Crypto Breaking

El Salvador marked five years since it made Bitcoin legal tender, but the legacy of the experiment is proving far more contested than the celebratory moment in 2021 suggested. President Nayib Bukele pitched the move as a fast track to financial inclusion, cheaper remittances, and more investment—yet new research and later policy changes indicate that everyday adoption never materialized on the scale promised.
According to Dr. Tobias Boos, a senior scientist at the University of Vienna who leads research into Bitcoin’s political economy in El Salvador, the project fell short when measured against Bukele’s stated goals. “There is little doubt that the project was a failure if we take seriously the reasons Bukele gave for its adoption,” Boos said, pointing to limited progress on foreign direct investment, banking access, and remittance use.
Key takeaways
Research led by Dr. Tobias Boos finds “mass adoption by citizens did not occur,” with adopters more likely to be young, male, urban, and already banked.
Despite Chivo’s launch and remittance-focused hopes, crypto wallets handled only a small share of remittance flows by 2024.
An IMF program culminating in 2025 approvals pushed El Salvador to reduce state involvement: acceptance became voluntary and public-sector use of Bitcoin was limited.
The most durable impact may have been symbolic—making nation-state Bitcoin adoption a real-world precedent—rather than transforming payments or financial inclusion domestically.
Promises of financial inclusion vs. who actually adopted
When Bukele announced the plan at Bitcoin 2021 in Miami on June 5, 2021, he framed adoption as a way to create jobs and deliver financial inclusion to people outside the formal economy. But five years on, evidence described in the research Boos co-authored suggests the adoption pattern did not match the inclusion narrative.
In a 2025 study, Boos and colleagues (Grigera and Schmid) reported that Salvadorans who adopted Bitcoin were disproportionately young, male, urban, and more highly educated—and importantly, “already banked.” Boos’ interpretation is blunt: “Mass adoption by citizens did not occur.”
The mismatch matters because El Salvador’s starting point was weak banking access. World Bank data cited in the reporting shows that in 2021, only 35.9% of people aged 15 and over held a bank account—one of the lowest levels in the region. In other words, if Bitcoin were to serve as a substitute for missing banking infrastructure, it would need to bridge gaps for people without accounts.
Yet the government’s Chivo wallet, while capable of transferring funds to bank accounts, did not remove the structural barriers preventing many unbanked Salvadorans from accessing the financial system in the first place. Boos and his colleagues describe this as the same core problem reappearing across the adoption story: even with incentives, the missing link was broader financial accessibility rather than the availability of a wallet app.
Remittances: where the “cheaper transfers” thesis didn’t stick
Bukele also sold Bitcoin adoption as a way to improve remittance economics. El Salvador’s economy is tightly linked to money sent from abroad: in 2024, remittances were reported to account for around 24% of GDP, with the United States providing 98% of the total. But the reporting highlights a key constraint—El Salvador has used the U.S. dollar for more than two decades—meaning the most obvious potential cost-saving from Bitcoin (bypassing currency conversion) was already largely neutralized.
That context helps explain why, even with a wave of early promotional activity, crypto wallets remained marginal in remittance flows. The cited research indicates that crypto accounted for barely 1% of remittances by 2024, down from a peak of about 1.7% in 2020–21.
Incentives also did not translate into durable usage. Chivo offered users $30 worth of Bitcoin for signing up, but an analysis described in the article by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that more than 60% of early Chivo users did not make another transaction after spending their free BTC. The reported pattern points to a “try it for the reward” adoption model rather than sustained payment behavior.
On the ground, Bitcoin-focused journalist Joe Nakamoto reported a similar disconnect. In a recent visit, Nakamoto claimed he tested Bitcoin acceptance at 21 shops in a San Salvador mall and found that only four accepted it, and just one did so smoothly. His characterization in the reporting is that living on Bitcoin is “borderline impossible” except in narrow, workaround-driven areas.
The IMF pivot: from legal tender to voluntary use
While public debates about Bitcoin adoption continued, international pressure eventually forced a policy recalibration. In December 2024, El Salvador agreed to a $1.4 billion financing arrangement with the International Monetary Fund, under which it would scale back its involvement in Bitcoin. The agreement was later approved in February 2025, and in January the government amended its Bitcoin law.
The changes described in the reporting included making acceptance voluntary, requiring taxes to be paid in U.S. dollars, and limiting public sector involvement in Bitcoin-related activities—effectively dismantling the most far-reaching parts of Bukele’s original approach. Put simply, Bitcoin could still be used, but the state would no longer compel businesses to accept it or embed it into the public financial system.
Boos says the outcome aligned with the IMF’s assessment. He described the initiative as “soft adoption” that never led to mass payments usage, noting in the reporting that he is not aware of tax payments made using Bitcoin and that supporting infrastructure largely remained unused. Separately, the IMF later found “no evidence” of a beneficial use case for the unbanked and characterized Bitcoin’s impact on financial inclusion as minimal.
For investors and builders watching adoption narratives, this shift is instructive: it shows that legal frameworks and state incentives alone are insufficient if day-to-day demand, payment rails, and integration into mainstream economic behavior do not follow.
What El Salvador did achieve: a precedent, not a universal payments system
Even if Bitcoin did not become everyday money across El Salvador, the experiment still delivered something unprecedented: it moved nation-state Bitcoin adoption from a theoretical concept into a real, live case study. Samson Mow, chief executive of Bitcoin infrastructure firm JAN3, framed the change as a shift in how governments think—turning the question from “whether a sovereign could hold Bitcoin” to “why it hadn’t.”
El Salvador also drew sustained attention from prominent figures in the Bitcoin ecosystem, effectively placing the country at the center of the movement’s public narrative. The reporting notes that Stacy Herbert, who later became a director of El Salvador’s National Bitcoin Office, exemplifies how deeply some parts of the Bitcoin community became intertwined with government structures.
At the same time, the article draws a distinction between what Bitcoin achieved for El Salvador and what El Salvador achieved for Bitcoin. Boos argues the symbolic significance was largely “for” the international Bitcoin community rather than evidence of economic success for Salvadorans. Nakamoto goes further, describing the overall strategy as closer to branding aimed at outsiders than an internally effective economic plan—“beautiful branding” directed at those with capital and passports.
There are also examples of localized, working ecosystems. Bitcoin Beach in El Zonte is cited as an early grassroots initiative that predates the national experiment and reportedly continues functioning even after acceptance became voluntary. The reporting similarly references individual stories of Salvadorans using Bitcoin in daily life, portraying the persistence of micro-economies even as national-scale goals faded.
Beyond legal tender, the Bukele government also promoted projects such as Volcano Bonds and Bitcoin City. However, the article states that repeated delays undermined their progress, and the IMF arrangement “kneecapped” those efforts—though it acknowledges that symbolic impact may still matter to how the episode is remembered globally.
The harder question: Bitcoin strategy under emergency politics
The experiment’s global meaning cannot be separated from the governance environment that made it possible. During Bukele’s time in office, power has been concentrated, and the state of emergency introduced in March 2022 to combat gang violence remains in place years later.
Human Rights Watch, according to the reporting, says the government has continued to remove checks on executive authority. The article also states that local and international human rights organizations have documented mass arbitrary detention and due process violations under the state of emergency.
At the same time, the reporting emphasizes that judging Bukele only through this lens may miss why he remains popular at home. It cites a sharp fall in the official homicide rate—from 53.1 per 100,000 during the year he took office to 1.3 per 100,000 in 2025—framing the crackdown as a visible public security transformation for many Salvadorans.
That tension feeds into the uncomfortable question for Bitcoiners: what does it mean when a philosophy about individual freedom is advanced through a government imposing policy at scale? Mow acknowledges the potential of emergency powers in the hands of a leader who shows restraint, while warning about how quickly those same mechanisms can be repurposed if leadership changes.
Ultimately, the five-year assessment presented in the reporting is split. Bitcoin gave Bukele global attention, and Bukele gave Bitcoin something it had not previously secured at that level: a nation-state willing to place the asset at the center of its economic strategy—even if the implementation did not deliver the promised outcomes for payments, remittances, or mass financial inclusion.
Going forward, readers should watch how El Salvador’s voluntary policy framework evolves—particularly whether Bitcoin usage remains confined to niche communities like Bitcoin Beach or finds more mainstream payment integration—while also tracking the ongoing human rights and institutional implications of emergency governance that shaped the experiment.
This article was originally published as El Salvador Marks 5 Years of Bitcoin Adoption, Cites Domestic Focus on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab is running a new experiment that tests whether stablecoins—and a notional digital British pound—could work together inside the same cross-border trade payment flow. The project is designed to show how payment and settlement could be connected to trade finance in a way that reduces the delays and cash-flow pressure that small and medium-sized businesses often face.
According to an announcement from the project participants, the trial involves NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs. In the setup, an exporter receives an advance through a stablecoin-based “rail,” while a UK importer completes settlement using simulated digital pounds—without using real customers or real money.
Key takeaways
The Digital Pound Lab experiment tests stablecoin rails alongside simulated digital pounds in a single cross-border trade settlement flow.
NOBO Finance, Dun & Bradstreet and Polygon Labs are collaborating, with Polygon providing smart contract infrastructure.
A second workstream focuses on generating reusable credit profiles for small businesses using transaction data and open-finance inputs.
The Bank of England has not committed to issuing a digital pound, and lab tests are not intended as signals of future policy.
How the trade finance pilot is meant to work
The core concept targets a structural problem in international trade: payment timing. When exporters ship goods before receiving full payment, they may have to wait days to be paid, tying up working capital. That delay can make trade finance harder to access—particularly for smaller firms that may lack established lines of credit.
In the lab’s proposed flow, the exporter receives an advance via a stablecoin pathway, while the importer performs settlement through simulated digital pounds. The pairing is intended to demonstrate how stablecoin-based payment mechanics could coexist with a central-bank-style settlement layer, at least in a controlled testing environment.
The experiment is also designed to be realistic in terms of participants’ roles: it is built around trade finance and settlement processes rather than a generic token transfer scenario. That distinction matters because trade finance depends on paperwork, counterparty assessment and timing—factors that can be difficult to model in simple demonstrations.
Building blocks beyond payments: credit profiles for SMEs
The project does not stop at moving value. It includes a separate workstream intended to improve how small businesses are assessed for credit, by creating reusable credit profiles.
As described in the announcement, that credit-profile effort combines transaction data, open-finance information and Dun & Bradstreet’s commercial risk data. Polygon Labs is contributing smart contract infrastructure for the overall system, which suggests the test may explore whether on-chain logic can help standardize or reuse parts of the credit assessment process rather than rebuilding them from scratch for every transaction.
For investors and builders, the value of this component is that trade finance bottlenecks are often caused by more than settlement latency. Information asymmetry and rigid underwriting cycles can restrict financing even when payment rails are upgraded. By aiming at “reusable” profiles, the project appears to target a way to shorten the time between data availability and a credit decision—though the outcomes of that part of the work are not yet detailed.
Why regulators and central banks are watching stablecoins and tokenized payments
The Bank of England’s experiment lands in the middle of broader regulatory and infrastructure work in the UK. The central bank and other regulators are preparing for stablecoins and tokenized assets, while also modernizing the plumbing behind traditional payment settlement.
