidentified third parties, underscoring that the process may not be limited to internal plans.
What Alvarez & Marsal will evaluate
In its announcement on X, BitMart outlined the scope of Alvarez & Marsal’s involvement. The advisory review is expected to cover:
evaluation of BitMart’s assets
assessment of the exchange’s financial position
analysis of stakeholder issues
identification of possible paths forward
consideration of third-party proposals
For users and claimholders, the practical significance is that asset and financial assessments often determine what can realistically be recovered, how assets might be distributed, and which timelines can be credibly set. While the exchange has not published a recovery roadmap in connection with the adviser appointment, the work described suggests it is still in the phase where it is trying to validate the underlying facts needed to build one.
User feedback portal and rolling updates planned
BitMart said it will roll out a dedicated web portal within five working days to collect user feedback on its action plan and future direction. It added that updates on the feedback process and action plan would be provided on a rolling basis over the following three weeks.
This approach matters because restructuring and customer repayment processes can be highly sensitive to user needs and stakeholder expectations. By collecting feedback publicly, BitMart appears to be attempting to formalize input as it moves through its next planning phase—though the exchange did not specify how that feedback will translate into binding decisions.
Readers watching for clarity will likely focus on whether the rolling updates eventually include more concrete information about user timelines, withdrawal handling, and repayment mechanics—areas that have been under scrutiny since the company moved into wind-down mode.
Echo Base views the appointment as a restructuring signal
Echo Base, which has organized an ad hoc committee of BitMart claimholders, described the appointment as “the most encouraging step BitMart has taken since July.” In comments to Cointelegraph, Echo Base CEO Roshan Dharia said Alvarez & Marsal’s role appears consistent with restructuring practitioners rather than sale-oriented advisers.
Dharia said the involvement “signals a bankruptcy filing” in “most situations of this type.” In his view, the process has not yet produced the level of detail claimholders likely want; he characterized what was received as “an advisor appointment and two new deadlines,” without what he described as a “reserve position,” “asset inventory,” “recovery estimate,” or “withdrawal timetable.”
His framing highlights a core tension that has defined the BitMart situation: the company has communicated milestones, but claimholders and affected users have continued to push for clearer, verifiable information about asset availability and timelines for withdrawals or repayment.
Cointelegraph previously reported that BitMart faced scrutiny after it announced a wind-down on July 26, following reports of delayed withdrawals. Earlier coverage noted that the exchange’s handling of customer assets and its overall financial position were being closely questioned by users and stakeholders.
Neither BitMart nor Alvarez & Marsal responded to Cointelegraph’s requests for comment on this story.
What comes next for claimholders and users
Over the next few weeks, BitMart’s rolling updates and the feedback portal it plans to launch could be the first chance for users to see whether the adviser-led assessment translates into more specific deliverables—such as an asset inventory, clearer recovery estimates, and a more detailed withdrawal or repayment timetable. Until those materials appear, the scope of Alvarez & Marsal’s work may remain more procedural than actionable for affected customers.
This article was originally published as BitMart Misses Roadmap Deadline, Names Financial Advisor on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US authorities have moved to dismantle parts of Xinbi Guarantee’s ecosystem—seizing crypto assets linked to the alleged scam marketplace and coordinating criminal and sanctions action aimed at the communications and payment infrastructure behind large-scale fraud.
On Wednesday, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) said its Scam Center Strike Force seized two wallets used by Xinbi to collect vendor payments totaling about $12 million, with additional court-authorized restraints sought for 47 more wallets believed to be tied to money laundering across Xinbi’s network. Separately, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization and sanctioned technology providers SafeW Technology (Singapore) and Anwen Technology (Cambodia) over alleged support to the network.
Key takeaways
The DOJ action targeted both payment infrastructure (seized and restrained wallets) and the marketplace’s hosting channels, including Telegram infrastructure tied to vendors.
OFAC sanctions block Xinbi’s US-linked property and generally prohibit US persons from transacting with the designated entities.
Treasury says Xinbi shifted parts of its operations—particularly merchant and laundering workflows—toward SafeW’s encrypted messaging application after enforcement pressure increased.
Law enforcement is framing the case as an attempt to disrupt the broader “service layer” enabling industrial-scale scam operations, not just individual scammers.
TRM Labs policy head Ari Redbord argues Xinbi functioned as a large-scale “escrow and cash-out layer” in Southeast Asia’s scam markets following the fallout of earlier platforms.
