Crypto Breaking

A Fairshake-linked political committee is spending on media support for incumbent U.S. Representative Jake Auchincloss ahead of Tuesday’s Massachusetts primary, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) records. The activity comes as crypto-focused political spending groups continue to expand their influence beyond narrowly defined policy debates.
FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC—a Fairshake affiliate—spent just over $189,000 on media to back Auchincloss’s reelection campaign in Massachusetts’ 4th congressional district. Democratic challenger Jason Poulos, in a letter made public on Aug. 16, accused the incumbent of being influenced by the crypto industry and criticized the PAC’s efforts as potentially improper election interference.
Key takeaways
FEC records indicate Protect Progress PAC spent just over $189,000 on media in support of Jake Auchincloss ahead of Tuesday’s Massachusetts primary.
PAC spending is not tied to policy position votes in the reporting; Poulos argues the media activity is meant to influence voter perceptions during the primary.
Poulos alleges Auchincloss accepted $77,500 from “crypto-industry sources” since 2020 and links that to crypto legislation votes.
Fairshake’s broader election push continues into 2026, with the group citing large cash reserves and multiple prior race efforts earlier in the cycle.
Protect Progress PAC spending in Massachusetts
The FEC data, as of Tuesday, points to Protect Progress PAC’s media spend targeting Auchincloss in the Massachusetts 4th district primary. While the filings confirm the existence and scale of the spending, the underlying communications content is disputed politically, with the campaign message becoming part of Poulos’s attack on the incumbent.
According to Poulos, some of the PAC’s resources were used to produce what he described as “AI-generated slop mailers” supporting Auchincloss ahead of the Massachusetts primary, which took place Tuesday.
Poulos presses Auchincloss to renounce the PAC’s efforts
In the Aug. 16 letter, Poulos urged the incumbent to “publicly renounce” Protect Progress PAC’s involvement, framing the PAC’s activity as a way to influence both the primary and the eventual general election.
Poulos also raised campaign-finance and legislative-history allegations. He claimed Auchincloss accepted $77,500 directly from “crypto-industry sources” since 2020. He further pointed to Auchincloss’s voting record on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in July 2025—described in the article as a market-structure bill that has not yet been signed into law and is pending consideration in the Senate.
The core of Poulos’s argument appears to be that Auchincloss’s legislative behavior aligns with donors and industry pressure, and that the PAC’s media campaign—especially if it relies on AI-generated materials—underscores the influence he believes is operating behind the scenes.
Fairshake and affiliates keep targeting 2026 elections
This Massachusetts spending is part of a broader pattern of political activity from Fairshake and its affiliates. The reporting notes that Fairshake’s election efforts have included significant ad and media spending in the 2024 cycle—over $130 million—and that its affiliated PACs are continuing to pursue race-by-race influence during the 2026 midterm election period.
Earlier in August, Fairshake reported spending roughly $3.6 million on House and Senate races across Alaska, Florida, and Wyoming, as described in coverage linked within the article. The same reporting states that Fairshake had $122 million in cash on hand ahead of the 2026 midterms.
In an August statement quoted in the article, a Fairshake spokesperson, Geoff Vetter, said the organization would not slow down heading into November—connecting the group’s persistence to its cash reserves and the number of prior race wins.
What this means for voters and upcoming primaries
Massachusetts’ primary timing makes it one of the final major state nomination contests before the general election, with the general election still ahead and only a little over two months remaining, as cited in the article. The reporting also notes that New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware are slated to hold their primaries in September, placing additional pressure on political committees seeking momentum during the late-stage primary window.
For market participants and crypto policy watchers, the significance is less about any single congressional district and more about how crypto-aligned political organizations are operationalizing influence—using media spending to shape voter perceptions while also tying their efforts to the legislative outcomes they want to encourage or defend.
As more FEC disclosures and campaign messaging circulate, readers should watch how the Massachusetts primary debate evolves—particularly whether opponents escalate scrutiny of AI-generated campaign materials and donor ties, and whether PAC spending patterns continue to mirror earlier 2026 efforts in other states with upcoming primaries.
This article was originally published as Crypto-backed PAC cuts Massachusetts primary ad spend by $189K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple has teamed up with digital asset infrastructure provider SettleMint to bring an end-to-end custody and token lifecycle stack to financial institutions in Asia-Pacific. The firms say the integration is designed to reduce operational complexity for banks and other regulated players that want to hold tokenized assets and manage them from issuance through ongoing administration.
Just days earlier, Coincheck Group announced a separate push in Japan toward institutional-grade custody and wallet technology, partnering with DFNS to deliver wallet-as-a-service capabilities. Together, the announcements highlight how Asia-Pacific institutions are trying to close the “infrastructure gap” that has slowed crypto adoption inside regulated finance.
Key takeaways
Ripple and SettleMint will integrate Ripple Custody with SettleMint’s Digital Asset Lifecycle Platform to support custody, issuance, and management of tokenized assets.
Coincheck Group’s Japan effort with DFNS focuses on wallet infrastructure and institutional-grade custody through a wallet-as-a-service model.
Both partnerships target a persistent bottleneck: limited infrastructure that fits regulated financial workflows across the token lifecycle.
Regulatory momentum in the region—particularly Japan’s evolving framework—adds urgency to custody and tokenization capabilities for institutions.
Ripple’s custody and token lifecycle integration
Ripple announced the partnership with SettleMint on Tuesday, framing it as a way to help financial institutions handle tokenized assets “across their full lifecycle.” According to Ripple’s announcement via PR Newswire, the collaboration will integrate Ripple’s institutional custody infrastructure, Ripple Custody, with SettleMint’s Digital Asset Lifecycle Platform (DALP).
The stated goal is straightforward: rather than stitching together multiple vendors and separate tools for custody and post-issuance operations, institutions can use an integrated approach that supports both securing assets and managing their lifecycle. Ripple’s coverage positions the combined stack as a less complex route for regulated firms that need robust custody controls while also participating in tokenized-asset issuance and administration.
Why this matters for investors and operators is that custody and lifecycle management are typically two of the hardest components to operationalize within traditional compliance requirements. If lifecycle tooling and governance controls can be packaged into a single institutional workflow, it can shorten deployment timelines for banks and asset managers that would otherwise face longer integration projects and higher operational risk.
Parallel momentum in Japan: Coincheck and DFNS
A day before Ripple’s announcement, Coincheck Group revealed its own initiative in Japan, partnering with wallet infrastructure provider DFNS to bring institutional-grade digital asset custody and wallet technology to the market. The development was reported in a Business Wire release.
DFNS’s wallet-as-a-service approach is designed to centralize operational management. The source describes it as supporting transaction lifecycle management, including workflow orchestration and governance controls, delivered under a single platform that supports more than 100 blockchain networks.
For institutions evaluating crypto infrastructure, that distinction—platform-level management rather than fragmented components—can be critical. Many regulated services require controls around approvals, governance policies, and operational workflows that extend beyond simple wallet access. A service positioned around “full transaction lifecycle management” suggests an attempt to meet those requirements more directly.
Infrastructure gap meets faster onchain growth in Asia-Pacific
Both partnerships arrive as Asia-Pacific continues to accelerate in crypto usage. According to Chainalysis’ 2025 Global Crypto Adoption Index, the Asia-Pacific region ranked as the fastest-growing area for onchain activity and saw a 69% year-over-year increase in value received.
While adoption growth alone does not guarantee institutional participation, it typically increases pressure on infrastructure providers to deliver enterprise capabilities that can handle real-world transaction volumes and compliance demands. The partnership announcements explicitly connect their work to an “infrastructure gap” that has hindered regulated financial institutions from entering digital asset activities.
In other words, the region is not just expanding in consumer and retail usage; it is building the case for institutional-grade custody, token issuance tooling, and governance-ready wallet and custody services that can operate under regulatory constraints.
Regulatory developments in Japan raise the stakes
Japan is central to the current wave of institutional infrastructure pushes. In July, the Japanese parliament passed revisions that classify crypto assets as financial assets under Japan’s Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
The regulatory direction matters because classification under financial rules generally changes how institutions think about onboarding, compliance, custody responsibilities, and product design. More clearly defined categories can help create predictable expectations for regulated market participants, but they can also require infrastructure upgrades to satisfy governance and custody standards.
Cointelegraph also reported that Japan’s Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama signaled an intent to bring crypto under the same umbrella as traditional finance assets in January. The stated aim was to ensure citizens can “benefit from digital and blockchain-based assets,” while keeping the framework aligned with established financial oversight.
Against this backdrop, the Ripple–SettleMint and Coincheck–DFNS announcements can be read as infrastructure groundwork for institutions trying to participate in a market where regulatory classification and operational expectations are becoming more formalized.
What to watch next
Investors and builders should watch how these partnerships translate into deployable institution-facing offerings—particularly around custody workflows, governance controls, and end-to-end token lifecycle operations. As Japan’s legal framework continues to take shape and as Asia-Pacific onchain activity grows, the competitive advantage is likely to accrue to providers that can integrate tokenization, custody, and compliance-ready operational tooling without forcing institutions into complex, multi-vendor builds.
This article was originally published as Ripple and Coincheck Drive Asia Digital Asset Custody Deals on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

An affiliate of Fairshake, one of the best-known political networks tied to the U.S. crypto industry, is spending on media ahead of Tuesday’s Massachusetts primary as part of a broader push into the 2026 election cycle. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Protect Progress PAC—linked to Fairshake—has targeted messaging to support Representative Jake Auchincloss in his bid for reelection.
The spending and accompanying accusations are also renewing scrutiny of how crypto-aligned political groups are engaging with candidates in races that are not directly about crypto policy—while highlighting the political pressure points around legislation affecting digital assets.
Key takeaways
FEC records show Protect Progress PAC spent just over $189,000 on media supporting Jake Auchincloss in Massachusetts’ 4th congressional district primary.
Democratic candidate Jason Poulos alleges some of the mailers were “AI-generated slop mailers,” raising questions about messaging tactics in the race.
Poulos asked Auchincloss to renounce the PAC’s efforts in an Aug. 16 letter, intensifying public conflict around outside influence.
Auchincloss’ crypto-policy profile is part of the dispute, with Poulos citing Auchincloss’ voting record on a 2025 digital-asset market structure bill.
Fairshake and affiliates remain active in 2026, with the PAC reporting substantial cash reserves ahead of fall elections.
FEC filings detail Protect Progress PAC media spending in Massachusetts
Federal Election Commission documents filed as of Tuesday indicate that Protect Progress PAC, a Fairshake affiliate, spent just over $189,000 on media in connection with Representative Jake Auchincloss’ reelection campaign in Massachusetts’ 4th congressional district.
The primary is scheduled for Tuesday, and the media buy is notable because it reflects how crypto-linked political entities continue to participate in contests where candidates may be evaluated through broader political narratives rather than directly on digital-asset policy.
Poulos accuses outside groups of AI-generated messaging
Jason Poulos, a Democratic candidate challenging Auchincloss, argues that at least part of the PAC-supported messaging was not produced in a traditional format. In a public letter dated Aug. 16, Poulos called on Auchincloss to “publicly renounce” Protect Progress’ efforts to influence both the primary and the general election.
Poulos specifically claimed some of the mailers were “AI-generated slop mailers” supporting Auchincloss ahead of the Massachusetts primary. While the FEC spending records establish the existence of the media expenditure, Poulos’ characterization focuses on the alleged nature of the materials—an accusation that highlights the rising political controversy around technology-assisted campaign content.
Crypto-policy voting record becomes part of the political argument
In his Aug. 16 letter, Poulos also raised a link between the political support and Auchincloss’ relationship to crypto industry priorities. The candidate alleged Auchincloss had received $77,500 directly from “crypto-industry sources” since 2020.
Poulos further pointed to Auchincloss’ voting behavior on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act in July 2025, describing it as a market-structure bill. As framed by Poulos, that measure was not signed into law at the time and was still awaiting Senate consideration.