Earlier this year, the Bank of England published draft rules for sterling-denominated stablecoins it considers systemic to the UK financial system. According to the central bank’s proposal referenced in the report, issuers could hold up to 70% of their reserves in interest-bearing government debt, and the framework introduces a temporary issuance cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.8 billion) for each systemic stablecoin.
The policy timeline included in the article points to potential finalization by the end of 2026, ahead of a planned 2027 rollout. Stablecoins deemed “systemic” would fall under the Bank of England’s regulatory regime, while non-systemic stablecoins would remain under the Financial Conduct Authority.
That split between systemic and non-systemic tokens is an important practical detail for market participants. It implies that not every stablecoin would be treated the same way, and that compliance requirements could vary depending on how widely a token is used and how much it matters to financial stability. For developers, it also suggests that designs and reserve structures may need to be aligned with which regulatory lane a token is likely to occupy.
The lab’s trade test is also tied to the UK’s wider push to upgrade settlement speed and flexibility. In May, the Bank of England proposed moving its RTGS and CHAPS systems toward near-24/7 operation, including weekend and extended daily hours—an effort framed as support for cross-border payments and evolving settlement models that could incorporate tokenization.
In July, the central bank also approved HSBC’s Orion platform to operate in the UK’s Digital Securities Sandbox. The article notes that Orion is expected to support digital bond issuance, including the country’s planned Digital Gilt Instrument. While that is separate from stablecoin rules, it reinforces the theme that UK authorities are testing tokenized approaches across multiple asset types, not only payments.
What the Digital Pound Lab trial does—and does not—indicate
Even as the experiment explores stablecoin rails and simulated digital pound settlement, the Bank of England is explicit that the Digital Pound Lab uses no real customers or money and that it has not committed to issuing a digital pound.
The central bank also cautions that participant-designed experiments in the lab should not be interpreted as indications of future policy or as endorsements of the companies or products involved. In practice, that means readers should treat the pilot as proof-of-concept work: useful for identifying technical and process challenges, but not a guarantee of a specific eventual product roadmap.
What to watch next is whether the project can demonstrate measurable improvements—such as reduced settlement delays, more efficient financing workflows, or faster credit assessment cycles—within its controlled environment. Since the announcement does not provide results or performance metrics yet, the most immediate signal will come from any follow-on reporting from the lab on what worked, what failed, and which regulatory assumptions were necessary for the trial design.
This article was originally published as Bank of England Trials Stablecoin and Digital Pound for Cross-Border Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FlightAware, the real-time aviation tracking company, moved quickly to end its lawsuit against prediction markets platform Kalshi—less than a week after the case was filed and one day after a court ordered Kalshi to explain why a temporary restraining order should not be issued.
According to a Tuesday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, FlightAware’s attorneys notified the court that they voluntarily dismissed the action against Kalshi. The original lawsuit, filed the day before, alleged Kalshi used FlightAware’s name and data to run markets tied to flight cancellations.
Key takeaways
FlightAware voluntarily dismissed its case against Kalshi in the Southern District of New York shortly after Kalshi was ordered to respond on restraining-order grounds.
Kalshi’s event contract language appears to have shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency,” including an added disclaimer meant to avoid implying affiliation.
The dismissal does not remove the broader legal pressure on prediction market operators facing challenges from U.S. states and regulators.
Federal-state jurisdiction fights remain central, with the CFTC citing “exclusive jurisdiction” positions in related matters involving Kalshi.
A rapid procedural reversal in federal court
In its Tuesday submission, FlightAware’s legal team stated that it had voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit against Kalshi. The notice was filed after Kalshi had been ordered by a judge to show cause as to why the court should not issue a temporary restraining order involving FlightAware’s trademark and data claims.
The timeline is notable for its speed: the dispute was initiated with FlightAware’s complaint alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to reputation, and unfair competition. Less than a day later, the case was withdrawn.
Although such abrupt turnarounds can sometimes indicate settlement discussions, neither FlightAware nor Kalshi had publicly commented on the litigation as of Wednesday, according to the reporting context provided in the source.
Contract language changed—from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency”
The lawsuit’s core allegation centered on Kalshi’s use of FlightAware branding and information to structure event markets related to flight cancellations. In at least one public-facing event contract, however, the wording appears to have been altered.
At minimum, the language describing the entity responsible for verifying outcomes shifted from “FlightAware” to “Primary Source Agency.” That same contract also included a disclaimer indicating that the market listing does not “indicate an endorsement of this product or any affiliation” between FlightAware and Kalshi. The “Primary Source Agency” label was linked to FlightAware’s website, aligning the verification reference with FlightAware while avoiding direct brand positioning.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to the companies for comment but did not receive an immediate response, leaving the reason for FlightAware’s dismissal unclear. What is clear for market participants is that these labeling and attribution details are not just branding choices—they can directly affect legal exposure when they imply relationships between data providers and market operators.
Prediction market legal pressure continues beyond this dispute
FlightAware’s withdrawal from the case comes amid an ongoing wave of litigation and regulatory conflict targeting prediction markets in the U.S. As outlined in the source material, Kalshi and other prediction platforms such as Polymarket have faced legal action from multiple U.S. state gaming authorities and regulators over alleged unlicensed or illicit sports betting offered to residents.
These cases have been shaped by a key tension: whether prediction markets fall under federal oversight—particularly the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—or instead are primarily governed by state gaming and gambling laws.
In a separate matter involving New York, the CFTC invoked what it described as “emergency authority” to block state officials from seeking a temporary restraining order that would have prohibited Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide. The move followed New York authorities filing suit in July, alleging that Kalshi was operating an unlicensed gambling platform through its contracts on sports and other events.
Federal vs. state jurisdiction remains the central battleground
The CFTC’s stance is tied to assertions made repeatedly by its chair, Michael Selig, that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. In the New York fight, that position was used to counter state efforts to impose a nationwide restraining order.
The source also points to a Michigan case with similar themes. In June, a Michigan judge ordered Kalshi to stop offering sports betting contracts to residents until the civil case concluded. The CFTC—again under Selig—then ordered Kalshi not to comply with the state ruling, according to the referenced reporting. Kalshi’s leadership, including its head of enforcement and legal counsel as described in the source, characterized the situation as creating an “impossible position” between competing state and federal orders.
While FlightAware and Kalshi’s dispute over trademark and data has been dropped, the surrounding environment for prediction market operators has not eased. Instead, the legal focus appears to be shifting toward the broader regulatory framework—who has the authority to regulate these markets, and under what legal definitions.
For users and investors watching prediction markets, the next key question is whether the industry’s ongoing compliance approach—especially around data attribution and product affiliation language—will reduce friction in future disputes, or whether the bigger federal-state jurisdiction conflict will continue to dominate outcomes regardless of how individual contracts are labeled.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Withdraws Kalshi Lawsuit One Day After Filing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Anchorpoint Financial, a Hong Kong-licensed stablecoin issuer, has named HashKey Exchange as an authorized distributor for its Hong Kong dollar stablecoin, HKDAP. The move is designed to broaden eligible institutions’ and professional investors’ access to the fiat-backed token as Hong Kong’s regulated stablecoin framework continues to roll out.
In a Tuesday announcement, the companies said the distribution arrangement is part of a beta phase. HashKey reported that it has already completed its first HKDAP minting and redemption cycle with eligible clients, including both fiat on-ramps and off-ramps. Anchorpoint and HashKey also indicated that they intend to expand distribution over time and assess additional applications for HKDAP, such as cross-border payments, settlement workflows, and tokenized finance.
Key takeaways
HashKey Exchange has been added as an authorized distributor for Anchorpoint’s HKDAP, expanding regulated access to the Hong Kong dollar stablecoin.
The rollout is in beta, with HashKey already completing an initial HKDAP minting and redemption transaction using eligible clients.
Anchorpoint plans to widen distribution and explore use cases beyond payments, including settlement and tokenized finance.
HKDAP is positioned as “HKD At Par,” aiming to act as tokenized money within Hong Kong’s licensed stablecoin market.
Why the HashKey distribution matters for Hong Kong’s regulated stablecoin rollout
Distribution partners are often the practical bridge between an issuer’s compliance setup and the end-user access that determines whether a regulated stablecoin can scale. By authorizing HashKey Exchange to distribute HKDAP during a beta phase, Anchorpoint is effectively widening the number of institutional and professional channels through which the token can be minted, redeemed, and used.
HashKey’s confirmation that it has already completed an initial minting and redemption transaction is notable because it signals that at least part of the operational rails are live—not just planned. The inclusion of fiat on- and off-ramping in that first cycle also points to a focus on converting between traditional currency and the tokenized asset in a way that can support real transaction flows.
The companies framed the arrangement as expandable over time. For market participants watching Hong Kong’s stablecoin regime, the next question is how quickly authorized distribution can broaden beyond the initial set of participants, and whether additional ecosystem services will integrate HKDAP for payments and settlement.
What HKDAP is, and Anchorpoint’s regulatory positioning
HKDAP—short for “HKD At Par”—is described as a regulated Hong Kong dollar stablecoin intended to function as tokenized money for payments and other financial transactions. Anchorpoint’s role as the issuer is anchored in Hong Kong’s licensing process: the company was among the first to receive a stablecoin issuer license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
Anchorpoint is a joint venture involving Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong), HKT, and Animoca Brands. According to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, the venture was established in April 2025. Cointelegraph previously reported on the earlier plans by Standard Chartered and Animoca Brands—together with HKT—to launch a Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoin.
As these licensing milestones are reached, the industry typically shifts from “permissioning” to “distribution and adoption.” In that sense, the HashKey beta rollout can be read as a step toward converting regulatory approval into day-to-day market usage.
Hong Kong dollar stablecoins could grow—if adoption data catches up
Hong Kong dollar-backed stablecoins may have the potential to become a meaningful segment of the broader stablecoin market, particularly given the city’s push for regulated issuance and supervision. A 2025 Citi report cited by the article’s underlying coverage estimated that stablecoin circulation in Hong Kong could reach $16 billion after the introduction of the local licensing regime.
Even so, observers face a data challenge. For now, US dollar-pegged tokens remain the clear majority of the global stablecoin market, while synthetic stablecoins are another smaller, emerging category. Reliable, public information on how much HKD-pegged supply exists and how widely it is used remains limited, making it difficult to judge where Hong Kong dollar stablecoins currently stand relative to that growth forecast.
Meanwhile, broader stablecoin activity has continued to intensify. The same underlying reporting points to Bernstein data showing that the combined adjusted transaction volume of USDC and USDt reached roughly $3.8 trillion in the first quarter of the year. While that figure does not measure HKDAP directly, it does underline that stablecoins remain central to large-scale on-chain transaction activity—creating a potentially supportive backdrop for new fiat-pegged entrants once distribution and liquidity deepen.
Next steps: broader access, more use cases, and what to monitor
Anchorpoint and HashKey said they plan to expand distribution over time and explore additional uses for HKDAP beyond basic minting and redemption. The proposed directions—cross-border payments, settlement, and tokenized finance—are closely tied to where tokenized currencies can deliver operational benefits, such as faster settlement cycles and programmable settlement for financial transactions.
For investors, traders, and institutional builders, the most actionable signals to watch will likely include how quickly distribution expands to more eligible counterparties, whether HKDAP liquidity improves across participating venues, and what concrete integrations emerge for payments and settlement. Just as important, market participants will want clearer visibility into HKDAP adoption over time—especially once Hong Kong dollar stablecoin activity becomes more measurable and comparable across issuers and channels.
