Crypto Breaking

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

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

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

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

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

The UK’s House of Lords has backed a push for a clearer government roadmap on digital assets, approving an amendment to require the Treasury to produce and consult on a formal strategy. The measure passed on Wednesday in a 194–138 vote, despite opposition from the Labour government.
The amendment was inserted during the Report Stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill as it continues through Parliament. If the change survives further scrutiny in the House of Commons, it would set a timeline for policy work that currently relies largely on the government’s existing approach to digital assets.
Key takeaways
The House of Lords approved an amendment (88) requiring the Treasury to publish and consult on a digital asset strategy within 12 months of the bill becoming law.
The proposed strategy would cover cryptoassets, stablecoins, and tokenized securities, and is meant to address both innovation and consumer protection.
The vote highlights ongoing UK political disagreement over whether current policy is sufficient or whether a statutory, cohesive framework is needed.
The bill still returns to the House of Commons, where MPs can accept, modify, or reject the Lords’ changes.
What the Lords voted for
The amendment in question is Amendment 88, introduced by Conservative peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe. It would oblige the Treasury to prepare a digital asset strategy, publish it, and run a consultation process within 12 months after the Financial Services and Markets Bill becomes law.
According to the amendment’s scope as described in the Parliamentary material, the strategy would extend across multiple parts of the token economy: cryptoassets broadly, stablecoins, and tokenized securities. It is also intended to address practical questions firms face in the real economy—such as access to banking, payment, and settlement services—alongside broader regulatory themes like consumer protection.
That combination matters for market participants because policy clarity can shape everything from product design to compliance planning. A strategy framed not only around token issuance and trading, but also around payment rails and settlement access, points to regulators grappling with how digital assets fit into existing financial infrastructure.
Why the amendment became a flashpoint
The Lords’ vote follows months of discussion in the UK Parliament about how to handle digital assets and whether the government should move beyond its existing framework. In an earlier July debate on the bill, the Treasury’s Minister for Investment, Lord Stockwood, pushed back against calls for a statutory scheme. He said the government believed it already had a digital asset strategy and was executing it.
Labour opposed the amendment, according to the bill debate record and reporting of the vote, arguing it did not sufficiently reflect the pace of development in digital assets and the need for a more unified regulatory structure.
The tension here is essentially about framing and certainty. Supporters of the amendment want a strategy with a defined legal requirement and a clear consultation process. Critics argue the government already has a plan in motion, and that codifying additional requirements could lag behind fast-moving market changes. The result is not just a procedural amendment—it’s a debate about how the UK should balance responsiveness with rule-making clarity.
Industry reaction and the “strategy vs. ecosystem” question
One of the clearer signals from the crypto industry came from the UK Cryptoasset Business Council (UKCBC), which said it worked with lawmakers on the amendment. The group welcomed the Lords’ vote on Thursday, emphasizing a question raised by Lord Chris Holmes: whether the UK is “simply regulating digital assets” or “building a digital assets economy.”
That distinction is more than rhetorical. If policy is perceived as purely compliance-driven, firms may focus on defensive legal positioning. If it is seen as ecosystem-building—covering access to banking and payments, along with consumer protections—participants may be more willing to invest in longer-term product development and institutional partnerships.
The Lords’ amendment explicitly references those operational concerns, which may explain why industry groups viewed the vote as a step toward a broader policy posture rather than a narrow rule update.
Next steps: Commons vote will determine whether it becomes law
The bill has not reached final approval. The Financial Services and Markets Bill must still return to the House of Commons, where MPs may accept the Lords’ changes, amend them further, or reject them altogether.
For investors, traders, and builders, the near-term watch item is whether the Commons chooses to keep the 12-month requirement and the consultation mandate intact. Even if the amendment survives, the content of the eventual strategy—especially how it addresses stablecoins, tokenized securities, and firms’ access to banking and settlement—will likely be the real determinant of how quickly the UK’s regulatory approach becomes operational.
As Parliament moves forward, the key uncertainty remains whether lawmakers align on the level of statutory certainty they want versus the flexibility the government says it already has. The outcome of the Commons vote will reveal how much momentum the Lords’ digital asset strategy push gains—and how soon market participants can expect a more concrete policy roadmap.
This article was originally published as UK House of Lords Supports Mandatory Digital Asset Strategy, Beats Labour on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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