For investors and builders following the policy landscape, the practical significance is that crypto-aligned political groups appear to be tying campaign support—directly or indirectly—to candidates’ positions on digital-asset regulation and market structure. Whether those policy positions translate into legislative outcomes remains a key question, but political reinforcement can influence candidate incentives ahead of legislative votes.
Fairshake affiliates push into 2026 elections with sizable resources
The Protect Progress spending is part of a larger pattern of engagement by Fairshake and related groups in the 2026 midterm cycle. Earlier this year and in recent reporting, Fairshake affiliates have deployed resources across multiple congressional races.
In August, Cointelegraph reported that the PAC and its affiliates spent about $3.6 million on House and Senate races in Alaska, Florida, and Wyoming during August. At the same time, Fairshake reported having $122 million in cash on hand ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Fairshake spokesperson Geoff Vetter stated in August that the organization was “not slowing down heading into November,” adding that there were “dozens of wins” across House and Senate races and that it had $122 million ready for the fall.
Massachusetts, with its primary on Tuesday, is among the later states to hold primaries, leaving limited time for further campaign developments ahead of the general election. Other states scheduled to hold primaries in September include New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Delaware.
For readers trying to assess how crypto politics are evolving, the Massachusetts spending shows that the cycle is not limited to a small number of early contests. Instead, crypto-linked political capital appears to be extending across the calendar, with media buys and message discipline playing a prominent role.
What to watch next in the Massachusetts primary
With FEC data confirming Protect Progress PAC’s media spending and Poulos pressing Auchincloss to reject outside influence publicly, the key uncertainty now is how Auchincloss and party leaders respond to the allegations and whether the primary’s outcome changes the tone of future attacks about crypto-linked political spending. The next data point to track will be additional reporting and filings clarifying the content and spending breakdowns associated with the media campaign tied to the Fairshake affiliate.
This article was originally published as Crypto-Backed PAC Cuts Massachusetts Primary Ad Spend on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Prediction market platform Kalshi has imposed lifetime and multi-year trading bans on US House of Representatives candidates Laurie Buckhout and former Republican lawmaker George Santos, citing violations of rules that prohibit traders who can influence an event’s outcome from trading on contracts tied to that same event.
The compliance notices, announced Friday, mark one of Kalshi’s most serious enforcement actions since the platform launched in 2021. They also land amid heightened political and regulatory scrutiny of prediction markets, particularly claims that some event contracts could be manipulated.
Key takeaways
Kalshi permanently suspended George Santos from trading on its prediction markets and imposed a $71,356 penalty, according to a settlement notice.
Laurie Buckhout received a three-year trading suspension and a $2,590 penalty following Kalshi disciplinary action.
Kalshi tied both restrictions to alleged rule-breaches involving event contracts that could be influenced by the candidates’ own actions.
The moves follow broader enforcement concerns as regulators and lawmakers push back on whether prediction markets can be adequately controlled against manipulation.
Lifetime ban for George Santos after alleged event-linked trading
In its notice of settlement of disciplinary action, Kalshi said it had permanently suspended Santos from trading on the platform and assessed a $71,356 penalty. The company’s account attributes the action to investigation findings that Santos traded using event contracts connected to matters tied to his own public schedule and actions.
Kalshi said Santos “engaged in trading activity in certain markets related to his attendance at the State of the Union address” in February 2026. Under Kalshi’s rules, the platform prohibits trading on contracts where the trader is a decision maker, or has any influence—direct or indirect—over the outcome of the underlying event.
“If a Trader is a decision maker, either directly or indirectly, or has any influence, directly or indirectly, no matter the scale and importance of the influence, on the outcome of the Underlying event of any Contract, that Trader is prohibited from attempting to enter into any trade, either directly or indirectly, on the market in such Contracts,” Kalshi’s rules state.
Notably, Kalshi’s compliance notice did not say whether Santos cooperated with the investigation. Santos, however, publicly disputed Kalshi’s approach afterward, calling the platform “unserious” in a post on X.
Three-year suspension for Buckhout tied to her own candidacy
Kalshi said its investigation into Buckhout led to a three-year suspension from trading and a $2,590 penalty. In its notice of settlement, the company described Buckhout—running in North Carolina’s 1st congressional district—as having announced her candidacy and being added as a market option for a contract on the North Carolina congressional election.
In describing the conflict, Kalshi referenced its rules on influence over an event’s outcome, emphasizing that if a trader has any meaningful ability to affect the underlying result, they are barred from trading on related contracts. Kalshi’s compliance department reported that Buckhout “cooperated with the inquiry” and agreed to the trading ban and penalty.
Buckhout remains a Republican candidate for the 2026 midterm elections in North Carolina’s 1st congressional district. Reports also indicated her comment after the settlement characterized her alleged conduct as a “dumb mistake.”
Why Kalshi’s enforcement matters for prediction market trust
These settlements are significant not only for the individuals named but also for how prediction markets defend themselves against manipulation concerns. Kalshi’s argument is essentially compliance-based: once someone can plausibly affect or influence an event tied to a market—whether by office-holding, public participation, or other decision-making—the market platform draws a line between ordinary speculation and trading while holding influence over the event.
That stance comes as prediction market platforms continue to face pressure from both federal and state authorities. Kalshi has already been in the crosshairs over event-contract conduct, and the new enforcement actions can be read as part of a broader attempt to demonstrate internal policing.
The same tension has also appeared in enforcement actions involving people connected to political communications. Earlier, federal regulators fined Gabriel Perez, described as President Donald Trump’s teleprompter operator, after trading event contracts on Kalshi related to Trump’s speeches. Kalshi’s latest disciplinary actions, while involving different individuals and circumstances, reinforce the idea that regulators and lawmakers are watching whether event markets can be gamed by participants whose own actions shape outcomes.
Prediction markets still face a legal battle over jurisdiction
Beyond Kalshi’s internal discipline, the wider market faces legal uncertainty in the United States. According to the article’s referenced context, Kalshi and other prediction platforms such as Polymarket have been hit by lawsuits filed by individual US state gaming authorities. Those suits allege the platforms facilitate illegal bets on sporting events.
At the same time, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has argued that it holds “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, and the CFTC chair, Michael Selig, has said the agency will pursue legal action against state authorities that challenge that position.
Earlier this year, the CFTC used rare emergency authority in a dispute involving New York’s attempt to bar Kalshi from offering certain types of contracts tied to sports, elections, and other events. The case reflects a broader regulatory asymmetry: even when platforms claim they are operating under federal frameworks, state-level enforcement threats can still shape market access, product design, and long-term compliance strategy.
Buckhout’s market remains live despite sanctions
Even with Buckhout sanctioned, Kalshi’s contracts tied to her election outcome appear to remain listed. As of Tuesday, Kalshi still showed event contracts related to the result of Buckhout’s North Carolina race, displaying probabilities for Democratic incumbent Don Davis versus Buckhout.
That detail matters for traders and observers because it highlights a separation between disciplinary action against a participant and the ongoing availability of the underlying contract market—an important operational question for anyone evaluating liquidity, pricing accuracy, and how quickly markets reflect compliance-driven changes.
Going forward, market participants should watch whether Kalshi expands similar enforcement across other categories of politically connected events, and whether the CFTC’s jurisdiction stance continues to deter or intensify state-level lawsuits—developments that could reshape which prediction markets remain accessible in the US and under what compliance standards.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Hands First Lifetime Ban to Republican Over Insider Bets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed a significant rewrite of the rules that govern transfer agents—firms responsible for maintaining key records and processing securities transfers. The agency says the overhaul is needed as blockchain-based recordkeeping and tokenized securities move closer to mainstream use in U.S. markets.
In a proposal published by the SEC, the agency outlines updated requirements covering registration, recordkeeping, safeguarding, and securities transfer procedures, while also introducing new controls for risks tied to “digital and automated” market infrastructure. The SEC noted that some market participants are actively looking to use blockchain-native, or “onchain,” transfer-agent models in the U.S.
Key takeaways
The SEC’s proposal would modernize transfer-agent obligations for registration, recordkeeping, safeguarding, and transfer processing as tokenized securities expand.
New compliance expectations would address risks the SEC says are not sufficiently covered under rules last updated in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
The SEC calls out cybersecurity, operational resilience, and safeguarding of investor records as central concerns for digital recordkeeping.
Transfer agents would face expanded reporting and new standards tied to restrictive legends and third-party service provider use.
Why the SEC is targeting transfer agents
Transfer agents play a critical role in the lifecycle of securities—handling ownership records, processing transactions, and managing investor-facing documentation requirements. The SEC argues that its existing framework has not been substantively updated since the era when paper certificates and manual recordkeeping dominated the market.
In the filing, the SEC points to emerging approaches that rely on blockchain-based recordkeeping and digital administration systems, including models used for tokenized fund administration and interoperability across networks. According to the SEC, the current rules do not adequately reflect these developments, particularly with respect to maintaining secure, reliable, and tamper-resistant investor records.
The SEC also frames the proposal as a response to broader changes in how markets are built and operated, emphasizing that digital and automated infrastructure can introduce new failure modes. In its view, compliance systems must evolve accordingly—especially in areas like cybersecurity and operational resilience, where a technical breakdown can affect investor protections.
What the proposal would change
The SEC’s proposed changes would update multiple layers of transfer-agent regulation. The agency highlights that the proposal covers requirements related to registration, recordkeeping practices, safeguarding responsibilities, and the handling of securities transfers. It also proposes additional standards that would apply as transfer agents incorporate or rely on more automated and digital processes.
Among the specific compliance areas the SEC flags are new or expanded requirements tied to:
Expanded reporting: the agency is seeking additional disclosures and compliance reporting that better match the realities of digital systems.
Restrictive legends: updated rules would govern how restrictive legends are handled for securities.
Third-party service providers: the proposal introduces standards relating to the use of outside vendors or service providers in transfer-agent operations.
While the proposal is designed to accommodate modernization, the SEC’s emphasis is on controlling risk. The agency specifically calls out investor record safeguarding, operational durability, and cybersecurity as areas where the existing rules are described as insufficient for the modern stack—particularly when records are maintained electronically and potentially integrated with broader onchain workflows.
Onchain transfer agents: potential benefits and regulatory friction
The SEC directly acknowledges momentum toward blockchain-native transfer-agent models. In its proposal, the regulator says market participants are seeking ways to bring onchain transfer agents into the U.S., referencing blockchain-native recordkeeping and tokenized-administration approaches.
That acknowledgment is important for two reasons. First, it signals that the SEC is at least formally engaging with the possibility of onchain transfer-agent architectures rather than treating them solely as outside the regulatory perimeter. Second, it clarifies that “onchain” does not remove transfer agents from traditional investor-protection duties; instead, the SEC wants the rulebook to specify how those duties should be met when the underlying infrastructure shifts.
For investors and issuers, this matters because transfer-agent reliability affects the integrity of ownership records and the execution of securities transfers. If modern systems are adopted, market participants will likely need to align their implementations—especially around security controls, system uptime expectations, and how safeguards are enforced and audited.
SEC’s broader push to modernize securities regulation
This transfer-agent proposal sits within a wider pattern of SEC rulemaking aimed at revising outdated frameworks. According to an analysis by law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, the SEC has described its ongoing agenda as a mission to simplify its rules.
Earlier in the year, the SEC proposed three major changes to public-company reporting rules. Those steps would allow companies to opt for semiannual reporting, simplify the existing filer classification system, and expand access to streamlined registered securities offerings.
The SEC has also been moving in parallel on custody-related standards for investment advisers and investment companies. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the SEC sent a proposed overhaul of custody rules to the White House for review, with potential changes related to how firms custody crypto assets while complying with federal securities rules.
Read together, these initiatives suggest the SEC is trying to reduce friction across multiple points in the securities value chain—from reporting and offerings to custody practices and transfer-agent operations. While each proposal addresses a different function, the common theme is updating rules to better reflect how modern market participants operate and where regulators believe existing requirements no longer map cleanly onto current technology.