As the beta phase progresses, the real test will be whether HKDAP can move from a licensed token concept into a consistently used fiat rail—one supported by distribution partners like HashKey and by credible, repeatable minting/redemption demand from regulated participants.
This article was originally published as HashKey Launches Beta Distribution for HKDAP Regulated Stablecoin in Hong Kong on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin traded softer around the Wall Street open on Wednesday as traders digested fresh US inflation data and reassessed how restrictive the Federal Reserve is likely to remain. Despite July CPI coming in line with expectations, BTC/USD slipped below $63,500, erasing earlier gains and bringing renewed attention to the $63,000 area.
Market focus is now shifting to Thursday’s Producer Price Index (PPI), with investors looking for clues on whether inflation momentum is truly cooling or merely pausing—especially after recent labor-market signals have already complicated the rate path debate.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD slid back below $63,500 after July CPI matched expectations, showing inflation “in line” did not automatically translate into bullish momentum.
CME Group’s FedWatch Tool indicates a higher probability that the Fed holds rates at the current 3.50%–3.75% range for September compared with a month ago.
Traders are warning that the $63,000 support zone may be weakening as bounces lose strength, increasing the risk of a cleaner breakdown.
Options pricing suggests traders are still paying for downside protection, and PPI is set to be the next catalyst for that view.
Overhead resistance around $65,000–$65,500 remains a recurring barrier, with recent price action failing to produce sustained daily closes above it.
Inflation matched expectations—yet Bitcoin weakened
TradingView data showed BTC/USD moving down below $63,500 after initially holding gains. The broader market reaction was relatively muted in equities, because the July CPI report landed essentially where economists expected.
According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) release, CPI increased 0.1% month-on-month and 3.4% year-on-year. The report also highlighted that the “shelter” component rose 0.1% in July and represented about two-thirds of the month’s all-items increase. Food prices edged up 0.1% overall, while the energy index declined 1.5% for the month.
While CPI did not repeat June’s downside surprise, the lack of a supportive reaction matters to crypto traders because it suggests the market is no longer searching for “good news” so much as it is looking for confirmation that the Fed is done tightening—or at least done tightening soon. In other words, a headline number that is merely “in line” may not be enough to shift risk appetite if traders remain focused on policy risk.
Rate expectations cooled, but traders are waiting for the next data point
Fabian Dori, CIO at Sygnum Bank, argued in emailed comments that CPI’s cooling effect—combined with weaker labor-market figures—could strengthen the case for the Fed to avoid additional rate hikes. He suggested this would be supportive for liquidity conditions that tend to benefit crypto and other risk assets.
Dori framed the near-term takeaway as a gradual cooling narrative without forcing markets into a recession scare or an abrupt “hawkish re-pricing.” He also pointed out that September rate odds should stay relatively stable if the macro mix does not deteriorate.
Consistent with that view, CME Group’s FedWatch Tool showed about 60% odds that the Fed would hold rates at its current 3.50%–3.75% range at the September meeting—up from 30% a month earlier. Investors typically watch this kind of shifting probability because it influences discount rates and risk appetite across assets, including crypto.
Still, traders are not fully comfortable treating CPI as a decisive turning point. Andrei Grachev, managing partner at DWF Labs, told Cointelegraph that an in-line CPI print doesn’t “resolve much” after the previous jobs report missed expectations. He also emphasized the state of the derivatives market: he said the Bitcoin options market was continuing to price a meaningful premium for downside protection into the end-August expiry.
Grachev added that Thursday’s PPI report would be the next check on whether that premium begins to fade—an important signal for whether traders see risk as moving toward normalization or remaining skewed to the downside.
Support at $63,000 under pressure as bounces weaken
Beyond macro, technical traders are focused on how price is behaving around the same key levels. Rekt Capital warned on X that each bounce from approximately $63,000 has been losing momentum, with the strength of the support appearing to progressively fade.
His commentary included a sequence indicating that the “support” effects on rebounds had diminished over time—culminating in what he described as support that had thinned to roughly 1.15% “thus far.” He cautioned that once rebounds become too weak, the market may stop defending the floor.
“At some point the bounces will become so weak that the floor will simply break.”
Rekt Capital also referenced earlier analysis that Bitcoin bear-market history may be repeating as the 50-month exponential moving average (EMA), currently around $65,827, acts as resistance rather than support.
That resistance picture is echoed by Bitfinex Alpha, the research arm of exchange Bitfinex. In an update published Wednesday, it said equities set all-time highs over the prior two weeks while Bitcoin continued to struggle with a consistent barrier in the $65,000–$65,500 zone. The research noted that from early August through that period, the market printed daily highs above $65,000 multiple times, but failed to record a daily close above that level since late July.
What to watch next: PPI and whether protection costs ease
With CPI already “in line,” the market’s next move is likely to depend less on whether inflation prints look merely acceptable and more on whether they confirm a sustained trend—something PPI could clarify. For traders, the key questions are whether Bitcoin can stabilize above $63,000 or whether weakening bounces turn into a more decisive break, and whether options pricing starts to show reduced demand for downside protection as expectations evolve.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Targets $63K as Softer US CPI Lifts Sept Fed Pause Odds to 60% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Prediction market infrastructure is getting a more institutional-style upgrade. Kalshi says its live order book for event contracts is now available through data provider DoubleZero Edge’s dedicated fiber network, allowing subscribers to consume real-time market depth in a machine-readable form.
The companies announced on Wednesday that the arrangement will be the first of its kind for a prediction market supplying its real-time order book data on sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts through that dedicated distribution channel. Instead of assembling market data from order books and API responses, users can subscribe to a purpose-built feed designed to reduce the engineering effort required to integrate prediction-market liquidity.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s real-time order book for sports and crypto perpetuals event contracts is now distributed via DoubleZero Edge’s dedicated fiber network.
DoubleZero Edge positions the feed as a turnkey, machine-readable alternative to building infrastructure using raw order books and API responses.
Sports is Kalshi’s second-largest category by weekly notional volume, with crypto in third place, according to Dune data.
The move comes as Kalshi remains embroiled in ongoing US jurisdiction disputes over whether its sports event contracts are regulated as derivatives or treated as wagers.
Dedicated fiber distribution for prediction-market order books
At the center of the announcement is how market data is delivered. DoubleZero Edge provides a dedicated fiber network and a corresponding data feed, which the companies say will stream Kalshi’s live order book information for relevant contracts.
From a user perspective, that matters because prediction markets often require low-latency, structured data pipelines to support faster market analysis, algorithmic trading strategies, and more reliable execution. The companies’ messaging emphasizes that data access is a “critical part” of market structure, and they argue that the broader ecosystem has lacked similar distribution-grade infrastructure as crypto, perpetuals, and prediction markets have expanded.
DoubleZero co-founder Austin Federa framed the initiative as bringing “institutional-grade infrastructure” to industry participants. In practical terms, the pitch is less about changing the underlying contracts and more about improving how market participants can ingest and process market depth at scale.
Where Kalshi’s volume sits across sports, crypto, and exotics
The announcement also highlights Kalshi’s product mix. According to Dune data shared in the original coverage, exotics lead Kalshi’s weekly notional trading volume at 39.4%, followed by sports at 37.8%. Crypto ranks third at 20.3% in the same weekly notional-volume breakdown.
Sports being the second-largest category helps explain why the order book distribution focus includes sports event contracts. It also signals that demand for structured, low-latency access isn’t limited to crypto-linked products; it spans the broader set of markets Kalshi operates.
These percentages are based on weekly notional volume and are attributed to Dune via a referenced query on its platform. (See: Dune data.)
Regulatory pressure remains: sports contracts and competing jurisdiction claims
The new data distribution capability lands in the middle of a regulatory fight that has been escalating for months. Kalshi’s sports event contracts have become the subject of a jurisdictional dispute involving state regulators and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
State authorities have argued that Kalshi’s sports contracts amount to wagers and should therefore fall under state gambling laws. Kalshi and the CFTC counter that the contracts are derivatives, placing them under the CFTC’s exclusive authority.
Legal actions cited in the reporting illustrate how unsettled the status remains. In late June, a Michigan judge temporarily blocked Kalshi from allowing residents to place bets on sporting events. Around the same time, Kentucky filed suit against multiple prediction market platforms—including Kalshi and Polymarket—alleging they operate unlicensed sports betting services.
Nevada also issued a temporary ban on Kalshi earlier in March, according to the same reporting. Meanwhile, the CFTC has taken the opposite tack by suing several states. The agency’s argument, as described in earlier coverage, is that federally regulated event contracts fall under its exclusive jurisdiction.
For market participants, these disputes are more than legal background—they can affect where contracts are accessible and under what compliance frameworks traders can operate. Even as the infrastructure for order book delivery improves, the ability to participate may still depend on jurisdiction-specific rulings and enforcement outcomes.
Broader visibility for Kalshi markets
The story also connects Kalshi’s markets to broader consumer-facing visibility. Earlier in July, OpenAI began displaying Kalshi’s prediction market odds for FIFA World Cup matches in ChatGPT search results, according to prior coverage.
This kind of display can increase public awareness of event markets and may expand the audience beyond traditional traders and developers. However, it also underlines that prediction markets are increasingly part of mainstream information flows—an environment where legal clarity becomes even more important.
What to watch next
Kalshi and DoubleZero Edge’s dedicated fiber feed could make it easier for institutions and serious builders to integrate prediction-market order books without custom plumbing, but the larger question for users is whether contract access will remain stable as courts and regulators continue to argue over jurisdiction. Watch upcoming rulings and any further adjustments to where and how sports event contracts can be offered.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Adds Sports and Crypto Perps Data Feed to DoubleZero on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A coalition of crypto companies and industry groups has asked frontier artificial intelligence (AI) labs to provide Bitcoin developers and other open-source “defenders” early access to their most capable models. The request comes in a letter published Monday by the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), arguing that current access arrangements can leave critical infrastructure teams operating behind the pace of rapidly advancing AI-assisted cyber capabilities.
In the letter, signatories say many defenders—including Bitcoin Core developers—can be limited by the absence of dedicated “trusted-access programs” and by guardrails applied to publicly available frontier systems. As a result, they contend that qualified teams may be forced to rely on less capable open-weight models, even as attackers may use more powerful AI tooling to probe for weaknesses.
Key takeaways
The Bitcoin Policy Institute letter calls for “standing trusted-access programs” so open-source financial infrastructure defenders can use top-tier frontier AI before widespread public release.
Signatories argue that guardrails and limited access to advanced models can hinder security research and response for Bitcoin and broader crypto systems.
The letter links the push to the rising scale of AI-enabled vulnerability discovery and threats, citing multiple reports from open-source maintainers.
Industry data referenced in the letter points to a sharp jump in monthly crypto hacks, with April 2026 losses exceeding $634 million.
The coalition includes major ecosystem participants such as Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.
Why the letter centers on “trusted access”
The BPI says the economics of security research and cyber operations are shifting as frontier AI models become more capable. According to the letter, advanced systems can search large codebases, surface potential weaknesses, and compress timelines for complex technical work—benefits that apply not only to attackers, but also to defenders responsible for maintaining open-source financial infrastructure.
Without early, dedicated access programs, the letter warns that defenders may struggle to keep pace with evolving threats. It also argues that cyber incidents exploiting open-source vulnerabilities can translate directly into real-world harm, including the risk of losing “life savings,” given how widely open-source software underpins digital finance.