Wallet seizures and expanded restraints in DOJ operation
The DOJ said that, based on a court order, its Scam Center Strike Force seized two wallets connected to Xinbi that were used to receive vendor payments. The agency also reported that it requested restraints against 47 additional wallets believed to be part of the platform’s money-laundering channels.
According to the unsealed warrant cited by the DOJ, the US District Court for the District of Columbia authorized the seizure of Telegram channels used to host and advertise the marketplace’s services on Sept. 7. The warrant describes vendors using those channels to promote money laundering services, custom scam-investment websites, and recruitment offerings tied to “scam compounds” in Southeast Asia.
This approach signals a shift in enforcement emphasis: rather than focusing solely on endpoint actors, prosecutors are targeting the operational plumbing—where scams recruit, where services are sold, and where funds move—helping make fraudulent networks more scalable.
Sanctions on Xinbi and technology providers
In a coordinated move, the US Treasury Department announced OFAC designations for Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization. Treasury also sanctioned SafeW Technology and Anwen Technology, alleging they provided technological and financial support to Xinbi.
Treasury’s statement ties specific roles to the alleged ecosystem. It said Xinbi began moving its merchant and money-laundering networks to SafeW’s encrypted messaging application around June 2025 as scrutiny intensified. Treasury also alleged that Anwen developed XinbiPay, also referred to as NewPay—a crypto wallet and payment application used by the marketplace.
The practical effect of OFAC sanctions is straightforward: they are intended to prevent Xinbi and the designated supporting entities from accessing US property and to restrict dealings by US persons. For compliance-focused businesses—exchanges, payment processors, service providers, and other crypto-facing firms—the designations increase the compliance burden by adding more counterparties and infrastructure to screening and risk controls.
Treasury further said Xinbi processed over $24 billion in crypto and fiat since around 2022, primarily through Southeast Asia, and that its platform has been used by North Korean hackers and entities associated with the sanctioned Prince Group. Treasury linked Xinbi’s activity to broader geopolitical threat dynamics, underscoring that the scam-marketplace model intersects with sanctioned actors rather than operating in isolation.
Why investigators are emphasizing escrow, communications, and “service layers”
US officials credited Tether with assisting in the investigation, suggesting that the inquiry involved tracing stablecoin-related flows or related compliance data as part of building the case.
The enforcement strategy also reflects a growing understanding of how industrial-scale scams operate. Large fraud networks often depend on a parallel “marketplace” that sells components: payment acceptance/escrow-like functions, tooling for converting funds into usable balances, hosting or distribution channels for recruitment and services, and templates for scam websites. By targeting wallets and Telegram hosting channels, authorities are aiming to choke both the money movement and the promotional layer that drives onboarding.
TRM Labs Global Head of Policy Ari Redbord, speaking to Cointelegraph, argued that Xinbi rose to fill a gap after Huione went down. He said Xinbi became the “go-to escrow and cash-out layer” for Southeast Asia’s scam compounds, describing it as operating “at industrial scale” and moving “more than USD 36 billion.”
That perspective matters for readers trying to interpret the enforcement: it suggests the problem is not simply a single marketplace operator, but a “layer” of services that can migrate and adapt when prior platforms are disrupted.
Sanctions momentum and what to watch next
The latest US designations come after earlier UK sanctions against Xinbi. Cointelegraph previously reported that the UK government imposed sanctions on March 26, freezing UK assets connected to Xinbi and barring the platform from the country’s financial, trade, and travel networks.
With both the DOJ and Treasury taking action now, market participants should expect more follow-on scrutiny across crypto rails commonly used by scam networks—especially wallet infrastructure and communication channels that facilitate vendor operations and fund routing. For compliance teams, the new designations on Xinbi and the technology providers named by OFAC will likely require immediate updates to screening processes and vendor risk assessments.
Readers should watch for additional court filings tied to the restrained wallets and for further public steps that connect Telegram channel seizures to downstream service providers. Equally important is whether new “escrow/cash-out” and encrypted messaging routes emerge to replace capabilities authorities targeted in this case.
This article was originally published as US DOJ Sanctions Xinbi Scam Platform, Freezes $52M in Crypto on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US authorities have moved to disrupt Xinbi Guarantee, a crypto-enabled scam marketplace, by seizing funds tied to the platform and sanctioning the organization and its technology providers. The Department of Justice (DOJ) said more than $52 million in cryptocurrency associated with Xinbi and its vendor network was restrained as part of a coordinated operation against the illicit operation.