What happens next for the transfer-agent rulemaking
The SEC is seeking public comment on the proposed transfer-agent changes. The agency states that comments are due 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.
Market participants considering blockchain-native transfer-agent systems—and issuers evaluating tokenized structures—should watch the comment process closely. The SEC’s focus on cybersecurity, operational resilience, and safeguarding investor records indicates that technical design choices will likely need to be paired with demonstrable compliance controls as the rulemaking moves forward.
Reference: SEC proposed Transfer Agent Rules (proposal document): https://www.sec.gov/files/rules/proposed/2026/34-106246.pdf
This article was originally published as SEC Drafts Major Overhaul of Transfer Agent Rules, Mentions Blockchain on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A consortium of 21 major financial institutions says it plans to form a new company dedicated to developing and issuing stablecoins, signaling a renewed effort from traditional banks to build digital-dollar rails that fit emerging regulations. The group announced Tuesday that it aims to launch a US dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027, once the company is formed and other conditions are met.
Beyond a first US dollar product, the consortium says it intends to expand to stablecoins denominated in other G7 currencies, with a euro offering identified as its next priority. The planned tokens are intended to serve wholesale, institutional, and retail users, including applications such as cross-border payments and digital asset settlement.
Key takeaways
21 large financial institutions plan to create a company to develop and issue stablecoins.
The initial product is expected to be a US dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027.
Officials say the stablecoin framework will aim to comply with the US GENIUS Act and, where applicable, the EU’s MiCA.
After the dollar launch, the consortium’s stated next step is a euro-denominated stablecoin.
The consortium more than doubled compared with an earlier October effort involving 10 banks exploring reserve-backed stablecoins.
From bank pilots to a coordinated stablecoin company
The Tuesday announcement frames the initiative as a step toward a more formal, multi-institution approach to stablecoins. The consortium names Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Citi, Deutsche Bank, UBS, Santander, MUFG, and Fidelity Investments, among others.
While stablecoins have already gained traction across parts of the financial ecosystem, this move stands out for its scale and for the breadth of the participating institutions across regions including North America, Europe, East Asia, and parts of the Middle East and Africa. The group’s expansion from the earlier, smaller effort suggests momentum is building toward shared infrastructure rather than isolated, institution-by-institution experiments.
In October 2025, Reuters reported that an initial group of 10 banks was exploring a 1:1 reserve-backed model of digital money available on public blockchains. The new consortium effectively builds on that earlier exploration, with the stated plan now moving closer to an eventual issuance roadmap, albeit still contingent on forming the company and meeting other unspecified conditions.
Regulatory alignment is central to the plan
Stablecoin projects increasingly rise or fall on regulatory fit, and the consortium is explicitly tying its design goals to compliance pathways. According to the announcement, the planned stablecoin will aim to comply with the US GENIUS Act and the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), where applicable.
This matters for more than public messaging. Stablecoin issuers and distributors typically need legal clarity around reserve management, redemption, consumer protections, and supervisory oversight. By explicitly referencing both US and EU frameworks, the consortium is signaling that it wants the token to operate not just as a blockchain-native instrument, but as an asset that can be integrated into regulated distribution channels.
That regulatory emphasis also aligns with broader shifts in the sector. Stablecoins have seen growing adoption in recent years, and the passage of GENIUS and MiCA has helped clarify routes that were previously more uncertain for mainstream institutions.
Where the consortium says it wants to use the token
The announcement says the stablecoin is designed for wholesale and institutional use as well as retail access. Use cases highlighted include cross-border payments and digital asset settlement—applications where speed, programmability, and transfer finality are often treated as advantages compared with traditional correspondent banking flows.
For investors and market participants, the inclusion of multiple target segments suggests the consortium wants the stablecoin to function across different integration levels: internal settlement for financial firms, cross-border transfer for payment corridors, and easier access for retail users through downstream partners.
The planned multi-currency expansion further indicates the project is not intended to be a one-off US dollar product. The consortium’s stated next priority is a euro-denominated stablecoin, which could matter for liquidity planning and for cross-border use cases within Europe and between regions.
Broader industry momentum: Asia policy, bank issuance, and institutional surveys
This consortium’s announcement comes amid other signs of institutional progress. In Singapore, for example, the country’s authorities are said to be considering allowing jointly issued cross-border stablecoins into its regulatory regime. The Tuesday announcement reportedly revisits an earlier position that limited the framework to domestic issuance.
Separately, institutional interest has been building through both surveys and product launches. Earlier in 2025, a Fireblocks survey of 295 executives found that 90% of respondents were using or planning to use stablecoins, underscoring that demand is not limited to crypto-native companies.
There have also been concrete issuance steps by major firms. According to coverage referenced by the article, Societe Generale’s crypto subsidiary has issued euro- and dollar-denominated stablecoins, and Fidelity has launched a US dollar-pegged FIDD stablecoin. The article also notes Standard Chartered’s backing of a Hong Kong dollar stablecoin venture.
Taken together, these developments suggest a shift from isolated experiments toward products that can be distributed, regulated, and operationalized at institutional scale. The consortium’s planned US-dollar launch in 2027 can be read as part of that same arc—moving from “can it work?” to “how does it fit within the rules and distribution networks?”
For market watchers, the key question is whether the consortium’s approach—reserve-backed stablecoins with compliance targets aimed at GENIUS and MiCA—will translate into a deployable issuance plan that other institutions can readily integrate with. Investors should watch for updates on the company’s formation, the exact token structure and reserve arrangements, and how the group coordinates cross-border deployment as regulators continue to clarify stablecoin treatment.
This article was originally published as 21 Banks Including BofA, Citi, and Goldman Plan Stablecoin Launch on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple and SettleMint unveiled a new partnership on September 1. The deal merges custody, issuance, and lifecycle management into a single platform. Traditional finance firms now gain a simpler path toward digital asset adoption.
A Unified Platform for Institutions
SettleMint announced the collaboration in an official statement this week. The partnership links Ripple Custody with SettleMint’s Digital Asset Lifecycle Platform, known as DALP. Together, the two systems aim to accelerate tokenization adoption across the Asia Pacific region.
Fiona Murray, Ripple’s managing director for Asia Pacific, explained the strategic thinking behind the move. Institutions want to deploy digital assets without juggling separate systems for custody and governance. The combined platform gives them one foundation to build on and expand later.
Adam Popat, CEO of SettleMint, echoed that view in his own remarks. He described global capital markets as shifting fully on-chain in the current moment. As a result, custody and lifecycle management must now function as a single system rather than two.
Ripple’s Broader Institutional Strategy
Ripple continues to expand its custody infrastructure through several additional partnerships. The company has deepened ties with Securosys, Figment, and Chainalysis in recent months. These integrations aim to simplify how institutions secure digital assets, stablecoins, and real-world assets.
Ripple also plans to roll out the XRP Ledger v3.3.0 upgrade soon. The upgrade places tokenized real-world assets at the center of its roadmap. This step reflects Ripple’s wider strategy to court institutional capital through infrastructure improvements.
XRP itself traded higher following the announcement, rising more than one percent within 24 hours. The token moved between $1.36 and $1.40 during that window. Trading volume fell 16 percent, yet CME futures open interest still surpassed figures on Binance.
Regulatory Momentum Fuels Sector Growth
The partnership arrives as regulators reshape the tokenization landscape inside the United States. The SEC introduced tokenization innovation exemptions under the current administration this year. These changes encourage more institutions to seriously explore blockchain-based asset management.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation also plans to launch its own tokenization service. That rollout is scheduled for October and adds further momentum to the sector. Multiple major players now compete to serve rising institutional demand for on-chain assets.
Financial firms increasingly need compliant infrastructure to manage complex ledger configurations safely. Custody providers must now handle growing volumes of tokenized assets without added risk. The Ripple-SettleMint partnership positions both companies to meet that rising demand directly.
Institutions across Asia Pacific stand to benefit most from this streamlined approach. Rather than managing multiple vendors, banks can now consolidate custody and issuance functions. This consolidation may lower operational costs while improving oversight of digital asset holdings.
The tokenization market continues to grow as traditional finance embraces blockchain technology further. Partnerships like this one signal a maturing industry ready for institutional-scale adoption. Ripple and SettleMint now join a growing list of firms building that infrastructure together.
This article was originally published as Ripple, SettleMint Team Up to Streamline Tokenized Asset Custody on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Long-dated sovereign bonds are drawing fresh attention after a broad sell-off pushed yields higher across key markets, with Japan’s 30-year JGB yield setting a new record level. The move comes amid heightened focus on how currency and debt-financing dynamics could spill into global risk assets, including Bitcoin.
On Tuesday, Japanese government bond pressure intensified: the 10-year JGB yield jumped above 3% for the first time since 1996, while the 30-year yield topped a record 4.18%. In the US, long-dated Treasuries also sold off, with the 10-year yield rising to a multi-year high and standing at about 4.78% at the time of writing.
Key takeaways
Japan’s long end of the yield curve accelerated sharply, with the 30-year JGB yield clearing a record 4.18%.
US long-term yields moved higher in parallel, reinforcing the idea of a synchronized global duration sell-off.
Market commentary is reviving “debasement” narratives tied to potential future dollar-liquidity measures and yen stabilization efforts.
Bitcoin held near $78,000 during the bond sell-off, but faces nearby resistance and a defined trading range from prior coverage.
Equities and risk sentiment remained fragile as S&P 500 futures slipped and oil prices moved higher amid renewed Middle East tensions.
Japan’s long bond sell-off raises the stakes
The steepening in Japan’s longer-dated sovereign yields matters beyond domestic bond markets because it directly affects financing costs and the incentives around capital flows. In the article’s discussion of policy constraints, the core issue is a two-way bind for Japanese authorities regarding the yen and the government’s own bond holdings.
The argument presented is that Tokyo cannot simply raise policy rates to support the yen without risking operating losses that ultimately feed into the Finance ministry’s balance sheet. At the same time, forcing repatriation of capital without selling Treasuries could be difficult—particularly in a world where US financing needs remain substantial.
Industry commentators have previously framed this as an unstable combination: the yen weakens even as long-term yields keep rising, producing a “crisis” dynamic in the G10 context. In a post on X, Robin Brooks, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, described Japan as being in a “Liz Truss” style bond-market stress episode where the currency falls while yields climb, calling it “deeply destabilizing.”
Could yen stabilization lean on dollar liquidity?
A key thread running through the coverage is whether Japan could eventually rely on a mechanism that creates dollars using its Treasury holdings—without immediately triggering a domestic bond-market shock. Arthur Hayes, in a post linked in the original report, has long argued that the Federal Reserve may use the Foreign and International Monetary Authorities (FIMA) repo facility.
Under that scenario described by Hayes, Japan’s Finance ministry could borrow dollars against Treasury holdings, then sell those dollars for yen—potentially strengthening the currency without forcing an abrupt adjustment that could destabilize sovereign debt markets.
The relevance for investors is that such a pathway would effectively introduce new dollar liquidity. The original reporting notes that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hinted at future use of the FIMA facility in August, and it also references a more recent development: Bessent’s announcement that the maximum size of debt buyback transactions would increase to $4 billion from September (covered earlier by Cointelegraph).
Separately, the article suggests that rising long-term yields could be the market starting to price in some version of this future policy calculus. The key uncertainty remains how and when any dollar-liquidity instrument would actually be used, and whether it would be sufficient to reverse the direction of yields and currency pressure.
Bitcoin steadies near $78,000 as macro pressure builds
Against the backdrop of higher bond yields, Bitcoin traded sideways around the $78,000 area after a modest pullback from an earlier move toward $79,000. The positioning is consistent with a market that is absorbing macro volatility without immediately extending upside.
Prior Cointelegraph coverage cited a “thick patch of resistance” spanning the area between the spot price and $86,000, which the original report says has slowed upward momentum. That same coverage also pointed to a more specific “demand test” above $83,000, referencing analysis from Glassnode.