To address this asymmetry, the letter asks frontier AI labs to “establish or expand standing trusted-access programs” for qualified open-source defenders. The focus is less on broad public access and more on structured access channels for teams charged with safeguarding infrastructure.
What data and security commentary are used to support the case
The letter points to recent increases in hack activity across the sector. It cites DefiLlama data showing that total monthly crypto hacks surged in April 2026, with malicious actors stealing more than $634 million from cryptocurrency platforms—described as the highest monthly total since the Bybit hack. That earlier incident, the letter notes, contributed to losses of roughly $1.4 billion in February 2025, again according to DefiLlama.
In addition to incident volume, the letter frames AI as a force multiplier for vulnerability discovery. It references concerns raised across the crypto security industry as newer AI systems make it easier to automate parts of the probing and exploit development cycle.
Earlier coverage cited within the letter highlights comments from Mitchell Amador, CEO of bug bounty platform Immunefi, who characterized the moment as a “vulnerability apocalypse” in relation to developments in AI-assisted research. The letter also mentions the emergence of newer frontier models—described in the article as Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5—as part of the broader shift raising security stakes.
Who signed the request
The open letter is co-signed by a broad cross-section of the crypto industry, signaling that the concern is not confined to one segment of infrastructure. Alongside the Bitcoin Policy Institute, the signatories include organizations such as the African Bitcoin Institute, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Bull Bitcoin, MARA, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.
By bringing together companies spanning custody, exchanges, analytics, wallet infrastructure, and Bitcoin-focused organizations, the letter underscores the “system-wide” nature of the risk it describes: open-source code and shared software dependencies can affect multiple products, operators, and user bases at once.
Implications for Bitcoin developers and the broader security community
If frontier AI labs establish or expand trusted-access programs as requested, the most immediate practical impact would be on the speed and effectiveness of defensive work around open-source financial infrastructure. In the letter’s framing, having early access to capable models could improve how maintainers audit code, identify potential weaknesses, and respond to new exploit techniques.
The request also highlights a tension that many in security research recognize: attackers may benefit from advanced tools faster than defenders can. By arguing that public guardrails and limited availability of powerful models can block legitimate defense work, the letter effectively calls for a policy-like solution—one that treats certain defenders as authorized users of frontier capabilities.
At the same time, it remains unclear what “standing trusted-access programs” would look like in practice, including how labs would vet applicants, what models would be shared, and how output would be handled. The letter is a policy request rather than a technical specification, so builders and investors should watch for follow-up actions that clarify implementation details.
For now, the key signal is the coalition’s insistence that time-to-defense matters as AI capabilities scale—especially as hack activity remains elevated and AI-assisted vulnerability discovery accelerates. The next phase will likely involve whether frontier AI labs respond, and whether any program structures emerge that could help Bitcoin and other open-source maintainers close the gap between defensive capacity and adversarial capability.
This article was originally published as Crypto Firms Ask AI Companies for Early Access to Bitcoin Devs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance and stablecoin payments card issuer RedotPay are trading competing narratives over whether a Singapore legal case tied to their wider dispute is set to end after a hearing on Aug. 7. RedotPay says it expects Binance to discontinue the proceedings, while Binance insists it is not withdrawing its claims.
The disagreement is the latest turn in a broader legal battle involving Binance-affiliated entities and RedotPay, which also includes a separate Hong Kong lawsuit seeking close to $473 million in damages.
Key takeaways
RedotPay expects Binance to discontinue a Singapore case after an Aug. 7 hearing and plans to pursue legal costs.
Binance says reports about it withdrawing Singapore claims are false and that it is continuing to press its case.
The Singapore dispute sits within a larger conflict that includes a Hong Kong lawsuit alleging diversion of Binance Card users.
The cases hinge on the terms of the Binance Pay–RedotPay relationship and whether card funding was used outside agreement scope.
Dispute over whether Singapore proceedings will be dropped
In comments to Cointelegraph on Tuesday, a spokesperson for RedotPay said the company expects Binance to discontinue the Singapore proceedings following the Aug. 7 hearing. RedotPay added that it would “be seeking legal costs arising from the discontinuance of the matter from the claimant,” while the parties would attempt to agree on costs.
Binance, however, rejected that characterization. A Binance spokesperson told Cointelegraph: “Reports that Binance will be withdrawing its Singapore claims are false.” The spokesperson added that Binance has not abandoned its claims and said it has informed both the court and RedotPay accordingly.
For market participants tracking crypto-related litigation, the immediate practical implication is uncertainty over process and timelines. Even if a party seeks to end one track of litigation, the question of who bears legal costs—and whether claims persist in the background—can affect strategy and leverage in the parallel Hong Kong matter.
How the legal fight expanded to multiple jurisdictions
According to earlier reporting by Bloomberg on Aug. 5, Binance-affiliated plaintiffs brought proceedings connected to the RedotPay business in Hong Kong. Bloomberg reported that Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore filed a petition in Hong Kong involving RedotPay co-founders.
Cointelegraph previously detailed the core allegations as well: the Hong Kong plaintiffs claim RedotPay diverted more than 470,000 Binance Card users by allowing Binance Pay funds to be used for stablecoin card top-ups outside the terms of a commercial agreement. They put their estimated damages at $472.8 million, based on a claimed lifetime customer value of $925 per user.
In parallel, Chaintecs brought related proceedings against RedotPay affiliates in Singapore, where a hearing was scheduled for Aug. 7. The existence of a Singapore hearing indicates the dispute has been actively litigated rather than merely threatened, which makes the latest exchange between the parties—over discontinuance versus continuation—material for observers.
What RedotPay says it was doing—and what Binance says it violates
RedotPay has denied what it described as “unfounded allegations” made against the company and its co-founders. In its communications to Cointelegraph, the company said it would defend the claims through the legal process.
The commercial relationship at the center of the litigation began in December 2023, when RedotPay announced its Binance Pay partnership. Under that arrangement, Binance Pay users could make direct deposits to RedotPay cards.
Binance later ended support for the integration as of April 3, 2026, citing a review of merchant partners. That withdrawal occurred months before the legal fight became widely public, suggesting the dispute has continued to develop independently of whether the integration was still active.
Crucially, the competing positions are not simply about whether RedotPay could provide card top-ups, but whether the use of Binance Pay funds fell within (or outside) what the parties agreed. The way courts interpret “terms of a commercial agreement” is often determinative in crypto platform and fintech disputes, particularly where multiple payment rails, intermediaries, or tokenized balances are involved.
What to watch after the Aug. 7 hearing
While RedotPay says it expects Binance to discontinue the Singapore proceedings, Binance’s spokesperson says the company is not abandoning its claims. The discrepancy means the next filings and court actions will matter more than either side’s statements in the short term.
If the Singapore case is indeed discontinued, RedotPay’s intention to pursue legal costs could become a focal point—especially if Binance contests costs or argues that discontinuance does not reflect wrongdoing. If Binance instead continues to litigate, it could signal that the company intends to maintain pressure on RedotPay in multiple venues simultaneously.
Either way, readers should pay close attention to how the Singapore track evolves alongside the Hong Kong case seeking nearly $473 million. With both proceedings tied to alleged user diversion connected to the Binance Pay–RedotPay setup, developments in one jurisdiction can influence negotiation posture in the other, even if legal standards and procedures differ.
For now, the main unknown is whether Binance’s position will translate into continued court steps in Singapore or whether RedotPay’s expected discontinuance plays out in formal filings—an outcome that will also shape the parties’ leverage and cost exposure across the wider $473 million dispute.
This article was originally published as RedotPay and Binance Spar Over Singapore Lawsuit in $473M Dispute on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee has flagged high inflation as a major challenge for the US. Inflation remains well above the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.
The Fed held interest rates steady in July. However, three officials dissented and backed a 25-basis point rate hike.
Inflation Is The Biggest Problem
Goolsbee stated during an interview with Wired that rising prices are the biggest problem confronting the US, calling them more damaging than current labor-market conditions.
“The biggest problem facing our economy right now is not the collapse of industry and the collapse of jobs; it’s that the prices have been rising too fast. We have an inflation problem, and people hate inflation.”
Goolsbee also discussed employment and called the labor market “stable without being good,” highlighting the unemployment rate, hiring, and layoffs as key factors behind his reasoning. The Chicago Fed Chair suggested that market conditions have weakened but do not require the Federal Reserve’s immediate attention.
Inflation has remained higher than the Fed’s 2% target despite lower month-on-month price increases. June Consumer Price Index (CPI) fell 0.4%, while annual inflation dropped from 4.2% to 3.5%. Core CPI, which omits food and energy, remained unchanged in June but increased 2.6% from the previous year.
However, Goolsbee has not indicated whether he would support a rate hike at September’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. While the Chicago Fed President is not voting on monetary policy, his observations could fuel an ongoing debate around rate hikes among regional Fed Chairs.
Policymakers Divided Over Rate Hike
Policymakers are deeply divided over interest rate hikes. The Federal Reserve left interest rates unchanged following the July FOMC meeting, with Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari, and Lorie Logan dissenting in favor of a 25-basis point increase. Kashkari, the Minneapolis Fed President, urged the Fed to raise interest rates as high inflation, combined with the ongoing US-Iran conflict, has complicated the policy outlook. He added that the uncertainty prevents the Federal Reserve from issuing firm guidance or promising rate cuts.
Kashkari also warned that high oil prices could impact American households and businesses, adding that there was no certainty about when shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz would return to normalcy.
St. Louis Federal Reserve President Alberto Musalem also supported a rate hike, arguing for pre-emptive measures before inflation pushes even higher. However, he did not cast a dissenting vote. San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly supported the Fed’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged, stating that more evidence was needed to determine if the increase was temporary or permanent.
Markets Look For Clues
The big question in the market is “will the Fed raise interest rates or leave them unchanged?” According to CME FedWatch, the odds are almost equal. Stubborn inflation and volatile job data have raised market uncertainty ahead of this week’s inflation report. Wednesday’s Consumer Price Report will give market watchers guidance on whether inflation is cooling. Traders expect higher interest rates by the end of the year thanks to US-Iran tensions. However, they are unsure when the Fed may raise rates.
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 Chicago Fed President Flags Inflation Concerns, Rate Hike On The Cards on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s mining economics are looking increasingly subsidy-driven as transaction fees sink to levels last seen in the late stages of the decade. At the same time, multiple analysts point to a shift in miner strategy toward AI and high-performance computing (AI/HPC), coinciding with a noticeable decline in network hash rate.
Onchain analytics and mining cost estimates show fees make up just 0.69% of miner revenue, while the broader pressure on margins continues as Bitcoin’s price weakens and electricity costs remain a critical factor for operators. The resulting question for investors is whether miners’ AI pivot will stabilize long-term operations—or introduce new volatility to the network’s security parameters.
Key takeaways
Glassnode data indicates Bitcoin fees are contributing only 0.69% of miner revenue, returning close to decade-low territory.
Fees were reported as low as 0.52% in April, leaving miners more dependent on the fixed block subsidy.
Checkonchain estimates show hash rate fell about 33% from an October 2025 peak of 1.3 ZH/s to 861 EH/s.
Analysts argue the industry’s shift toward AI/HPC has contributed to reduced mining activity as difficulty adjustments evolve.
Estimated mining production costs remain above current spot price, intensifying profitability pressure for marginal operators.