In parallel, the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization and sanctioned SafeW Technology and Anwen Technology, alleging they supplied the infrastructure used to run the scheme. The actions target both the financial rails and the communications tools that help scam centers scale.
Key takeaways
The DOJ reported seizing two Xinbi-linked wallets used to collect vendor payments totaling about $12 million, plus seeking restraints on 47 additional wallets tied to money laundering.
US court authorization also covered Telegram channels used by Xinbi vendors to market laundering services, scam-related websites, and recruitment offerings.
OFAC sanctions block Xinbi’s access to US-based property and generally prohibit US persons from engaging with designated entities.
Treasury alleged Xinbi shifted parts of its messaging and payments stack to technology provided by SafeW and Anwen starting around June 2025 as enforcement pressure increased.
Xinbi has reportedly processed more than $24 billion in crypto and fiat since about 2022, largely routed through Southeast Asia.
DOJ seizes wallets and targets Xinbi’s vendor payments
According to the DOJ, its Scam Center Strike Force seized two cryptocurrency wallets associated with Xinbi that were used to collect payments from vendors. The wallets contained approximately $12 million.
Beyond the immediate seizures, prosecutors said a request for restraints extended to 47 additional wallets believed to be connected to money laundering across Xinbi’s broader network. The move reflects an approach aimed not only at identifying individual participants, but also at disrupting the payment flow that enables scam marketplaces to function.
The DOJ added that a US District Court in the District of Columbia authorized the seizure of Telegram channels hosting the marketplace on Sept. 7. Prosecutors say the unsealed warrant describes vendors using these channels to advertise money laundering services, custom scam-investment websites, and recruitment services for scam centers operating in Southeast Asia.
Importantly for market participants, the DOJ framed the operation as an attempt to dismantle the “financial and communications infrastructure” behind industrial-scale scam centers—an enforcement theme that has increasingly focused on platforms and intermediaries rather than only end operators.
Treasury sanctions Xinbi and alleged tech enablers
In the separate but coordinated Treasury action, OFAC designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization. The Treasury also sanctioned SafeW Technology and Anwen Technology, based on allegations that they provided technological and financial support to Xinbi.
Treasury stated that Xinbi moved portions of its merchant and money-laundering networks to SafeW’s encrypted messaging application around June 2025, describing the timing as occurring as law enforcement scrutiny intensified. Treasury also alleged Anwen developed XinbiPay—referred to as NewPay—a crypto wallet and payment application used by the marketplace.
For investors and compliance teams, these designations matter because they extend risk awareness beyond “scam tokens” or isolated wallet addresses. They highlight how enforcement can shift to the tools, services, and integrations that help illicit platforms operate at scale, including messaging layers and payment apps.
Reported crypto volume and links to other sanctioned groups
The Treasury said Xinbi has processed more than $24 billion in crypto and fiat since around 2022, with activity primarily involving Southeast Asia. The agency also stated that the platform has been used by North Korean hackers and entities connected to the sanctioned Prince Group.
OFAC explained that the sanctions block Xinbi’s US property and interests and generally prohibit US persons from transacting with designated entities. This can complicate any attempts to route funds through US touchpoints, even if the scam’s primary activity is overseas.
The DOJ also credited Tether with assisting in the investigation. While the details of that assistance were not expanded upon in the provided material, the attribution is notable given how stablecoin rails can be used in both legitimate and illicit activity contexts.
Escalating crackdown across the US and UK
This latest US action follows earlier steps by the United Kingdom. Cointelegraph previously reported that the UK imposed sanctions on Xinbi in a separate crackdown.
As described in the provided material, on March 26 the UK government sanctioned Xinbi with the goal of limiting the platform’s access to crypto. Under those sanctions, UK assets tied to Xinbi would be frozen, and the platform barred from the country’s financial, trade, and travel networks.
Taken together, the US and UK moves show how enforcement can tighten access across major jurisdictions. They also signal that regulators are increasingly willing to treat scam marketplaces as broader criminal enterprises with identifiable enabling infrastructure—communications channels, payment tools, and vendor services—rather than as isolated bad actors.
What to watch next
Law enforcement has now targeted both Xinbi’s wallets and the communications channels used to recruit vendors and promote laundering services. The next question for the industry is whether additional wallets tied to the remaining 47 restrained targets—and other infrastructure providers connected to SafeW, Anwen, or XinbiPay/NewPay—will be named or constrained as investigations mature.
This article was originally published as US Sanctions Xinbi Scam Site, Freezes $52M in Crypto Assets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.