In this latest read-through, sentiment is described as mixed to cautiously optimistic in the short term, with the $76,000–$82,000 zone highlighted as the near-term battleground. Traders typically treat ranges like this as a sign of indecision—macro-driven catalysts may be strong, but price is still searching for confirmation through either a breakout or further rejection.
Risk markets falter; oil rises on renewed Iran tensions
The bond move did not occur in isolation. The article notes that US equity futures were weaker: S&P 500 out-of-hours futures fell about 0.3% and hovered around 7,660, the lowest level since Aug. 4 at the time referenced.
Energy markets also turned firmer. Oil prices rose by more than 2%, with WTI around $88 per barrel and Brent above $92, linked to renewed US-Iran fighting concerns. The original reporting points to renewed strikes, tanker incidents in the Strait of Hormuz, and commentary attributed to President Donald Trump.
For crypto, the practical implication is that rising yields combined with energy-driven inflation risk can keep traders cautious: higher real-rate expectations can tighten financial conditions, while geopolitical risk can either support hedging demand or pressure broader risk appetite depending on how quickly markets reprice inflation and liquidity assumptions.
Going forward, watch whether Japan’s long-end yields keep pressing higher and whether US Treasury yields follow through. Those signals will likely determine whether the market is simply reacting to rates or beginning to price a deeper shift in how currency stabilization and sovereign financing could be handled. For Bitcoin, the key question is whether the $76,000–$82,000 range resolves upward with confirming demand—or rolls over as macro pressure intensifies.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Trades Sideways as Bond Bear Market Lifts JGB Yields on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A fake desktop application impersonating Anthropic’s Claude is reportedly being used as a delivery mechanism for RevStealer, a Windows malware strain designed to steal crypto-related data and other sensitive information. Researchers at Morphisec say the campaign has evolved beyond earlier distribution channels, including GitHub repositories and game-cheat themed sites, and that the “Claude Opus 5 Free Desktop” lure is now among the most prominent.
While the technical details are aimed at defenders, the operational choices behind RevStealer carry direct implications for users and anyone investing in or managing digital assets: the malware is built to avoid analysis, profile the infected machine, and then extract high-value information across browsers, password managers, wallet software, and even selected documents.
Key takeaways
RevStealer is delivered via a fake “Claude Opus 5 Free Desktop” Windows app that impersonates Anthropic and offers supposed free access.
The malware is designed to leave minimal traces and harvest browser data, cookies, password-manager records, VPN/remote-access settings, screenshots, and selected files.
It targets more than 50 cryptocurrency wallets and can also capture messaging data and other credentials beyond crypto holdings.
Before executing, it checks system characteristics consistent with real user environments and aborts if it detects signs of analysis or abnormal conditions.
Curious about broader context: Morphisec’s report follows Kaspersky’s earlier identification of OkoBot, a separate framework aimed at crypto investors.
A Claude-themed lure masks a crypto-stealing payload
In a Monday report, cybersecurity firm Morphisec described how RevStealer has been distributed through multiple fronts, with earlier campaigns using GitHub repositories and game-cheat themed websites. The latest and most notable delivery method, the researchers said, is a project branded as “Claude Opus 5 Free Desktop” that impersonates Anthropic and promises free access to Claude.
From an attacker’s perspective, this approach is logical: it repackages a familiar consumer brand into a Windows installer or desktop program, lowering user skepticism and increasing the odds that victims will run the malicious payload.
Designed to extract high-value data from browsers, wallets, and more
Morphisec’s analysis portrays RevStealer as a multi-purpose stealer. The malware not only searches browser databases and cookies, but also looks for password-manager records and configurations tied to privacy and remote access. In addition, it targets VPN and remote-access settings and collects messaging data, which can reveal account recovery paths, authentication workflows, or direct access tokens.
For crypto users, the most significant operational detail is wallet targeting. Morphisec said RevStealer targets over 50 cryptocurrency wallets, positioning the malware to compromise both the user’s general credentials and the specific applications most likely to contain or facilitate asset management.
The report also notes that the malware can capture screenshots and selected documents. That matters because some users store seed phrases, backup codes, or operational instructions in non-wallet files—making document harvesting an extra layer of financial opportunity for attackers.
Execution gating: it tries to spot “analysis” before it acts
One of the more defensive-relevant elements of RevStealer, according to Morphisec, is the way it determines whether a machine resembles a real user environment. The malware checks available memory, the number of CPU cores, hostname and username information, and graphics hardware characteristics. It also monitors for debugging delays that are typical in malware analysis setups.
If the checks fail—if the system presents signals that look automated, instrumented, or otherwise atypical—RevStealer does not progress to the next stages of infection and malicious activity.
When the system passes, the malware decrypts its payload, stores it under a randomly generated name, and executes it covertly. This workflow is designed to reduce the chance that researchers can quickly identify the complete payload chain and to make behavioral detection harder when the malicious component only activates under specific conditions.
RevStealer follows a wider pattern of crypto-investor targeting
The Morphisec report arrives after earlier reporting by Kaspersky on a new malware framework targeting cryptocurrency investors called OkoBot. Kaspersky’s description, as referenced in Morphisec’s write-up, indicates that OkoBot can harvest crypto wallet files and browser data, steal user credentials, inject malicious extensions, and capture wallet application windows to help redirect or siphon assets.
Taken together, the two stories suggest a persistent trend: attackers are not limiting themselves to “wallet-only” theft. Instead, they are expanding into browser and credential ecosystems, then coupling that access with wallet application targeting and, in RevStealer’s case, extensive environmental checks to avoid discovery.
For investors, traders, and operators of digital asset infrastructure, this matters because compromises rarely begin in the wallet UI itself. The intrusion surface is often broader: downloadable “desktop” apps, browser states, stored credentials, and remote-access configurations that attackers can convert into the ability to act on funds.
What to watch next
With fake Claude desktop projects being used to deliver a stealer that targets both wallets and sensitive browsing credentials, users should watch for new impersonation campaigns and suspicious installers that promise free access to popular AI tools. On the defensive side, prioritizing endpoint protection, restricting execution of unknown binaries, and maintaining clean browser and password-manager hygiene may help reduce the odds that malware like RevStealer finds a usable environment before it can activate.
This article was originally published as Fake “Claude” Desktop App Distributes Crypto-Stealing Malware on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto’s mood has been getting dragged lower for months, even as market prices have started to rebound. In August, Bitcoin posted a strong monthly performance—reported as its best August in years—with returns cited at 26%, while Ethereum gained 34%. The renewed attention has also spilled into mainstream political moments, including President Trump’s comments at the White House praising a decentralized offshore perpetual futures venue, as covered by Cointelegraph Markets.
Yet a price uptick doesn’t automatically settle the deeper questions many long-time participants have been asking: whether crypto delivered on its most ambitious promises, and whether today’s “wins” look different from what the industry originally pitched.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin’s reported best August in years and Ethereum’s jump have lifted attention, but the broader “sovereign money” narrative still clashes with custodial structures like ETFs.
Perpetual swaps—once a key differentiator—have become standard across compliant exchanges, reducing the advantage held by early derivatives pioneers.
Several industry leaders argue crypto’s impact is real, but less about replacing legacy finance and more about being absorbed into it through settlement, tokenization, and stablecoins.
Despite growing legitimacy and wider adoption, users still face friction: too many networks, wallets, exchanges, bridges, and onramps to navigate.
Self-custody remains a high-risk expectation, and the bear-market pain has been intensified by the difficulty of delivering a “future” that feels safer and easier.
From build-anything optimism to today’s “it’s absorbed” reality
The article’s interviews frame the current moment as a transition: crypto’s technology has spread beyond its original bubble, but the industry’s cultural promise hasn’t matched its commercial outcomes for everyone. Former BitMEX CEO Stephan Lutz argues crypto can’t simply vanish because key mechanisms are already woven into broader financial infrastructure.
Moonshot Capital founder Utkarsh Ahuja echoes that view, pointing to spillover effects including payment rails, settlement, and tokenization. He highlights stablecoins as a potentially durable part of financial payments and notes the expanding idea that “you can literally tokenize anything.” In his view, adoption outside crypto-native circles—across sectors such as energy, healthcare, and AI—is proof the work wasn’t wasted, even if the end result looks less like a separate parallel world.
Subsquid Labs CEO Wanja Oberhof makes a similar infrastructure argument through decentralization: DeFi’s value, he says, is the ability to verify a ledger in real time down to individual transactions, reducing reliance on an operator’s word. He also describes DeFi settlement speed—minutes rather than days—and market availability running 24/7, with lending protocols capable of processing large volumes transparently.
But Oberhof concedes that DeFi did not always land the experience users expected. He argues the sector “over-promised on timelines and under-delivered on user experience,” and suggests the real breakthrough comes only when the technology becomes invisible—embedded in products people use without consciously thinking about blockchains.
Derivatives didn’t fail—differentiation did
One of the clearest “winners and losers” examples comes from crypto derivatives history. BitMEX—described as an early Bitcoin futures exchange that helped popularize perpetual swaps and leveraged trading—has shut down operations in September after 11 years, according to earlier Cointelegraph coverage. Lutz characterizes BitMEX’s end as a case of being copied rather than being obsolete.
In a quote, Lutz says that what once made BitMEX distinctive—perpetual swaps and the associated funding mechanism that aligns longs and shorts—has become standard across “every legitimate crypto exchange.” In other words, the technology’s success removed the very edge the founders built around. As a result, today’s competitive landscape is less about inventing infrastructure and more about execution and aggressive market positioning, which some firms win and others can’t sustain.
This framing matters for investors and builders because it shifts the evaluation criteria. In the early years, differentiation often came from technical novelty. Now, according to Lutz’s argument, differentiation increasingly comes from scale, strategy, and market-share competition—factors that don’t always favor the original innovators.
Legitimacy rose, but convenience and trust lagged
Even while regulations have made crypto more acceptable to traditional institutions, the article suggests that “legitimacy” hasn’t automatically translated into simpler day-to-day use. Regulation has also contributed to a more regulated and, in some ways, more predictable environment—yet that predictability can reduce the borderless promise crypto markets advertised.
The text cites regulatory progress such as the EU’s implementation of Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) and the US move toward building a formal framework for crypto. It also references discussion around a potential CLARITY act. The implication is that the direction of travel is clear: rules are tightening, but they’re still not uniform enough to eliminate friction across jurisdictions.
Ahuja’s interview comments point to a mismatch between crypto’s stated goal—seamless value transfer—and the reality of national regulatory regimes shaping how assets can move. The article includes an anecdote from a Dubai-based crypto user who reportedly receives salary into a centralized exchange, loses money converting USDT into local currency, and pays a flat withdrawal fee of 75 AED (roughly $20). They say they wish they could receive a bank transfer instead.
For users, the practical takeaway is straightforward: even as on-chain rails exist, many real-world workflows remain routed through centralized platforms and local constraints. The promised simplification doesn’t fully arrive when compliance, conversion costs, and access rules dominate the experience.
Self-custody remains a paradox—and morale takes a hit
The article also highlights a tension at the heart of crypto’s original pitch: self-custody. While proponents have long argued that holding private keys is the route to real sovereignty, the piece points out that greater Bitcoin value can raise the stakes of holding keys—whether due to physical theft risks or the expanding threat environment, including cold wallet exploitation framed in the article.
It’s this “failure to deliver the future” that, in the article’s telling, has made bear-market shutdowns and closures feel especially harsh. The text notes that layoffs have been widespread throughout the industry and that projects that survived the 2022 bear market have since shut down or been forced to pivot. Some are reportedly reinventing themselves by leaning into AI, a newer trend that has seen adoption crypto can only dream of—at least in the sense of who is capturing attention and resources right now.
Meanwhile, the article argues that Lutz does not interpret BitMEX’s fate as proof the underlying technology failed. Instead, he suggests the derivatives model worked so well that everyone copied it, and the contest moved to a different game: market share and competitive aggressiveness. That distinction can help readers interpret closures without concluding that the core innovations were wrong.