Fees fade as miner reliance on subsidies grows
According to Glassnode, transaction fees now represent just 0.69% of miner revenue—near the lowest levels seen in years. Glassnode co-founder Rafael Schultze-Kraft previously highlighted that fees had stayed below 1% of miner revenue for almost a year, with the share falling to 0.52% in April.
In a post on X, Schultze-Kraft said that “Bitcoin was below $400 the last time fee share was this low.” While that comparison is meant to contextualize the current environment, the practical impact is straightforward: when fee revenue collapses, miners lean more heavily on the block subsidy to cover operating expenses.
That matters because the subsidy is fixed in BTC terms—currently 3.125 BTC per block—but its value in US dollars depends on Bitcoin’s price. The article notes Bitcoin has fallen nearly 50% since its October 2025 all-time high, which would reduce the USD value of each subsidy payment and squeeze margins unless operational costs fall or fee rates rebound.
Cost pressure stays high: production estimates outpace spot
The mining picture is also constrained by profitability math. Checkonchain’s mining analytics put the estimated average cost to produce one Bitcoin at $78,254 as of Tuesday—about 23% above the current spot price referenced in the source.
Even if these are “estimated” costs rather than audited figures for every operator, the direction is what counts for the market: when production costs exceed spot value, miners are incentivized to either optimize aggressively, consolidate, or exit. That dynamic tends to hit smaller players first, potentially concentrating hash rate among operators with more capital flexibility and better power procurement.
Investors should also consider that production costs are influenced by variables outside the chain itself, especially electricity prices and hardware efficiency. In periods where fees remain weak, any non-chain cost increase can accelerate the churn in mining capacity.
Hash rate drops 33% since October 2025 peak
Network security metrics reflect the mining sector’s changing behavior. Checkonchain estimates hash rate declined from a peak of about 1.3 ZH/s in October 2025 to roughly 861 EH/s, a drop of 33%.
Hash rate is an important indicator not because it alone determines security, but because sustained decreases can signal reduced competitive participation. If the network’s mining base becomes less active, difficulty and mining economics may adjust over time—but the transition itself can be disruptive for operators and for the incentives that sustain long-run security.
Analysts warn AI/HPC pivot could be a concerning shift
Beyond the numbers, several analysts argue the decline in hash rate is linked to a strategic redeployment of compute resources. Independent analyst William Clemente, in an analysis published at the weekend and shared on X, acknowledged the downturn while arguing that automated difficulty readjustments would have offered a window for miners to increase activity. With difficulty reported as rising again, he suggested that miners’ move toward “more lucrative AI computing” has become more visible.
“There is no other way to slice it, hash rate has been in a decline,” Clemente wrote, pointing to margin compression after 2022 and higher energy prices, but also emphasizing a pivot by “many into AI/HPC.” He characterized these AI-related moves as “prudent business decisions” for publicly traded companies that pursued them.
The broader claim is not simply that miners are diversifying; it’s that the timing and direction of the shift could reduce mining participation during a period when fees are already contributing less than 1% of revenue. In an environment where the subsidy is already under pressure from Bitcoin’s price drawdown, a reduction in mining activity could widen the gap between operational realities and long-term security assumptions.
Cointelegraph previously reported that CleanSpark refocused on AI, shifting toward operating data centers after missing profit targets. Another example cited in the source is Keel Infrastructure, which shut down all US mining operations after revenue fell 50% in the second quarter. These cases support Clemente’s argument that operators facing weaker mining profitability may look to alternative compute markets.
Charles Edwards of Capriole Investments also linked hash rate declines to miners’ AI pivot, describing it as a “concerning Bitcoin development in 2026” and noting acceleration since April.
What to watch next as incentives keep shifting
With fee revenue near decade-low levels and estimated mining costs exceeding spot value, the next signal will be whether hash rate stabilizes as difficulty adjusts—or whether additional miners continue reallocating capital toward AI/HPC. Investors may also want to monitor how quickly fee share recovers, since sustained low fees increase the network’s dependence on the subsidy at exactly the moment when operators appear to be changing how they deploy compute.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Miners Hit 10-Year Low as Fee Revenue Falls Below 0.7% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance-linked entities and stablecoin payments card provider RedotPay are sparring over whether a Singapore legal case tied to their wider Hong Kong dispute is winding down after a hearing held on Aug. 7.
RedotPay told Cointelegraph that it expects Binance to discontinue the Singapore proceedings following that hearing and said it will seek legal costs if the claimant withdraws. Binance, however, pushed back, telling Cointelegraph that reports claiming it is withdrawing its Singapore claims are false and that it is continuing to pursue its case.
Key takeaways
RedotPay expects Binance-linked parties to discontinue the Singapore proceedings after an Aug. 7 hearing.
Binance says it is not abandoning its Singapore claims and has notified the court and RedotPay accordingly.
The Singapore dispute is part of a broader, parallel legal battle that includes a Hong Kong case seeking nearly $473 million.
The parties’ next steps will likely hinge on whether the Singapore case is formally withdrawn and how costs are handled.
Dispute over whether the Singapore case is ending
The disagreement is the latest turn in a cross-jurisdiction fight that has already drawn attention for its size. According to a RedotPay spokesperson, RedotPay expects Binance to stop the Singapore proceedings after the Aug. 7 hearing. In that scenario, RedotPay said it would request legal costs stemming from the discontinuance and that the parties would attempt to reach an agreement on those costs.
Binance’s response is direct. In comments to Cointelegraph, a Binance spokesperson said the claim that Binance would withdraw its Singapore case is incorrect. Binance stated that it is “not abandoning its claims” and that it has informed both the court and RedotPay of its position.
While both sides reference the same Aug. 7 hearing, their public descriptions of what follows diverge—one side treating discontinuance as the likely outcome, the other insisting the case remains active. For market participants, this matters because procedural developments can affect timelines, litigation exposure, and leverage in related negotiations, particularly when disputes are running simultaneously across regions.
Hong Kong lawsuit seeks nearly $473 million in damages
The Singapore action forms part of a broader legal fight between Binance-affiliated entities and RedotPay, including a separate case in Hong Kong. Earlier coverage from Bloomberg, as cited by Cointelegraph, reported that Nest Trading, DistributedTechnologies and Chaintecs Consulting Singapore had filed a petition in Hong Kong against RedotPay’s co-founders.
The Hong Kong plaintiffs allege that RedotPay diverted more than 470,000 Binance Card users. Their core claim is that RedotPay allowed Binance Pay funds to be used for stablecoin card top-ups outside the terms of a commercial agreement. Damages were estimated at $472.8 million, based on a claimed lifetime customer value of $925 per user.
In parallel, Chaintecs pursued related proceedings against RedotPay affiliates in Singapore, where a hearing had been scheduled for Aug. 7—prompting the current exchange about discontinuance and costs.
RedotPay has rejected the allegations. It told Cointelegraph it would defend itself through the legal process, characterizing the claims as “unfounded allegations” at the time they first surfaced.
What the Binance Pay and RedotPay partnership enabled
RedotPay and Binance’s connection in this dispute traces back to their partnership announced in December 2023. RedotPay said at the time that it had established Binance Pay functionality, allowing Binance Pay users to make direct deposits to RedotPay cards.
Binance later ended support for the integration. RedotPay told Cointelegraph that Binance discontinued the Binance Pay support as of April 3, 2026, citing a review of its merchant partners. That operational change occurred months before the legal controversy gained mainstream attention.
In disputes like these, contract implementation details and timing often become pivotal. The plaintiffs’ theory in the Hong Kong matter centers on whether RedotPay used Binance Pay funds in a way allegedly inconsistent with the commercial agreement. The fact that Binance later ended the integration after reviewing merchant partners adds another dimension, even though it does not, on its own, resolve the underlying contention over what was permitted during the partnership period.
Why the Singapore procedural fight matters
Even without a final decision on the merits, the question of whether the Singapore proceedings continue—or are discontinued—can influence how both sides manage risk and strategy across the broader dispute. If Binance were to discontinue in Singapore, RedotPay’s statement suggests it would treat the matter as a cost event that could become a negotiation point between the parties.
Binance’s statement, on the other hand, signals that it does not view the Singapore claim as concluded. That stance implies further litigation steps may follow, at least unless the court records and filings later reflect a withdrawal.
Until the Singapore case’s status is clarified through court action, filings, or formal orders, the public accounts remain in tension: RedotPay expects a discontinuance and costs discussion, while Binance says it has no plans to withdraw its claims.
Readers should watch for official court documentation in Singapore after the Aug. 7 hearing—particularly any formal discontinuance order or cost determination—and for whether the procedural posture there shifts the momentum in the parallel Hong Kong damages case.
This article was originally published as Binance and RedotPay Fight Over Singapore Lawsuit Outcome on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A coalition of crypto firms and industry groups has urged frontier artificial intelligence labs to grant Bitcoin developers and other open-source defenders early, trusted access to their most capable models. The call comes in a letter published Monday by the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), arguing that public access and “guardrails” on top-tier systems can leave key maintainers reliant on less capable alternatives.
In the letter, BPI and the signatories say many people responsible for maintaining critical digital infrastructure—including Bitcoin Core developers—may not have the ability to run high-end AI tools against complex codebases. That, they argue, can slow security research and reduce defenders’ ability to respond as threats evolve.
Key takeaways
BPI says open-source financial infrastructure defenders often lack early access to frontier AI tools needed to keep pace with escalating cyber threats.
The letter argues that guardrails on public frontier models can block qualified researchers from conducting effective security work.
Signatories call for “standing trusted-access programs” for qualified maintainers of open-source financial infrastructure.
BPI cites recent increases in crypto hacking activity and warns that AI-enabled attack techniques can increase risk for users.
Why the letter focuses on “trusted access”
The BPI letter frames frontier AI as a shift in how security research is performed. According to the letter, advanced models can scan large codebases more efficiently, flag potential weaknesses, and compress timelines for complex technical analysis—capabilities that can benefit both defenders and adversaries.
The core recommendation is practical: frontier AI labs should establish or expand “standing trusted-access programs” that allow qualified open-source financial infrastructure defenders to use high-performing models. Without such programs, the letter warns that defenders “may lack the tools needed to keep pace with evolving threats to the infrastructure they maintain.”
BPI also says it has received multiple independent reports from open-source maintainers describing sophisticated actors using advanced AI capabilities to support attacks. The implication is that defenders may be forced to work from a disadvantage if they cannot access the same level of AI capability under safe, controlled conditions.
Open-source infrastructure risk and why Bitcoin is central
The letter argues that open-source software underpins key parts of digital and financial systems. It singles out Bitcoin, stating that it alone secures more than $1 trillion in value. While the letter does not detail the measurement method, it uses that figure to emphasize the real-world stakes of maintaining and securing open-source infrastructure.
BPI further states that vulnerabilities in open-source infrastructure can endanger users’ life savings. That argument links the access request to a broader security policy question: how to balance model safety and guardrails with the need for qualified maintainers to conduct effective defense research.
Just as importantly, the letter suggests a mismatch between “publicly available” AI systems and the reality of defending production-grade infrastructure. If frontier tools are constrained such that certain security workflows are blocked, then—even for well-intentioned developers—defense capacity may not scale at the pace of attacker capabilities.
Crypto hacking surge underscores the pressure on defenders
The letter’s security pitch arrives alongside signs of mounting pressure across the broader crypto ecosystem. It points to DefiLlama data indicating that hacking activity across the industry surged in April 2026, when malicious actors reportedly stole more than $634 million from cryptocurrency platforms—described in the letter as the highest monthly total since the Bybit hack.
DefiLlama’s dashboard is cited in the letter for those figures, and it also notes that the Bybit incident contributed to total losses of roughly $1.4 billion in February 2025. While the letter does not attribute the April 2026 thefts to AI-enabled techniques, the juxtaposition is clear: as cyber incidents increase, defenders need better tooling and faster ways to assess and mitigate vulnerabilities.
For market participants who rely on infrastructure maintainers—exchanges, custody providers, wallet vendors, and protocol teams—the practical effect of slower vulnerability discovery can be significant. The difference between months and weeks can determine how quickly patches roll out, how quickly monitoring improves, and how much exposure a system carries before fixes reach production.
AI-enabled vulnerability discovery and the “vulnerability apocalypse” concern
The letter ties its access request to a broader trend in crypto security: AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is raising concerns across the industry. It references commentary from Mitchell Amador, CEO of bug bounty platform Immunefi, who described the current environment as a “vulnerability apocalypse,” in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
That earlier reporting cited the growing role of frontier models such as Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5 in accelerating vulnerability research. The BPI letter uses that context to argue that advanced AI is increasingly part of the threat landscape—meaning defenders also need effective, timely access to advanced tools to conduct their own research and response.
Crucially, this is not framed as unrestricted model use. Instead, it centers on the idea that defenders should be able to work with frontier systems through trusted programs, designed to allow security research while reducing the risks associated with misuse.
Who signed the open letter
The open letter was co-signed by multiple crypto companies and organizations, including the African Bitcoin Institute, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Bull Bitcoin, MARA, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.
With this mix of infrastructure providers, custodians, security-oriented stakeholders, and Bitcoin-focused organizations, the letter reflects a common concern across the sector: that the security advantage could tilt toward attackers if AI capability is easier for adversaries to access than for open-source maintainers.
Going forward, the key question for readers is whether major AI labs respond by creating or expanding trusted-access programs that can be used by qualified open-source financial infrastructure defenders—and, if so, what eligibility and guardrail structures will look like in practice. The next signals to watch are concrete policy changes from frontier labs and measurable shifts in how quickly critical vulnerabilities are identified and patched as hacking activity remains elevated.
This article was originally published as Crypto Firms Ask AI Companies for Early Access to Bitcoin Devs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin treasury company Strategy has completed another Bitcoin sale, selling 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million, and using the proceeds to repurchase $109 million of its STRC preferred stock.
The company also sold $653 million in MSTR shares, using the proceeds to increase its dollar reserve by $650 million.
Strategy’s Latest Bitcoin Sale
The Michael Saylor-founded company disclosed the sale in an updated filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The sale is the latest by the Bitcoin treasury company to manage its dividend and interest obligations and leverage a portion of its holdings to fund a $5 billion reserve.
According to the filing, Strategy sold 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million, and repurchased $109 million worth of its STRC preferred stock. It also sold $653 million in MSTR common stock, using the proceeds to increase its dollar reserve.
Strategy swore by its Bitcoin purchases, spending billions to become the largest publicly traded holder of the flagship cryptocurrency, and spawning several other Bitcoin treasury companies. However, Strategy has pivoted away from its buy-and-hold approach in recent months due to macroeconomic and geopolitical headwinds. The company concluded a small sale of around 704 BTC in 2022. However, it switched to regular sales in late May and June, starting with a 32 BTC sale. It sold 3,588 BTC in late June and early July, and another 1,638 BTC at the beginning of August. The August 10 sale takes Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings down to 840,447 BTC.
Repurposing Its Bitcoin Holdings
Strategy has strategically sold BTC as its priorities pivot to meeting dividend, interest, investor, and capital obligations during a difficult phase for the broader market. The change in the company’s approach has been driven by a substantial decline in BTC’s value, forcing it to abandon its accumulation model to manage its balance sheet, including building a cash reserve and strategic sales to meet dividend obligations.
CEO Phong Le stated during a CNBC interview in May that Strategy could sell some of its Bitcoin holdings if it benefits shareholders.
“At the point where selling Bitcoin versus selling equity to pay a dividend is better for our bitcoin-per-share, we will do it.”
Saylor echoed similar thoughts, but stressed that Strategy would never be a “net-seller” of Bitcoin, a distinction made after intense criticism of the company’s selling.
“I’m very famous for saying ‘never sell your Bitcoin.’ That’s why the internet went crazy when we said we might sell it. But if I was being more precise: never be a net seller of Bitcoin. It just wouldn’t have been so viral.”
STRC Preferred Stock Declines
One of the primary drivers of Strategy’s recent selling is STRC’s declining share value. STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock, fell significantly below $100, hampering the company’s ability to issue new stock and fund Bitcoin acquisitions.
Strategy has attempted to get STRC back to $100 by introducing a new capital management framework that allows it to sell Bitcoin, build a cash reserve, and repurchase STRC.
Strategy has sold 6,948 BTC worth $432.5 million since May, using the proceeds to fund dividend and interest obligations. It introduced its Digital Assets Capital Framework in June, formalizing its strategy to sell a portion of its Bitcoin holdings. The framework allows the company to sell up to $1.25 billion in BTC to replenish its Dollar reserve, fund interest payments, dividends, and share buybacks.
Bitcoin Remains Primary Treasury Asset
Despite an uptick in selling, BTC remains Strategy’s primary reserve asset. The company currently holds 840,447 BTC, worth around $53.6 billion at current prices.
Le has insisted that Strategy will resume Bitcoin purchases over the course of the year, stating in a Fox interview,
“We’ll get back to buying more Bitcoin throughout the course of the year.”
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 Strategy Sells 1,690 BTC, Repurchases $109 Million In STRC Stock on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A painstaking investigation into crypto-focused recruitment tactics has exposed how suspected North Korean IT workers operate when they think they’re joining a legitimate startup. In a ruse carried out over five weeks, researchers built a fictitious company called Ballena Azul and invited suspected operatives to develop software and complete tasks inside controlled virtual environments—allowing analysts to observe their day-to-day tooling, workflows, and infrastructure choices.
As described in reporting by Cointelegraph, the project was designed and executed by Mauro Eldritch, founder of cybersecurity firm BCA LTD, and Heiner García, a cyber threat intelligence analyst at Telefónica Tech and founder of NorthScane. The operation leveraged infrastructure from cybersecurity platform ANY.RUN, and Cointelegraph joined for one stage of the contact with the supposed hiring team.
Key takeaways
Researchers used a fake crypto startup, Ballena Azul, to study suspected DPRK recruitment and working methods inside controlled virtual desktops.
One of the most valuable findings was the use of external intermediary servers—some linked to earlier North Korean malware campaigns that were still active.
The suspected workers often relied heavily on AI tools to compensate for technical gaps and to help with coding, writing, and document manipulation.
The scheme showed how threat actors can pose as employees to gain access to internal systems, code, and credentials without deploying malware immediately.
Earlier cases reported by US and industry entities indicate this approach is evolving, spanning remote access strategies and identity manipulation.
From recruitment to “startup” onboarding
The Ballena Azul operation began when García connected with a recruiter via GitHub, after the recruiter was associated with Famous Chollima, a threat group linked to DPRK IT-worker activity. According to García, the startup needed software developers, and the recruiter offered multiple names for candidates—at least two of whom presented US identification.
As the interviews and onboarding progressed, the researchers used aliases to maintain the deception. Eldritch took on the persona of co-founder “Leonardo Nelson,” while García posed as “Andy Jones,” the team lead. Developers were assigned programming tasks inside controlled virtual desktop environments, which enabled the researchers to monitor what tools they reached for, how they responded when problems appeared, and how they handled technical obstacles.
To test the candidates’ responses, the researchers deliberately introduced issues, including selective network outages and changes to user interaction cues such as disappearing mouse cursors. In García’s account, the biggest surprise wasn’t only the tooling—it was the lack of a uniform corporate process. Instead, he described a pattern of improvisation rather than a rigid playbook.
Infrastructure clues and the “reuse” problem
Beyond the day-to-day behavior of the operatives, the investigation highlighted the role of infrastructure “in-between” moments. During the ruse, analysts identified external servers that acted as intermediary points before suspected workers connected to the controlled virtual desktops used by the researchers.
García told Magazine that some of those servers were associated with malware families tied to prior North Korean campaigns, including InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie. He said at least some of the intermediary servers were still active, suggesting that operational components can remain in use for extended periods—an issue that matters for defenders because long-lived infrastructure increases the window for compromise and detection evasion.
At the same time, García noted that other servers appeared entirely new from an intelligence perspective, “clean” and not previously documented in mainstream threat feeds or blocklists. That combination—some reuse of known infrastructure alongside previously unseen resources—underscores why investigations focused only on established indicators may miss portions of an operation.
“Some of the servers we found were tied back to distributing InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie in prior years and were active to this day,” García said, adding that others were not previously tied to intelligence tracking.
AI-assisted impersonation and credential theft risk
The working environment also revealed how the operatives attempted to maintain productivity. The researchers found extensive use of AI tools for coding and other tasks that candidates struggled to complete on their own. According to García, they used ChatGPT for writing and coding, including help answering basic questions and finishing assignments. For image alteration and document forgery, García said the group showed a preference for Google Gemini.
The investigation also documented the wider operational toolkit suspected workers used: remote desktop software, crypto wallets, and services designed for sharing two-factor authentication codes. The implication is not simply that these actors can deploy malware, but that they may not need to—once hired, they can use legitimate access to reach sensitive internal information. Researchers described the long-term advantage as well: staying undetected allows threat actors to collect salaries for as long as they remain in place, which can support DPRK funding objectives.
Cointelegraph’s reporting situates this in a broader pattern of AI adoption across DPRK-linked activity. The same piece points to Reuters reporting that another North Korean hacking group, Kimsuky, uses AI locally to automate parts of cyberattacks and generate more convincing phishing materials. While those accounts involve different operators and likely different goals, together they suggest a trend toward integrating generative tools into cyber workflows.
How the ruse unraveled—and what stayed hidden
After weeks of tasks inside the controlled environments, researchers staged an internal disruption to force the operatives to react. They introduced a new persona—“Benito Camella,” a co-founder who supposedly had been busy in Milan while hiring accelerated. When Camella “returned,” the confrontational sequence was meant to expose inconsistencies in identity and documentation.
During the confrontation, the chat room rapidly emptied. One developer, Espree, left the video call first, while another, Anderson, stayed longer before realizing the scheme was collapsing. Even after the meeting ended, the researchers maintained the facade through company communications: the fake CEO accused “Andy Jones” of bringing in “illegal workers,” and “Jones” responded that he was pressured to build quickly and believed he was not being compensated adequately.
That staged dispute ended with “termination” of the working relationship and friendship, framing the collapse as the result of a hiring disaster. Afterward, one suspected operative contacted García privately to apologize and check whether he was okay. Researchers said they never heard from the rest of the group again, and—importantly—believe the operatives remained unaware that they had spent weeks helping analysts extract intelligence.
Why this matters for crypto and broader cybersecurity
North Korea-linked IT-worker schemes have increasingly been linked to threats against the cryptocurrency sector and beyond. Cointelegraph notes industry and government-linked reporting that shows how these operations can involve recruiting developers through intermediary channels, using remote-access pathways to appear legitimate, and targeting organizations for access to internal systems and sensitive data.