What to watch next as narratives reset with price
With Bitcoin and Ethereum posting strong performance and public figures generating fresh headlines, narratives are likely to tighten around “why this rally will last.” But the article’s central warning is that price momentum doesn’t resolve the long-running issues around custodial versus non-custodial ideals, user friction, and the real-world risks of self-custody. The next signal to watch is whether infrastructure improvements translate into better usability and clearer pathways for everyday users—or whether the industry continues to measure progress primarily through charts.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Rally Signals Broader Crypto Recovery, Not Regrets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The London Stock Exchange Group (LSEG) is reportedly preparing to bring tokenized stock trading to its next-generation venue in partnership with Kraken’s parent company, Payward. The plan, described by Payward’s chief commercial officer Mark Greenberg in a Tuesday report, targets access to tokenized stocks that track major UK equity products starting in 2027.
According to the Financial Times, the tokenized equities would be listed on LSE’s new night-time trading platform, LSE 24—an initiative designed to run 24/5 trading from Mondays through Fridays. LSE 24 was announced by the exchange operator on July 21.
Key takeaways
LSEG is moving tokenized equity exposure into a regulated trading venue, with Payward linked to the rollout.
The targeted launch window for tokenized stocks tracking leading UK equities is 2027.
Trading would take place on LSE’s planned 24/5 system (LSE 24), aimed at extending market hours versus traditional schedules.
The announcement places London among several major TradFi firms pursuing tokenized stock products, including Nasdaq and ICE.
Tokenized stock adoption continues to expand, with onchain totals and holder counts rising as measured by RWA.xyz.
How LSE 24 and Payward could change UK market access
LSE 24 is central to the move. Rather than limiting tokenized assets to a separate experimental platform, the approach described by Payward connects tokenized stocks to a trading venue being built by the London exchange itself. The claimed operating schedule—24/5—matters for investors and trading desks that want greater continuity across the week, particularly around regional evening hours and the transition from Asia to Europe.
For issuers and liquidity providers, tokenization can also shift how equity exposure is distributed and held, including the possibility of fractional ownership depending on the product structure. However, what exactly will be offered—such as which specific UK equity products are covered and how settlement and custody will operate in practice—was not detailed in the excerpted reporting.
Still, the direction is clear: tokenized stocks are being treated less like a standalone blockchain concept and more like an extension of mainstream market infrastructure.
LSE joins a broader tokenized equities race in TradFi
LSE’s reported partnership with Kraken’s parent Payward adds another traditional exchange operator to a trend that has accelerated across major markets. The article notes that other established players are also exploring tokenized equity offerings that can be traded around the clock or with extended hours.
In the United States, Nasdaq agreed to acquire LeveL Markets in August, framing the deal as part of a broader push into tokenized markets with round-the-clock trading capabilities. In Europe, ICE—the parent of the New York Stock Exchange—has also been linked to bringing tokenized stocks to its platform as part of a wider tokenized securities initiative.
Meanwhile, Deutsche Börse has reportedly invested in Payward, citing plans to broaden access to blockchain-based securities and tokenized investment products. Those efforts build on a prior relationship involving Kraken and Payward.
Beyond spot equities, the push is visible across derivatives infrastructure as well. The reporting also points to CME Group’s plans for crypto futures tied to networks including Cardano, Chainlink, and Stellar, as well as later additions involving Avalanche and Sui, each subject to regulatory approval. Taken together, these moves suggest that tokenization is not confined to equity settlements; it is increasingly being treated as a multi-asset market modernization theme.
What the onchain data says about tokenized stocks
Adoption indicators for tokenized equities continue to strengthen. According to data from RWA.xyz, the value of tokenized stocks rose by 15% over the prior 30 days to $2.53 billion. Over the same period, the number of tokenized equity holders increased by 153% to 2.45 million.
These figures do not directly confirm that LSE 24’s product will match these totals or replicate the same user base, but they provide context: tokenized equity participation appears to be expanding rather than stalling. That matters for regulators and market operators because sustained growth makes it more likely that tokenized securities move from pilot programs to repeatable offerings—especially when supported by established venues.
Investors should also note the asymmetry between “onchain growth” and “regulated venue readiness.” Tokenized stocks can exist onchain in various forms, while access through major exchanges typically requires product-specific compliance, market structure approvals, and operational integration that can take longer to execute than blockchain experimentation.
What to watch before 2027
The most actionable information missing from the excerpt is how LSE’s tokenized stock program will be structured end-to-end—particularly around custody, settlement mechanics, and the exact set of UK equity products to be tracked. As with any tokenized securities rollout on a major exchange, regulatory clarity and operational details will likely be as important as the headline partnership.
Readers should watch for further LSEG and Payward updates on product scope, the mechanics of LSE 24, and how the exchange plans to integrate tokenized equities into existing market and investor protections. With TradFi players increasingly converging on tokenized markets, those implementation specifics may determine whether tokenized equities become a practical alternative for broad investor access—or remain a niche parallel market.
This article was originally published as London Stock Exchange Teams Up With Kraken Parent for Tokenized UK Stocks: FT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The London Stock Exchange (LSE) and crypto exchange Kraken are reportedly moving toward tokenized stock trading on a new LSE night-time venue, a bid to make parts of UK equities markets available outside traditional market hours. According to the Financial Times, LSE will work with Kraken’s parent company, Payward, to provide access to tokenized stocks that track major UK equity products starting in 2027.
The plan centers on LSE 24, the stock market operator’s proposed round-the-clock trading facility. LSE said it would begin operating Mondays through Fridays, with trading expected to run from the evening through the night window, offering 24/5 market access once launched.
Key takeaways
LSE says tokenized stocks referencing leading UK equities would be introduced on its planned LSE 24 night-time trading venue starting in 2027.
The effort is reported to involve Payward, Kraken’s parent company, which is expected to supply the tokenized-stocks access infrastructure.
LSE 24 is designed for 24/5 trading, reflecting a broader industry push to reduce reliance on fixed market hours.
This puts London among multiple global venues exploring tokenized equity products alongside Nasdaq, CME Group, and ICE.
Onchain tokenized stocks continue to expand, with RWA.xyz data showing growth in both value and the number of holders over the last month.
What LSE’s tokenized equities push would change
Tokenized stocks are digital representations of traditional equities designed to move or settle onchain using blockchain infrastructure. In practice, that can enable fractional ownership, faster settlement workflows, and, depending on regulation and market design, trading that is less constrained by conventional market hours.
For LSE, pairing tokenized stocks with LSE 24’s extended schedule appears aimed at improving accessibility for investors who cannot participate during regular sessions. Instead of treating tokenization as a standalone experiment, the reported approach ties onchain equity access to an LSE product—its own trading venue—suggesting the exchange wants tokenized assets to become part of its mainstream market offering.
Payward’s chief commercial officer Mark Greenberg told the Financial Times that the LSE partnership would provide access to tokenized stocks tracking leading UK equity products starting in 2027. The reported timetable matters because it frames tokenization as something approaching deployment rather than long-term research—though readers should note the detail is based on reporting in the Financial Times.
LSE 24: the “24/5” venue as a catalyst
The technical and regulatory readiness of tokenized securities is only one side of the equation. The other is how and when trades can actually occur. LSE 24, which LSE announced on July 21, is positioned as a market structure that offers 24/5 trading from Mondays to Fridays.
That design echoes the core promise of tokenized markets in general: markets that can potentially run continuously, rather than being limited to standard exchange hours. By placing tokenized stocks within that extended-hours venue concept, LSE is effectively aligning its tokenization initiative with a specific liquidity and trading schedule—important for traders and liquidity providers assessing whether tokenized instruments can gain practical traction.
For investors, the benefit is straightforward: more time to trade during the week. For market operators and service providers, it creates a clearer product pathway—turning tokenization into an operational feature of a trading venue rather than an isolated offering.
Tokenization is becoming a cross-venue industry priority
LSE is not alone in exploring tokenized equity products. The broader push reflects how TradFi institutions are experimenting with blockchain-based securities, often with an eye toward fractionalization and potentially faster settlement mechanisms.
According to earlier coverage cited within the source, Nasdaq agreed in August to acquire LeveL Markets, described as the third-largest alternative trading system in the US by trading volume, as part of a move toward tokenized markets with round-the-clock trading. In March, Nasdaq was also reported to be working with Payward and Payward’s Backed subsidiary (issuer behind xStocks) to build an “equities transformation gateway.” Separately, the source references that Nasdaq had previously filed a tokenization proposal with US securities regulators in September 2025.
The pattern is similarly visible in other exchange groups. The source notes that ICE—parent of the New York Stock Exchange—received investment involvement from crypto exchange OKX to bring NYSE-listed tokenized stocks to the exchange starting from the second quarter of 2026. It also highlights that Deutsche Börse invested $200 million in Payward, tied to plans for broader access to blockchain-based securities and tokenized investment products.
Beyond equities, derivatives venues are also moving toward crypto-linked products. The source cites CME Group’s plans for futures contracts tied to Cardano, Chainlink, and Stellar and its later intention to add Avalanche and Sui futures, subject to regulatory approval. While these are different instrument types than tokenized stocks, they show that large operators are actively building infrastructure for blockchain-adjacent trading.
How fast is tokenized stock adoption progressing?
The LSE initiative arrives as tokenized stocks continue to grow. Data provider RWA.xyz, cited in the source, reported that the total value of tokenized stocks rose by 15% over the previous 30 days to $2.53 billion. Over the same period, it said the number of tokenized equity holders increased by 153% to 2.45 million.
Those figures help contextualize why exchange operators are accelerating exploration: the market for tokenized equities appears to be expanding in both capital and participant counts. Still, investors should distinguish between growth in onchain holdings and growth in regulated exchange volumes. Tokenized assets can exist across multiple venues and jurisdictions, and the level of liquidity varies widely depending on market access, settlement design, and compliance frameworks.
What to watch next is how quickly tokenized stock offerings move from pilots and partner-led deployments into standardized venue listings—and whether extended trading schedules like 24/5 materially improve execution quality for investors.
For now, the most immediate question is whether LSE’s 2027 timeline for tokenized equities on LSE 24 holds through regulatory reviews and market preparation. As other large exchanges press forward with tokenization strategies, the next signals for investors will be concrete launch details, the structure of tokenized instruments, and evidence that liquidity can follow the promise of more hours and broader access.
This article was originally published as London Stock Exchange Teams With Kraken Parent on Tokenized UK Stocks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has moved to revisit a key element of its stablecoin regime, proposing changes that would allow some stablecoins connected to multiple jurisdictions to fall under Singapore’s regulatory framework. The development arrives through a new public consultation on amendments to the Payment Services Act (PSA) and associated policy adjustments.
In a consultation opened Tuesday, MAS said it is considering a pathway for “jointly issued” stablecoins—issued by a Singapore entity together with a foreign issuer—to qualify as “MAS-regulated stablecoins” if risks are adequately addressed. The regulator is also exploring whether a limited number of foreign-issued stablecoins could be recognized under similar overseas rules, particularly for cross-border wholesale usage.
Key takeaways
MAS is consulting on PSA amendments to implement its stablecoin framework and reflect policy developments since 2023.
Jointly issued stablecoins (Singapore + foreign issuer) could qualify as “MAS-regulated stablecoins” if MAS-set risk conditions are met.
MAS is considering recognition of a limited set of foreign-issued stablecoins subject to comparable regulatory frameworks abroad.
Proposals would tighten issuer safeguards, including reserve stability expectations, disclosure requirements, and stress-testing.
MAS says comments are open until Oct. 16.
Why MAS is rethinking its earlier single-jurisdiction stance
MAS’s 2023 position required qualifying stablecoins to be issued solely in Singapore. MAS then finalized a framework for single-currency stablecoins issued in Singapore and pegged to the Singapore dollar or a G10 currency, under which issuers would operate with specified regulatory controls. According to MAS, the regulator’s earlier approach reflected concerns around whether equivalent regulation and effective cooperation could be secured across jurisdictions.