Earlier examples referenced in the same reporting include ConsenSys’ statement in July that it engaged a North Korea-linked developer through a third-party service provider before cutting off access. The piece also highlights a US Justice Department case alleging nearly $1 million in cryptocurrency theft by four North Korean nationals charged in connection with remote job fraud using false identities. Separately, the US Treasury has stated that North Korean IT-worker schemes generated nearly $800 million in 2024 to support the regime’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
For crypto investors, operators, and builders, the practical takeaway is that supply-chain and workforce risk remains as relevant as direct hacking. Even without an immediate malware payload, credential exposure and internal access can provide a pathway to funds and sensitive operational data—especially when attackers use “legitimate work” as cover for months-long persistence.
As defenders analyze what the Ballena Azul ruse exposed—especially intermediary server reuse and AI-enabled workflow patterns—the next step for organizations will be to tighten verification and monitor remote-access and identity controls continuously, not only when known indicators appear. The most uncertain element for now is how quickly threat actors will adapt their operational tooling and infrastructure in response to investigations like this one.
This article was originally published as Inside the Scheme: Fake Crypto Startup Recruited North Korean IT Workers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy CEO Phong Le says the firm plans to resume adding Bitcoin later this year, even after recent asset sales that have triggered renewed scrutiny from investors and market observers.
In a Monday interview with FOX Business, Le said Strategy purchased about 175,000 BTC since the start of the year while selling roughly 7,000 BTC, describing the activity as “about 25 times more” buying than selling. He also said Strategy has moved from being the world’s second-largest institutional Bitcoin holder to the largest.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it intends to restart accumulating Bitcoin later this year, after a year-to-date pattern of heavy net buying.
According to Le, Strategy bought ~175,000 BTC since January and sold ~7,000 BTC year-to-date—netting a large imbalance toward accumulation.
The company has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, with the latest reported sale totaling 1,690 BTC.
BitcoinTreasuries.NET data suggests public companies collectively hold more BTC than exchange-traded products and other funds, but the treasury “premium” financing model is under strain.
A pledge to buy more, after sales drew questions
Le told FOX Business that Strategy expects to “get back to buying more Bitcoin throughout the course of the year.” That statement comes after the firm shifted part of its approach—at least temporarily—from its long-standing narrative of avoiding Bitcoin sales whenever possible.
While Strategy’s sales have remained small relative to its total stash, the decision to sell has been closely watched because it represents a departure from the “never sell” stance that helped establish its credibility with long-term Bitcoin-focused shareholders.
Strategy has accumulated more than 840,000 BTC, but it has reportedly sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May. The most recent sale, according to the interview context, totaled 1,690 BTC. Le’s broader argument appears to be that the company can still prioritize net accumulation while meeting other corporate obligations.
Why Strategy’s sales matter to investors
Even limited selling can have outsized signaling effects for a company built around a Bitcoin treasury strategy. The concern is not only about the immediate numbers, but about what the sales suggest regarding internal trade-offs.
The proceeds from Strategy’s recent Bitcoin sales have been used to support preferred stock dividends, share repurchases, and its U.S. dollar reserve. That mix highlights a core tension for any public company holding large BTC reserves: management must balance capital preservation and growth with shareholder payouts, equity-market expectations, and liquidity requirements.
Le’s “25 times more” framing underscores that Strategy’s year-to-date behavior still leans toward accumulation. However, the very fact that the company has made multiple sales since May suggests conditions have required more flexibility than the firm’s earlier messaging implied.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Strategy’s earlier capital and balance-sheet approach aimed to preserve Bitcoin exposure while also addressing returns to shareholders, including through a capital framework designed to fund dividends. The latest remarks reinforce that Strategy is trying to maintain that direction while navigating the pressures of public-company financing constraints.
The broader corporate treasury model faces a tougher environment
Strategy’s challenge fits into a larger pattern across the corporate Bitcoin treasury sector. Corporate holdings have continued to grow, but weaker market conditions make the traditional economics of the model harder to sustain.
According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, public companies hold more than 1.26 million BTC, while trailing exchange-traded funds and other funds hold more than 1.6 million BTC. The size of the holdings suggests institutional accumulation remains active, but it does not automatically solve the capital question that determines how quickly companies can keep buying.
NOVAQUE Research has previously described the financing cycle that powered rapid expansion: when Bitcoin treasury companies traded at premiums to the net asset value of their BTC holdings, they could raise capital through equity or debt and then deploy proceeds to purchase more Bitcoin. That premium effectively reduced the dilution cost for shareholders because the market was valuing the companies above the value of their BTC.
In more difficult market regimes, that cycle becomes harder to maintain. When shares trade below net asset value, new fundraising can dilute existing holders more than it would in a premium environment—making continued aggressive accumulation financially less straightforward. Cointelegraph previously noted this shift in market dynamics in an analysis of how trade and holdings trends have changed for funds and BTC-holding entities.
What to watch next for Strategy
Strategy’s stated plan to resume accumulating Bitcoin later this year will likely be judged against two practical signals: whether future BTC purchases appear to outweigh any continued liquidity needs, and whether management’s willingness to sell—however small—persists as market conditions evolve. With the corporate treasury model sensitive to share-price-to-NAV dynamics, investors may also watch whether Strategy can keep access to capital on terms that don’t force meaningful dilution.
This article was originally published as Strategy CEO: Firm to Restart Bitcoin Accumulation in 2026 After Sales on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has invoked emergency authority to keep prediction market operator Kalshi running, arguing that New York’s efforts to restrain the platform amount to a market emergency. In an order issued Tuesday, the regulator said the federal government must ensure continuity in derivatives markets and prevent a “patchwork” of state rules from disrupting national price discovery.
The move keeps Kalshi operating while a separate legal fight continues over whether federal law—specifically the Commodity Exchange Act—preempts state gambling enforcement when event contracts are traded on federally regulated venues.
Key takeaways
The CFTC ordered Kalshi to continue operating, citing an emergency created by New York’s request for a temporary restraining order.
New York argues Kalshi is operating an illegal, unlicensed gambling business tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events, seeking substantial damages.
The CFTC says the Commodity Exchange Act requires a uniform national derivatives market and gives it exclusive jurisdiction over certain transactions involving swaps on designated contract markets.
The dispute is ongoing and does not resolve whether federal law preempts New York’s gambling enforcement.
The CFTC said it is litigating similar jurisdictional questions beyond New York, including cases involving eight other states.
CFTC emergency order keeps Kalshi live
In the order, the CFTC said New York’s enforcement action and the state’s request for a temporary restraining order together triggered what the agency characterized as a market emergency. The regulator directed Kalshi to keep operating under its normal practices and in line with the Commodity Exchange Act’s core principles.
Importantly, the CFTC emphasized continuity in trading. It argued that major disruptions can undermine orderly markets and impede price discovery—especially in derivatives markets meant to function as a cohesive national system.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to face a fragmented set of state gaming rules. The commission tied its emergency authority to concerns that a state-by-state approach could destabilize federal derivatives oversight.
New York’s restraining order seeks nationwide operational limits
New York’s request, as described by the CFTC, would bar Kalshi from operating in connection with contracts tied to sports, culture, elections, and other events in or from New York or directed to people in the state. The CFTC warned that because Kalshi is based in New York, the restrictions could effectively prevent the platform from offering all event contracts nationwide.
According to the CFTC, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in compensatory damages pending an accounting. The underlying state lawsuit, filed July 31, alleges Kalshi runs an illegal, unlicensed gambling business through its event-linked contracts. New York seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties, including a penalty equal to three times Kalshi’s alleged gains and $100,000 for each unauthorized sports wagering offer or attempt in New York.
New York’s case reflects a broader theory that state gambling law applies to prediction-market style contracts—an issue that has become a central legal battleground for the emerging event-contract space.
Federal preemption and the jurisdiction fight
Kalshi has argued that states cannot shut down a federally licensed exchange. The CFTC, by contrast, maintains that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps traded on designated contract markets, including event contracts that Kalshi lists as swaps.
This is not a new legal question. In a separate New York case, a federal judge denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 7. At that stage, the judge found that New York gambling laws were not preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts.
Previously, the CFTC also sued New York in federal court in April, seeking to block the state from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets. In that earlier action, Judge Jed Rakoff denied without prejudice the agency’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order. The court found the CFTC had not shown a high likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm.
While Tuesday’s order directs Kalshi to continue operating, it does not decide the underlying jurisdictional dispute. The CFTC itself characterized the order as separate from a final judicial determination on whether federal law preempts state enforcement.
A nationwide regulatory dispute across multiple states
The Kalshi controversy is also being framed by the CFTC as part of a broader effort to defend federally granted authority. The agency said in its order that it has sued eight other states in addition to New York to protect what it views as congressionally granted jurisdiction.
That means the outcome of the Kalshi litigation could carry implications beyond a single company. If courts ultimately endorse the CFTC’s preemption theory, state regulators may face tighter limits when attempting to apply gambling statutes to event contracts traded on designated contract markets. If courts reject that position, enforcement could become more decentralized, potentially pushing operators to navigate divergent state regimes.
For market participants—exchanges, traders, and institutions—the practical stakes are straightforward: disruptions to listings, contract availability, or trading access can directly affect liquidity and price formation. The CFTC’s focus on “orderly trading and price discovery” suggests the regulator is trying to prevent a compliance or shutdown cascade while the legal questions play out.
For Kalshi and similarly structured platforms, the key uncertainty remains judicial. Tuesday’s CFTC order preserves operations in the short term, but it does not substitute for a court ruling on the scope of federal preemption versus state gambling enforcement.
Readers should watch next for how courts handle the preemption question on the merits and whether any additional federal or state rulings narrow (or expand) what event-contract platforms can offer during the litigation. The emergency posture may keep the platform running for now, but the core jurisdictional disagreement is still unresolved.
This article was originally published as CFTC Uses Emergency Powers to Maintain Kalshi’s New York Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has stepped in to keep prediction market operator Kalshi running, citing an “emergency” created by New York’s enforcement action and its request for a temporary restraining order. In an order issued Tuesday, the regulator directed Kalshi to continue operating under its normal practices and in line with the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles.
The CFTC warned that an abrupt disruption to event-contract trading could undermine the goal of maintaining a uniform, national derivatives market—something it says is critical for orderly trading and price discovery. The dispute is also framed as part of a wider federal-versus-state battle over whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling rules when event contracts are traded on federally regulated exchanges.
Key takeaways
The CFTC invoked emergency authority to require Kalshi to keep operating while New York pursues a temporary restraining order.
New York’s proposed order could restrict Kalshi’s event-contract offerings tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events occurring in or connected to New York residents.
The CFTC argues the Commodity Exchange Act requires a consistent national derivatives market and cautions against a “patchwork” of state gaming laws.
The latest CFTC order does not resolve whether federal law preempts state enforcement; it mainly addresses operational continuity.
The CFTC says it has taken similar actions against multiple states beyond New York to defend its jurisdiction.
Emergency order keeps Kalshi trading as the legal fight escalates
In its statement, the CFTC said New York’s move—both the state’s enforcement action and its request for a temporary restraining order—amounts to a market emergency. The agency referenced the risk that the temporary restraining order could effectively prevent Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide, given the company’s New York ties.
According to the CFTC, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in compensatory damages while also pursuing a damages accounting. The state’s requested relief is designed to bar Kalshi from offering a broad set of contracts—spanning sports, cultural events, elections, and other event categories—when those contracts are offered in, from, or to people located in New York.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to operate under a fractured set of state gaming rules. The commission’s position is that major disruptions to regulated derivatives markets can harm orderly trading and impede the price discovery function the framework is meant to support.
How New York describes the case—and what Kalshi disputes
New York’s lawsuit, filed on July 31, alleges Kalshi runs an illegal, unlicensed gambling operation by offering contracts tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events. The state says it is seeking restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties—describing potential penalties that include a figure equal to three times Kalshi’s alleged gains, plus $100,000 for each unauthorized sports-wagering offer or attempt in New York.
Kalshi’s core argument is that states cannot effectively shut down a federally licensed exchange. The conflict centers on legal jurisdiction: New York frames its position as state regulation of gambling and wagering, while the CFTC argues that the Commodity Exchange Act provides it with exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps traded on designated contract markets, including event contracts Kalshi lists as swaps.
That difference matters because it determines which regulator—state authorities or the CFTC—has the power to restrict or condition Kalshi’s product offerings. It also shapes whether event-contract trading will be governed uniformly across state lines or subject to multiple state-by-state enforcement theories.
Preliminary rulings have not ended the jurisdiction dispute
There have already been setbacks for Kalshi in some respects, but also legal findings that keep the dispute alive. In a separate New York case, a federal judge denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 7. At that stage, the court found that New York’s gambling laws were not preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts.
Meanwhile, the CFTC has also attempted to prevent New York from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets. In April, the CFTC sued New York in federal court for that purpose, seeking to stop the state’s enforcement. Judge Jed Rakoff denied—without prejudice—the CFTC’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order. The denial was tied to the court’s view that the agency had not shown, at that early stage, a high likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm.
According to the CFTC, Tuesday’s order is intended to keep trading functioning while the underlying jurisdictional conflict continues. The agency emphasized that its action is not a final judicial determination of whether federal law preempts state gambling enforcement.
Federal-state clash over event contracts spans more than one state
This confrontation is not confined to New York. The CFTC said it has sued eight other states, along with New York, to defend the jurisdiction it says Congress granted it. The underlying legal theory is that event contracts falling under the federal derivatives framework should not be subjected to state gambling restrictions in ways that fragment the market.
For market participants, the practical implication is straightforward: even when a product is traded on a federally regulated exchange, the business model can still face state-level disruption. The CFTC’s emergency order suggests the regulator views that risk as severe enough to justify immediate intervention to avoid shutdown-by-injunction dynamics.
What remains uncertain is whether courts will ultimately treat the relevant Commodity Exchange Act provisions as preempting state gambling enforcement in the context of event contracts described as swaps. Tuesday’s order does not settle that question, and the dispute is likely to continue through further motions and rulings.
Investors, traders, and builders using prediction markets should watch how courts assess the preemption question in the ongoing cases and whether additional states face similar CFTC action. The timing and scope of any eventual injunction—or the lack of one—could determine how consistently event-contract trading can operate across the U.S. while the federal jurisdictional argument plays out.
This article was originally published as CFTC Uses Emergency Powers to Maintain Kalshi in New York on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has moved the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act toward a potential September floor vote by filing for cloture just before the chamber left for a month-long recess, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting. The bill is widely seen as a key attempt to formalize crypto market rules, but advocates say the path to enactment remains narrow as senators return with limited calendar time before multiple breaks tied to the November election.
The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.
A rushed legislative runway after a long wait
Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”
Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.
Uncertainty grows around the November election
Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.
For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.
Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely
As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.
The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.
In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.
Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.
What still needs to be solved in the bill
While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.
For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.
As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.
This article was originally published as Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to Enactment on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Itaú, Latin America’s largest private-sector bank, is joining an industry pilot focused on tokenizing Brazil’s fixed-income securities and investment funds, partnering with OpenAssets to test how these assets could work on a distributed ledger technology (DLT) network.
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA) and is designed to evaluate not only the technical feasibility of issuance and trading, but also the practical requirements that institutions face around operations, compliance, and overall system design.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets will develop technical proofs of concept for tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot is organized by ANBIMA and examines issuance, trading, and settlement using DLT in a controlled, simulated setting.
Debentures and investment funds are among the primary tokenization use cases being explored.
ANBIMA’s pilot originally began testing after selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 organizations.
ANBIMA-led pilot expands tokenization testing beyond concept
Tuesday’s announcement places Itaú and OpenAssets inside ANBIMA’s broader effort to test capital markets activities—specifically issuance, trading, and settlement—using distributed ledger technology.
ANBIMA frames the work as an industry-led evaluation rather than a live rollout, with participating groups producing proofs of concept and mapping out how tokenized capital market instruments could fit into existing institutional processes.
That structure matters for markets because the barriers to tokenized assets are often as much operational and regulatory as they are technological. In a bank-led pilot, issues like controls, reconciliation, and compliance workflows can be as consequential as the smart contract design itself.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to test
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will provide the tokenization infrastructure used for the pilot’s technical work. Itaú, meanwhile, is expected to contribute capital markets expertise as the teams explore how tokenized assets could operate within institutional frameworks.
According to the announcement, the companies’ work will focus on developing technical proofs of concept and assessing the operational, compliance, and technology requirements for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are explicitly included among the use cases being examined.
Because the pilot is conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated environment, the activity is intended to test system behavior and requirements without deploying real financial transactions. That approach is often used early on to reduce risk while still exposing the process to realistic constraints.
From 39 proposals to 20 use cases—and why the simulated network matters
ANBIMA previously moved the pilot into its testing phase in April, selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies.
While the announcement does not provide details on how Itaú’s participation changes the existing scope, it does show how quickly the project is attracting large institutional players. The selection step indicates there was already substantial interest across different segments of Brazil’s financial industry, with many groups competing to define what should be tested first.
Running trials on a permissioned network and in a simulated environment is a significant design choice. It allows participants to model how tokenized instruments might be issued, transferred, and settled while keeping the pilot insulated from the risk and complexity of live markets. For investors and market participants watching tokenization efforts, that distinction helps clarify what is being validated: process design and feasibility, not yet market migration or production-grade infrastructure.
RWA momentum continues to rise on public blockchains
Although Itaú’s work is focused on Brazil’s capital markets pilot within a permissioned DLT setting, it lands amid broader momentum for real-world asset tokenization globally.
RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the value of tokenized real-world assets distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year. It rose from around $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of the report, with US Treasury debt the largest category, accounting for more than $16 billion.
That growth highlights a key tension the industry is working through: public blockchain tokenization has seen expanding adoption, while institutional fixed-income and fund tokenization often requires additional layers—legal, operational, and settlement-related—before it can be integrated at scale. Pilots like ANBIMA’s aim to bridge that gap by testing capital markets workflows in a way that aligns with institutional expectations.
What to watch next in Brazil’s tokenization roadmap
Participants will likely focus on whether tokenized debentures and investment funds can be handled with acceptable operational rigor and compliance alignment in the pilot’s proof-of-concept environment. The next signal investors and market observers should look for is how ANBIMA and participating institutions translate those simulated results into clearer requirements for real-world issuance, trading, and settlement.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have filed separate civil lawsuits targeting Goliath Ventures and its founder Christopher Delgado, alleging conduct consistent with a crypto Ponzi scheme that raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.
The SEC’s action focuses on an alleged unregistered securities offering totaling at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says roughly 1,600 customers contributed about $397 million tied to solicitations for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agencies are seeking remedies that include restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and permanent bans—expanding potential consequences beyond a parallel criminal case already moving through the courts.
Key takeaways
The SEC alleges Goliath raised at least $425 million via an unregistered offering and that investor funds were not invested as promised.
According to the SEC, Delgado allegedly diverted at least $51 million for personal use and allegedly fabricated account balances and performance reporting.
The CFTC alleges about $397 million came from approximately 1,600 customers after solicitations connected to crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether.
Both civil suits add securities and commodities-law enforcement actions, potentially enabling broader investor compensation and market bans than the criminal plea alone.
Delgado has agreed to a bifurcated settlement in the SEC case that would impose permanent bars, pending court approval and final determinations on financial penalties.
SEC: Alleged unregistered offering and diverted investor funds
In its complaint, the SEC said Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what it characterized as an unregistered securities offering. The agency alleged that investors were told their money would be placed into crypto liquidity pools, but that “none” of the funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the manner represented.
The SEC further alleged that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. The SEC also said Goliath used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to make earlier payments—an arrangement the agency characterized as inconsistent with the investment strategy sold to participants.
According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns ranging from 3% to 10% and guaranteed investor principal, claiming the returns were generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the company made payments by recycling investor money and fabricated account balances and performance metrics to support the scheme.
The SEC also alleged that commissions were paid to sales agents who recruited investors. The agency said the business eventually faltered after it could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and collapsed—an outcome the SEC said came after the company’s operations turned unsustainable.
CFTC: Commodities-law claims tied to Bitcoin and Ether trading solicitations
Separately, the CFTC said Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether, attracting approximately 1,600 customers and at least $397 million. The agency’s complaint positions the conduct within commodities and trading enforcement frameworks, seeking consequences aimed at restoring losses and preventing continued market participation.
In its civil action, the CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. While the SEC case centers on alleged unregistered securities and the handling of investor capital, the CFTC action reflects the regulator’s view that the underlying promotional and trading-related representations also triggered commodities-law concerns.
Delgado’s SEC settlement and what it does—and doesn’t—end
In the SEC matter, Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval. The deal, as described by the SEC, would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. It would also restrict him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer.
The settlement leaves key financial components to be determined by the court, including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. In practice, this means the case can still produce significant financial exposure, even as certain legal and behavioral restrictions are agreed in principle.
Delgado is also tied to a criminal resolution. The article notes that he previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice has said that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. The DOJ further stated that forfeiture was part of the agreement, covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme.
These developments underscore why the SEC and CFTC actions matter: civil proceedings can pursue investor-focused remedies and broader prohibitions that may not be fully addressed through a plea deal alone. Together, the cases give regulators additional tools to seek compensation, impose penalties, and limit future access to regulated markets.
Why the paired SEC and CFTC cases signal a tougher enforcement stance
Running parallel civil actions under two different federal agencies is notable because it reflects a broader pattern in crypto enforcement: regulators are increasingly willing to frame the same promotional conduct through multiple legal lenses—securities and commodities—depending on how the offering and trading-related representations are structured.
Here, the SEC’s allegations emphasize return guarantees, alleged principal protection, and promised placement into liquidity pools—elements the agency says were used to attract capital under an unregistered offering. The CFTC’s allegations, meanwhile, tie customer solicitations to Bitcoin and Ether trading, supporting its request for trading-specific bans and other restrictions.
For investors watching these cases, one practical takeaway is that “getting the money back” often depends on how quickly courts move on disgorgement, restitution, and related orders. Another is that criminal outcomes do not necessarily close the door to civil enforcement: as the regulators seek permanent injunctions and long-term participation restrictions, the civil cases can continue to shape who is barred from markets even after criminal resolution.
Next, investors and observers will likely focus on court approval of the SEC settlement terms and the final rulings on disgorgement, interest, and penalties, along with how the CFTC case progresses toward relief such as restitution and permanent bans.
This article was originally published as SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.