MAS also highlighted operational and technical issues it said would be difficult under a multi-jurisdiction model—such as establishing where commingled stablecoin reserves originated, and whether those reserves would be sufficient to meet redemption requests in practice.
The new consultation signals a shift from that restrictive baseline. While MAS did not abandon the need for risk controls, it is now proposing mechanisms meant to address those earlier concerns in cases where issuance involves both Singapore and a foreign issuer.
MAS consultation: how “MAS-regulated stablecoins” could work
At the heart of the proposal is an expanded eligibility route within the existing stablecoin framework. MAS said stablecoins jointly issued by a Singapore issuer and a foreign issuer could be regulated under the framework and marketed with the “MAS-regulated stablecoins” label, provided that associated risks are sufficiently mitigated.
MAS is pursuing legislative implementation of its approach by proposing amendments to the PSA, the main law in Singapore governing payment services and payment-service operators. The consultation outlines requirements intended to preserve the same core features of the 2023 framework, including reserve-backed value stability and controls around redemption and disclosures.
Under the proposal, only issuers licensed under the framework would be permitted to market themselves as “MAS-regulated stablecoin” issuers and use the “MAS-regulated stablecoins” designation. Outside of the dedicated framework, MAS indicated that stablecoins would continue to be treated under existing rules as digital payment tokens.
Issuer safeguards MAS wants to add or strengthen
The consultation does not limit itself to eligibility criteria. MAS is also looking to reinforce how compliant issuers must manage reserves, customer protections, and stress resilience.
MAS’s proposal would include requirements relating to reserve-backed stability, capital considerations, redemption “at par,” and issuer disclosures. It also proposes prohibitions and additional operational obligations, including a ban on issuers paying interest on regulated stablecoins.
To test survivability under adverse scenarios, MAS is also proposing that issuers conduct stress tests and maintain recovery and orderly wind-down plans. In addition, the consultation outlines consumer-facing safeguards requiring issuers to protect customer money received before the corresponding stablecoins are issued.
For market participants, these safeguards matter because they define the compliance boundaries for who can access the “MAS-regulated” label—an important distinction in a jurisdiction where regulation can influence banking relationships, distribution, and institutional onboarding.
Recognition of selected foreign-issued stablecoins for wholesale use
Beyond jointly issued products, MAS is considering another pathway: recognizing a limited number of foreign-issued stablecoins regulated under comparable overseas frameworks. MAS’s stated rationale is tied to utility in cross-border wholesale transactions, where certain stablecoins may be used as settlement or liquidity tools between professional counterparties.
The proposal stops short of opening the door broadly to all foreign stablecoins. MAS frames the idea as a controlled recognition approach limited to a small number of eligible instruments, contingent on regulatory comparability and risk mitigation—consistent with how it treated equivalence and cooperation as a key challenge in 2023.
For traders and treasury teams, this distinction could be meaningful. Wholesale settlement use typically prioritizes predictable redeemability, clear governance, and operational certainty—areas where MAS’s emphasis on redemption at par, reserve-backed stability, and stress planning are directly relevant.
What to watch during the consultation period
MAS is accepting public feedback on the proposals until Oct. 16. Market participants will likely focus on how MAS plans to operationalize “sufficiently mitigated” risk in joint issuance structures and what specific criteria may govern recognition of any foreign-issued stablecoins. The outcome could determine whether Singapore’s stablecoin framework becomes more interoperable across borders—or remains largely centered on domestic issuance.
For readers who want to review the regulatory text directly, MAS’s consultation is published here: https://www.mas.gov.sg/publications/consultations/2026/consultation-on-proposed-amendments-to-the-payment-services-act-for-stablecoin-regulation. MAS previously finalized its 2023 stablecoin framework here: https://www.mas.gov.sg/news/media-releases/2023/mas-finalises-stablecoin-regulatory-framework.
This article was originally published as Singapore Considers Rule Changes for Select Foreign-Issued Stablecoins on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Bitfinex market report has said Bitcoin’s latest rally relied primarily on spot demand, not excessive leverage. Analysts believe this puts the market in a favorable position to absorb selling pressure if conditions become less conducive.
The analysts highlighted sustained ETF demand as key to counter a rate hike by the Federal Reserve in September.
Spot Demand Fueling Bitcoin Rally
According to the report, sustained spot demand and manageable leverage levels indicate the market is not overheating. CoinMarketCap data shows BTC trading around $78,731, up almost 1% in 24 hours, but down 2.32% over the past seven days. The flagship cryptocurrency has seen a resurgence, reclaiming $80,000 for the first time since May and briefly crossing $81,000. The rally was driven by sustained ETF demand, short covering, and Treasury buybacks.
However, the rally lost momentum after hitting resistance at higher levels. Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh’s comments that interest rates could increase also added pressure, pushing the price to a low of $76,587.
Bitfinex analysts added that the derivatives market has not seen a rapid build-up of leverage typically observed with overheated rallies. Coinglass data shows Bitcoin open interest is currently $54.02 billion, significantly higher than at the beginning of August. However, the increase has been gradual, with basis levels remaining on the lower side. The analysts said in the report:
“We are in a market driven by spot buying and, notwithstanding large short liquidations, open interest has only gradually increased, while basis has remained relatively low and at healthy levels historically.”
Bitfinex identified $77,100 as an important support level, adding that sustained spot demand indicates a balanced market.
Bitcoin ETF Data
Spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded just over $3 billion in inflows over nine consecutive sessions between August 17 and August 27. However, the inflow streak snapped on Friday, with the ETFs recording $201.9 million in outflows. ARKB registered $114.9 million in outflows, followed by BITB ($49.7 million) and IBIT ($33.4 million). Inflows turned positive on Monday, with spot Bitcoin ETFs recording $216.7 million in net inflows. The ETFs recorded $924.5 million in net inflows last week despite Friday’s outflow.
Institutional interest in BTC has also registered a sharp uptick and absorbed Bitcoin sold by large holders. According to Bitfinex, whale addresses with 1,000 and 10,000 BTC have sold 50,500 BTC since June, while institutional holdings associated with ETF platforms and exchanges have increased by 59,100 BTC. The analysts also said custodial balances rose by 31,500 BTC during the recent rally.
“While whales took profits during the rally, institutional demand absorbed that supply, indicating that assets moving into these regulated vehicles may be less prone to sudden liquidation based on short-term macroeconomic news.”
Focus On Federal Reserve Rate Hike
BTC’s recent price action could face pressure from a Federal Reserve rate hike. Fed Chair Warsh’s comments at Jackson Hole implied an increased likelihood of an interest rate hike. CME-implied odds of a rate hike rose from 39.9% to 57% following Warsh’s comments. The two-year Treasury yield also rose to 4.31%, while the dollar reached a two-week high.
Analysts flagged stubborn inflation as a key reason for the Fed’s restrictive monetary policy. Headline Personal Consumption Expenditures Inflation is at 3.7%, while core inflation is at 3.3%. According to Jeff Mei, Chief Operating Officer of BTSE, Warsh’s comments could dampen sentiment around Bitcoin because an interest rate hike could reduce liquidity.
“For a sustained rally, we need a few things to happen. First, ETF demand has to stay strong across all ETF products, and not just BlackRock’s IBIT ETF. Second, we need better inflation data for the Fed to back off and keep rates steady.”
$80,000-$83,000 Key Levels For Bitcoin
One of the key drivers of Bitcoin’s rally was the Federal Reserve doubling Treasury buybacks. The decision pushed bond yields and the dollar lower, while traders had taken short positions against Bitcoin. According to Jeff Ko, chief analyst at CoinEx, the short squeeze has largely played out, and spot demand has become a key factor.
“Treasury buybacks pushed yields and the dollar lower, and that impulse collided with crowded short positioning to produce the squeeze. What matters from here is whether spot buyers keep absorbing supply around $80,000.”
Ko believes the $80,000-$83,000 zone is key because it could show if retail buyers can substitute the buying pressure created by the forced short covering.
“It is a major supply zone, and the point at which the rally stops being a short squeeze and becomes a test of real capital allocation.”
Upcoming Economic Data
Market attention now turns to a slew of upcoming releases before the Federal Reserve’s September meeting. ISM Manufacturing and JOLTS data will be released on Tuesday, followed by ADP employment figures and the Federal Reserve’s Beige Book on Wednesday, and ISM Services on Thursday.
However, Ko believes the August payroll report, due on Friday, is the most crucial data set before the Fed’s September FOMC meeting. July payrolls fell by 23,000 against an estimate of 80,000, while May and June figures were revised lower by 103,000 jobs. The current unemployment rate is at 4.1%. Meanwhile, the August inflation report is due on September 11.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Rally Driven By Spot Demand, ETF Inflows Key on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Polymarket is reportedly preparing a major new funding push that would significantly deepen its backing from politically connected capital. According to the Wall Street Journal, 1789 Capital—where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner—is set to invest around $300 million in the blockchain-based prediction market as part of a broader $1 billion fundraising round.
The same report says the round could value Polymarket at $21 billion. If it closes as described, 1789 Capital’s participation would be large enough to move the firm into one of Polymarket’s most prominent investors.
Key takeaways
1789 Capital is reportedly planning an approximately $300 million investment in Polymarket within a $1 billion round.
The reported round would value Polymarket at about $21 billion, potentially reshaping the company’s investor cap table.
ICE is still Polymarket’s largest disclosed investor, with $1.6 billion invested in preferred shares reported in an ICE 10-Q filing.
Polymarket’s fundraising momentum is unfolding amid growing US and international regulatory pressure on prediction markets.
What 1789 Capital’s reported entry could mean
Money matters in prediction markets because it funds liquidity, infrastructure, and the ability to scale participation across event categories. A $300 million commitment—if confirmed—would represent a substantial injection of risk capital at a time when the sector is trying to expand while regulators scrutinize how these markets function.
The Wall Street Journal report also indicates that 1789 Capital is already invested in Polymarket, bringing its total exposure to about $500 million. That would position the firm among Polymarket’s largest backers once the additional investment is completed, potentially increasing its influence in governance discussions that often accompany major rounds.
Cointelegraph says it reached out to both 1789 Capital and Polymarket for comment, according to the article text provided.
Valuation questions and how the funding fits prior fundraising efforts
Polymarket’s reported funding strategy appears to be evolving alongside competition in US prediction-market offerings. Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Polymarket reportedly began talks in April to raise $400 million at a potential $15 billion valuation—lower than the valuation of Kalshi, Polymarket’s main competitor at the time, which was referenced at $22 billion.
By contrast, the new reported valuation in the Wall Street Journal—$21 billion—would reflect a different pricing environment than the earlier fundraising attempt. Whether that shift signals improved traction, investor sentiment, or simply negotiation dynamics remains unclear from the provided information, but the reported numbers suggest Polymarket is aiming for a materially higher valuation than what it sought months earlier.
Investors watching similar rounds often focus on whether valuation increases coincide with clearer compliance pathways or deeper liquidity partnerships—especially in a sector where regulatory outcomes can change quickly.
ICE’s disclosed stake highlights how concentrated backing is
Even with new entrants, Polymarket’s ownership remains dominated by large institutional investors. In a July 30 10-Q filing, ICE reported that it invested a combined $1.6 billion in Polymarket preferred shares.
ICE’s filing further states that the holdings had a carrying value of approximately $2 billion as of June 30. It also says the preferred shares represented about 22% of outstanding shares, or 14% on a fully diluted basis.
These figures illustrate a key structural point for readers: while new capital can increase the total funding available to Polymarket, the largest disclosed backer—ICE—already holds a significant portion of equity-linked exposure. Any incoming round will likely be interpreted against that backdrop, particularly when assessing how much ownership and control different investors retain after issuance.
Regulatory pressure remains the central risk as capital seeks a path forward
The funding headlines arrive during a period of intensified scrutiny of prediction markets. The provided source recounts that on Aug. 14, JPMorgan Chase reportedly ended a banking relationship with Polymarket over regulatory concerns, though it said it remains interested in potentially providing underwriting support if Polymarket seeks to go public.
On the legal front, the source says that more than a dozen US states have filed actions against Polymarket, Kalshi, or both over sports event contracts. It also notes that authorities in several countries have blocked or restricted access to Polymarket, citing gambling-related concerns—an escalation that reinforces why banks, platforms, and corporate partners may be cautious.
This regulatory pressure is relevant to fundraising for a straightforward reason: capital providers tend to price regulatory uncertainty, because outcomes can affect revenue models, user access, and the feasibility of future listings or partnerships. In that sense, Polymarket’s reported push for a high-value round is not occurring in a vacuum—it is happening while multiple jurisdictions test legal boundaries for prediction and event-contract products.
Where things stand next
If 1789 Capital’s reported $300 million commitment and the overall $1 billion round come to pass, Polymarket’s investor base would grow further at a time when the firm’s operating environment is still contested. Market participants should watch for confirmation of the deal terms, any changes to the regulatory strategy being pursued, and whether banking and compliance hurdles ease enough to support sustained growth.
This article was originally published as 1789 Capital, linked to Trump Jr., reportedly leads Polymarket’s $1B round on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Trump Jr.-linked investment firm is reportedly preparing to put roughly $300 million into Polymarket as part of a much larger funding effort that could value the prediction market platform at $21 billion. According to the Wall Street Journal, 1789 Capital—where Donald Trump Jr. is a partner—would participate in a $1 billion round that includes the additional $300 million commitment.
If the reported terms are accurate, the investment would lift 1789 Capital’s total disclosed exposure to Polymarket to about $500 million, potentially positioning the firm among the platform’s most significant backers.
Key takeaways
1789 Capital is reportedly set to invest about $300 million in Polymarket as part of a reported $1 billion fundraising round.
The reported round could value Polymarket at $21 billion, according to information attributed to people familiar with the matter by the Wall Street Journal.
ICE remains the largest disclosed investor, with a July 30 10-Q filing citing $1.6 billion invested and about 22% of outstanding shares on a carrying-value basis.
Polymarket’s funding momentum is unfolding amid escalating regulatory pressure affecting prediction markets in the US and abroad.
1789 Capital’s reported entry and what it signals
For Polymarket, the reported $300 million commitment from 1789 Capital underscores continued institutional interest in prediction markets, even as the sector faces scrutiny. The Wall Street Journal report frames the investment as a portion of a broader $1 billion financing effort, with the implied valuation at $21 billion.
While Polymarket’s prior fundraising discussions have already highlighted how competitive the space has become, the latest report suggests investors are still willing to price the platform at a level that reflects expectations of growth. If 1789 Capital’s investment plan proceeds as described, it would also concentrate influence among fewer large holders—meaning future outcomes for Polymarket could be shaped by a smaller set of major investors.
ICE’s disclosed stake highlights the ownership concentration
Beyond new participation, Polymarket’s investor base already includes heavyweight capital. In a July 30 10-Q filing, ICE said it had invested a combined $1.6 billion in Polymarket preferred shares. ICE also reported that the holdings carried an approximate value of $2 billion as of June 30.
The filing further indicated ownership shares at two measurement points: about 22% of outstanding shares and about 14% on a fully diluted basis. This matters because it provides a clearer baseline for how control and economics might be distributed if Polymarket adds new investors at a high valuation.
Earlier fundraising benchmarks and the valuation race
Polymarket’s latest reported fundraising push is not happening in isolation. Earlier coverage noted that Polymarket had begun discussions to raise $400 million in fresh capital around April, at a time when it was seeking financing at a potential $15 billion valuation—an implied step up from later figures being discussed.
That earlier valuation was reportedly below the $22 billion valuation of Kalshi, Polymarket’s main competitor referenced in the prior reporting. While these figures reflect fundraising expectations rather than market trading prices, they do provide context: prediction market platforms appear to be competing not only for users and contracts, but also for investor attention and balance-sheet strength.
Regulatory pressure remains a central risk factor
One reason investors may be scrutinizing prediction markets more closely is the growing regulatory friction described in recent developments. The sector has faced mounting legal and operational challenges in the United States and other jurisdictions.
Cointelegraph reported that JPMorgan Chase ended a banking relationship with Polymarket over regulatory concerns, while also saying it would remain open to an underwriting role if Polymarket pursued a public listing. That juxtaposition—loss of a banking relationship contrasted with interest in underwriting—illustrates how regulators and compliance expectations can shape which financial services are offered to prediction market operators.
Legal actions have also broadened. More than a dozen US states have taken steps targeting Polymarket, Kalshi, or both, related to sports event contracts. Elsewhere, authorities in several countries have blocked or restricted access to Polymarket over gambling-related concerns, highlighting how regulatory boundaries differ across jurisdictions.
These pressures matter for the fundraising narrative because they can influence timelines, corporate structuring, and the practicality of certain growth plans—particularly where a company’s ability to onboard customers, settle contracts, and maintain banking relationships is at stake.
Cointelegraph has also reached out to 1789 Capital and Polymarket for comment regarding the reported investment plan, but no response is included in the available information.
Investors and market participants should watch for whether the reported $1 billion round moves forward on the cited valuation terms and how Polymarket navigates the regulatory issues affecting banking access and legal exposure. Any additional clarity on compliance, partnerships, and potential paths to public markets could determine how sustainable the current momentum is—especially as major investors like ICE already hold substantial disclosed positions.
This article was originally published as Trump Jr.-Backed 1789 Capital Leads Polymarket’s $1B Fundraise: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs rebounded on Monday, shifting back to net inflows after two sessions of withdrawals, with inflows concentrated heavily in BlackRock’s iShares product. At the same time, spot Ether, XRP and Solana ETFs all continued adding new capital, extending their recent run of positive sessions.
SoSoValue data shows US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $216.7 million in net inflows on Monday, reversing $201.8 million in withdrawals logged on Friday. The prior outflow day ended a nine-session streak that brought more than $3 billion into the complex, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage. Bitcoin was trading near $78,700 at the time of writing, up roughly 1.5% over 24 hours, according to CoinGecko.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin ETF inflows returned: US spot Bitcoin ETFs added $216.7 million net on Monday after $201.8 million in Friday outflows.
BlackRock dominated the rebound: iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) accounted for about 95% of daily inflows, with $205.9 million net.
Ether ETFs kept streak alive: Spot Ether ETFs posted $87.7 million net inflows, extending to 11 consecutive sessions.
XRP and Solana stayed positive: XRP ETFs reached 10 consecutive inflow sessions, while Solana ETFs logged their 10th consecutive positive day.
BlackRock leads the Bitcoin ETF rebound
Monday’s reversal was driven almost entirely by BlackRock. Farside Investors data indicates iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) generated $205.9 million in net inflows, representing roughly 95% of the category’s total daily inflows.
Other issuers still contributed, though at a much smaller scale. Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) added $6.9 million, Bitwise’s Bitcoin ETF (BITB) brought in $4.3 million, and Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust recorded $3.6 million in net inflows. Grayscale’s Bitcoin Mini Trust attracted $9.4 million.
Despite the broad positive shift, not every product participated in the rebound. VanEck’s Bitcoin ETF (HODL) was the lone fund to report net withdrawals, with $13.4 million outflows on the day. The remaining funds recorded no net flows.
For investors, the concentration of Monday’s inflows matters because it highlights how day-to-day changes in the US spot Bitcoin ETF complex can be heavily influenced by a single issuer’s flows rather than by uniform demand across the market. That dynamic can affect how quickly sentiment translates into measurable net purchases.
Ether ETFs extend an 11-session inflow streak
Spot Ether ETFs continued building on their recent momentum, recording $87.7 million in net inflows on Monday. According to Farside, this marked the 11th consecutive trading session with net inflows.
BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) led with $59.9 million. Grayscale’s Ethereum Mini Trust followed with $13.5 million, while Fidelity’s Ethereum Fund added $9.3 million.
The steady pattern of inflows suggests persistent allocator interest in regulated ether exposure rather than a one-off move tied to a single market catalyst. Traders may still watch for any sudden turn in the flow data, but the multi-week streak indicates demand has been sustained through multiple trading cycles.
XRP ETFs hit 10 straight inflow days
XRP ETFs also extended a streak of positive sessions. SoSoValue data shows the category recorded $5.64 million in net inflows on Monday, keeping the count at 10 consecutive trading sessions.
SoSoValue adds that XRP ETFs have seen capital inflows during every US trading session since Aug. 18. That kind of uninterrupted run is notable because it implies consistent participation across days, rather than intermittent buys followed by pauses.
While daily inflow totals for XRP remain far smaller than for Bitcoin or Ether in absolute terms, the consistency can still be meaningful for market structure—especially for funds that are still establishing longer-term investor habits.
Solana ETFs stay in positive territory, but inflows cooled
Solana ETFs continued their own stretch of gains, posting a 10th consecutive positive session. SoSoValue reports Monday’s inflows totaled $925,010, bringing the category’s weakest daily inflow so far during its current run.
The contrast is stark when compared with Friday’s higher number. The source notes that daily inflows slowed to $925,010 on Monday from $18.1 million on Friday.
That shift raises an important nuance for readers: while the category remains net positive, the pace of buying is not accelerating in tandem. For traders, decelerating inflows during an otherwise positive streak can sometimes be an early signal that momentum is cooling, even if it hasn’t turned into sustained outflows yet.
With Bitcoin ETFs returning to net inflows and Ether, XRP, and Solana all maintaining positive streaks, the next thing to watch is whether Monday’s rebound sustains across subsequent sessions—particularly whether BlackRock continues to account for a similar share of inflows or if demand broadens across other Bitcoin funds.
This article was originally published as BlackRock-linked inflows lift Bitcoin ETF by $217M as altcoin funds sustain streak on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Token buybacks are becoming a defining strategy for a small but influential slice of the crypto sector. According to data compiled by Allium Labs and cited by the Financial Times, cryptocurrency projects spent a record $638 million on repurchasing their own tokens so far in 2026—nearly 90% of that total concentrated in two platforms: Hyperliquid and Pump.fun.
In the year-to-date tally, Hyperliquid accounted for roughly $370 million and Pump.fun for nearly $200 million. The Financial Times report notes that this level of buyback activity is still rare across the wider industry, but the numbers suggest it is moving from novelty toward a measurable category of capital deployment.
Key takeaways
$638 million in token buybacks has been recorded in 2026 year-to-date, per Allium Labs data cited by the Financial Times.
Hyperliquid (~$370M) and Pump.fun (~$200M) dominate the total, together accounting for nearly 90% of spending.
Buybacks remain uncommon in crypto overall, but more projects are experimenting with revenue-to-repurchase mechanisms.
Crypto token buyback activity is increasingly being framed as a tool to support token value—analogous to share repurchases in traditional markets.
Recent governance action at Ethena Foundation highlights how fee-switch models can formalize buyback plans.
Why token buybacks are drawing attention again
Token buybacks follow a logic that resembles share buybacks by public companies: projects use capital to repurchase their own assets, which can reduce circulating supply and, in some cases, send a signal about long-term value. While the analogy is straightforward, the crypto execution varies widely—often depending on how a protocol’s revenue is routed and whether repurchases are automatic or subject to governance.
What stands out in 2026 is the scale relative to earlier periods. The same Allium Labs figures cited by the Financial Times show $638 million spent year-to-date in 2026 compared with $545 million during the same period in 2025. The report also contrasts the current pace with prior years, noting $366,000 in 2024 for the corresponding timeframe.
Hyperliquid and Pump.fun lead the buyback spend
Hyperliquid and Pump.fun are not just participating in token repurchases—they are effectively running buybacks as a core allocation strategy.
For Hyperliquid, the structure is especially concentrated: the project reportedly directs about 99% of its revenue toward token buybacks. Cointelegraph previously reported that Hyperliquid generated $169 million in second-quarter revenue on Aug. 6, with $141 million allocated to HYPE buybacks. The implication for investors is straightforward: buybacks are not episodic, but tied tightly to protocol earnings.
Pump.fun, a memecoin launchpad, follows a different but still aggressive approach. The project reportedly allocates around 50% of its net protocol revenue to token repurchases. The launchpad also reportedly carries $420 million in annualized revenue, based on average daily revenue over the preceding 90 days.
When two platforms account for most of the sector’s buyback activity, their revenue rules can become a proxy for how “buyback culture” may evolve in crypto—especially whether it remains concentrated among a few high-throughput protocols or broadens as others replicate the model.
Governance signals: Ethena Foundation opens a fee-switch vote
Beyond the two dominant leaders, 2026 has also seen governance proposals that formalize buybacks using protocol revenue. On Thursday, the Ethena Foundation opened a vote on a fee-switch proposal under which 95% of net revenue paid to it from Ethena’s core business lines would be used to repurchase ENA tokens.
Crypto markets quickly priced the development: the ENA token rose 10.7% on the day after the proposal, according to the reporting referenced in the vote coverage.
For readers, the practical takeaway is not simply that buybacks can move prices in the short term, but that fee-switch governance can convert a vague “buybacks might happen” narrative into an enforceable spending framework. That shift matters because it changes the probability distribution around future demand for tokens and how consistently a protocol can sustain repurchases.
Outperformance and the market narrative around buybacks
Buybacks are also being linked to stronger token performance relative to the broader market. TradingView data cited in the original coverage shows that Hyperliquid (HYPE) rose 145% year-to-date and Pump.fun (PUMP) gained 109%, while Bitcoin (BTC) fell 10% and total crypto market capitalization declined by 11.9% over the same period.
It is important to separate correlation from causation, but the structure is compelling from an investor’s perspective: protocols that consistently recycle revenue into token repurchases create a direct, recurring demand stream. That demand can influence valuation expectations, especially during broader drawdowns where the rest of the market is struggling.
The idea is increasingly being spelled out by major asset managers. Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan earlier in August argued that crypto valuations could double in the next two years as protocols use revenue to fund token buybacks and burns, effectively returning more value to investors.
What to watch next
The big question for 2026 is whether buybacks stay clustered in a few revenue-rich ecosystems or expand into more protocols through governance and revenue routing. Investors should monitor not just total buyback totals, but the durability of the revenue streams behind them—because in a market that can change quickly, the sustainability of token repurchase programs may matter as much as the headlines.
This article was originally published as Hyperliquid and Pump.fun Drive 90% of $638M Crypto Buybacks: FT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy has added another sizable batch of Bitcoin to its corporate treasury, purchasing 4,603 BTC for about $370 million, according to an 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission released this week. The acquisition takes the company’s total holdings to 845,050 BTC.
The news also arrives shortly after Strategy last reported a Bitcoin buy in mid-June, and it follows a weekend signal from Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor that the firm was preparing to resume accumulation. Investors are also watching how the company’s preferred stock funding mechanism—STRC—behaves as Strategy continues to finance new purchases.
Key takeaways
Strategy bought 4,603 Bitcoin for an average price of $80,318 per BTC, bringing total holdings to 845,050 BTC.
The purchase was funded using net proceeds from a $602 million common stock sale, with part of the proceeds added to USD cash reserves and part used for STRC repurchases.
This is Strategy’s first corporate Bitcoin acquisition in roughly two months, after its prior buy of 1,587 BTC in mid-June.
STRC trades below its $100 intended par value, which can affect the company’s ability to raise capital through STRC sales and may increase pressure on dividend terms.
A new Bitcoin tranche—and where the money came from
In its SEC filing, Strategy states it acquired 4,603 BTC at an average purchase price of $80,318, amounting to roughly $370 million. The company reports this brings its total Bitcoin holdings to 845,050 BTC, acquired for a cumulative $63.3 billion at an average price of $75,413.
The filing also outlines the capital flow behind the transaction. Strategy funded the purchase through the net proceeds of a 602 million MSTR common stock sale. It allocated $30 million of those net proceeds to increase its USD cash reserve, and it directed $151.8 million to repurchase its preferred STRC stock.
For investors, the mix of funding matters because Strategy’s Bitcoin program is designed to be capital-efficient while preserving flexibility—cash reserves provide liquidity, while repurchasing STRC can support the preferred stock’s market standing.
First buy in about two months, following Saylor’s “We’re Back” signal
The acquisition marks Strategy’s first reported corporate Bitcoin purchase since mid-June. At that time, the company last bought 1,587 BTC for roughly $100 million, according to earlier coverage referenced in the 8-K context.
On Sunday, Saylor posted a short teaser indicating a return to buying. He shared a widely viewed X post with the message “We’re Back,” a pattern that has previously preceded official announcements about Strategy’s treasury actions, as noted in earlier reporting. While weekend hints are not a substitute for filings, they often help investors anticipate the direction of future moves.
In Monday’s pre-market trading, Nasdaq-listed MSTR was reported up by less than 1% after falling more than 7% on Friday, according to the article’s market snapshot.
STRC discount and what it implies for future funding
Strategy’s STRC preferred stock remains central to how the company finances Bitcoin accumulation. In Monday’s pre-market activity, STRC rose about 0.44% to $97.33, which corresponds to a 2.67% discount to its intended $100 par value, based on Yahoo Finance data.
The discount is not just a pricing detail—it can influence how effective STRC becomes as a fundraising tool. As noted in the source reporting, trading below par can limit Strategy’s ability to raise funds through STRC sales. That limitation can create a feedback loop: if preferred shares consistently trade at discounts, Strategy may need to adjust economics—such as the dividend rate—to attract buyers and protect the instrument’s pricing.
The company previously signaled that it is willing to actively manage its capital structure. In a June 29 8-K filing, Strategy laid out a capital framework that contemplates using Bitcoin sales to fund dividends, and it increased the annual dividend rate on STRC to 12%. The same period included disclosure that Strategy sold 32 Bitcoin in early June, described as its first reported Bitcoin sale since a 2022 transaction tied to tax-loss considerations.
Taken together, the STRC discount and the dividend adjustments point to a consistent theme: Strategy wants the ability to keep buying Bitcoin while maintaining a workable funding channel through preferred stock. Whether the current discount narrows or widens in the weeks ahead could therefore influence how aggressively Strategy leans on STRC versus other sources of liquidity.
Why the details matter for traders and long-term holders
Strategy’s disclosed average purchase price—$80,318 per BTC—provides more than just a headline valuation. Because Strategy reports its total cost basis and holding size, each new acquisition affects how investors model the company’s treasury exposure over time, including how much unrealized gain or loss might be implied relative to recent market prices.
Just as important is the financing approach: the company used a common stock issuance rather than relying solely on balance-sheet liquidity. That choice can affect equity market dynamics and dilution expectations, while repurchasing STRC with $151.8 million suggests an effort to manage the preferred component alongside the Bitcoin program.
Meanwhile, the fact that Saylor’s “We’re Back” post preceded this acquisition reinforces how investors often treat Strategy’s leadership communications as early signals of treasury activity. The most reliable confirmation, however, remains the SEC filing and the detailed breakdown of how the Bitcoin was purchased and funded.
As Strategy continues to scale its portfolio—now at 845,050 BTC—readers should watch for two closely linked developments: whether STRC continues to trade at a discount to par, and how that pricing interacts with the company’s dividend and financing plans. Any future capital-structure changes could determine how smoothly Strategy converts access to capital into additional Bitcoin exposure.
This article was originally published as Strategy Adds $370M Bitcoin to Treasury After Two-Month Gap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strive, a publicly traded asset manager and Bitcoin treasury company, added 1,800 Bitcoin to its balance sheet last week, accelerating a buy program that has helped it rank among the world’s largest publicly traded corporate holders of the asset.
The company bought the BTC between Aug. 24 and Aug. 28 for roughly $143 million, paying an average price of $79,431 per coin (including fees and expenses). CEO Matt Cole confirmed the acquisition on Monday via X: https://x.com/ColeMacro/status/2094396002308440227.
Key takeaways
Strive purchased about 1,800 BTC over Aug. 24–Aug. 28 for approximately $143 million at an average of $79,431 per BTC.
Total holdings rose to 23,156 BTC from 21,356 BTC a week earlier, showing faster accumulation across a short window.
The latest inflow increased Strive’s BTC exposure by roughly 8.4% in five business days, according to Adam Livingston.
With the new buys, Strive moved ahead of Bullish to become the fifth-largest publicly traded corporate Bitcoin holder, based on industry data from BitcoinTreasuries.net.
Strive’s purchases align with a broader market rebound that followed a U.S. Treasury announcement on bond buybacks.
Strive’s accelerated accumulation lifts it into the top tier
Strive’s latest acquisition expands its Bitcoin strategy beyond a slow, incremental approach. The purchases increased its total holdings to 23,156 BTC, up from 21,356 BTC reported a week earlier. Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that Strive had added 1,110 BTC the previous week for about $81.5 million at an average of $73,409 per coin (Cointelegraph).
Adam Livingston, an adviser to Saturn Credit, highlighted the pace of change after the most recent buys. In his post, he said the latest purchase increased Strive’s holdings by approximately 8.4% within just five business days (https://x.com/AdamBLiv/status/2094404735474295249).
For investors tracking corporate treasuries, the key point isn’t only the size of the purchase, but how quickly it is happening relative to recent baselines. Rapid accumulation can also signal that a company sees improved risk conditions, more favorable liquidity, or a strategy shift from opportunistic buying toward consistent treasury scaling.
Surpassing Bullish for fifth-largest publicly traded holder
The updated Strive balance also changes the standings among listed Bitcoin treasuries. According to industry data compiled at BitcoinTreasuries.net, Strive’s latest buys pushed it past Bullish—an exchange and digital asset infrastructure firm—making it the fifth-largest publicly traded corporate holder of Bitcoin.
This matters because position in these rankings is closely watched by market participants: it can affect perceived credibility of treasury strategies, influence how investors interpret management discipline around Bitcoin exposure, and contribute to the narrative of institutionalization across the sector.
Corporate buying follows a market rebound
Strive’s purchases come as Bitcoin and risk assets rebounded broadly after Aug. 19, when the U.S. Treasury Department announced plans to double the size of certain long-term bond buybacks. The move helped reduce Treasury yields and supported a return of risk appetite, with Bitcoin rallying more than 23% to a recent high above $81,000, as noted in Cointelegraph’s market coverage (Cointelegraph markets).
While treasury purchases do not need a specific catalyst, correlations between macro conditions and corporate activity are frequently discussed in crypto markets. When yields fall and liquidity improves, companies that treat Bitcoin as a treasury asset may find it easier to justify additional exposure—particularly if market volatility cools.
Strategy’s renewed buying underscores the broader trend
Strive is not alone. Michael Saylor’s Strategy—described as the largest corporate Bitcoin holder—announced Monday that it resumed buying BTC for the first time since June. Cointelegraph reported that Strategy acquired 4,603 Bitcoin at an average price of $80,318, per its announcement (Cointelegraph).
That purchase lifted Strategy’s holdings back above 845,000 BTC after four Bitcoin sales since May, reversing a temporary reduction in exposure. Together with Strive’s accelerated accumulation, the renewed buying from a major benchmark treasury adds weight to a theme seen across the corporate segment: listed companies appear willing to increase Bitcoin exposure when market conditions are supportive.
At the same time, the Strategy example also highlights an important tension. Corporate treasuries can be both active buyers and occasional sellers, meaning investors should pay attention not just to net accumulation, but also to the operational or capital-planning drivers behind any reductions.
For the near term, traders and long-term holders will likely watch whether Strive sustains this faster pace of buying over the next several weekly reporting windows, and whether other large corporate treasuries continue to add after recent rebounds—especially as macro conditions that helped fuel the move in yields remain in focus.
This article was originally published as Strive Acquires 1,800 BTC for $143M, Becomes Fifth Largest Holder on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.