Crypto Breaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Illinois is facing a fresh legal attempt to pause its new digital asset transaction tax before it begins in January 2027. The Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA) say they have asked a court to issue a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the 0.2% levy, arguing the tax is unconstitutional and that affected companies face immediate, irreversible costs.
In a filing reported by the trade groups on Wednesday, CCI and BA asked the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, to prevent the state from imposing the tax while their underlying lawsuit proceeds. The groups contend Illinois has not provided adequate clarity on what exactly is taxed and when—while companies are already being forced to build compliance systems under the threat of criminal penalties.
Key takeaways
CCI and BA have filed for a preliminary injunction to block Illinois’ planned 0.2% tax on crypto transactions before the Jan. 1, 2027 start date.
The groups argue the tax violates constitutional protections and due process rules, and that companies face irreparable harm from near-term compliance spending.
Illinois’ measure, signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker in June, is structured as a “privilege tax” tied to transaction volume rather than income.
The move escalates a legal dispute that CCI and BA began last month with a constitutional challenge, joined by other industry efforts.
Illinois is also pursuing restrictions related to prediction markets, with separate litigation involving Kalshi and state actions targeting insider-trading concerns.
Why the injunction request matters ahead of January 2027
According to the motion described by the CCI and BA, the central urgency is timing: the tax is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027, but companies say they are already being compelled to prepare for it. CCI CEO Ji Hun Kim said in a statement that firms are being asked to invest “millions” in new systems while the dispute over legality remains unresolved.
Kim’s argument, as presented by the groups, is that this creates irreparable harm because resources and employees are being diverted to compliance planning “under the threat of criminal penalties,” even though the tax’s validity is disputed. The contention is not only about whether the levy should ultimately stand, but whether the state should be allowed to proceed before a court determines the legal issues.
Blocking enforcement temporarily would matter to market participants because a transaction tax can increase operational overhead for exchanges, custodians, and other service providers, and can alter how businesses structure fee models and customer reporting. If compliance systems are built and then later ruled unlawful, the industry says those costs cannot easily be recovered.
Illinois’ crypto transaction tax: the legal theory being challenged
Illinois became the first U.S. state to single out cryptocurrency transactions with a dedicated measure, a point highlighted by the trade groups in their broader campaign against the tax.
As previously reported, Gov. Pritzker signed the legislation into law in June as a “privilege tax” as part of the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. In this framework, crypto users would be taxed based on transaction volume rather than income, according to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
Last month, CCI and BA filed a lawsuit challenging the Illinois digital asset tax. The groups said the tax violates multiple legal standards, including the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois constitution, as well as federal and state due process laws. They also cited the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act in their challenge, a position outlined in the complaint linked by the groups. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described that lawsuit and the legal grounds behind it, including the claim that the tax improperly targets digital assets and conflicts with constitutional protections.
In Wednesday’s court filing, CCI and BA argued the state’s “basic questions” about what is taxed and when remain unanswered, while the timeline for enforcement is approaching. Their request for a preliminary injunction therefore aims to pause the practical effects of the law while the courts decide whether the measure can be enforced at all.
Industry pushback expands: why Illinois may not be the last to try
Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, warned that the stakes extend beyond Illinois. As quoted in connection with the legal action, Mersinger said the state “loses very little by waiting,” while other states and market participants could suffer if Illinois’ approach is upheld. The logic, according to the association’s view, is that if the act survives legal challenges, it could become a template for other states to pursue similar transaction-based crypto taxation.
This is a key dynamic investors and builders tend to watch closely: state-level taxes can shape product design and compliance strategy across jurisdictions, especially for companies that serve customers nationally. A successful injunction in Illinois could send an early signal that transaction-tax models may face significant legal obstacles—though the outcome will ultimately depend on what the court determines about the likelihood of constitutional violations and the balance of harms.
Separately, another industry group, the Digital Chamber, filed a similar lawsuit days earlier, according to coverage summarized by Cointelegraph. While this article focuses on CCI and BA’s injunction motion, the parallel litigation suggests a broader coalition is attempting to challenge the same core measure from multiple angles.
Illinois actions beyond crypto: prediction markets litigation and restrictions
Illinois’ regulatory agenda in digital-asset-adjacent areas is not limited to taxation. The state has also targeted prediction markets through a combination of statutory and executive actions.
Cointelegraph previously reported that Kalshi filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials over a law that went into effect on July 1. That law, Kalshi said, “expressly bans sports event contracts,” and the company argued it violates federal law by effectively requiring state licensing.
In addition, Pritzker signed an executive order in April banning state employees from betting on prediction-market platforms. The stated purpose was to reduce the risk of insider trading as online prediction markets and event-based gambling contracts grow.
Together, these developments show Illinois is simultaneously addressing multiple parts of the crypto and digital finance ecosystem—taxing transactions in one lane while restricting certain market activities in another. For participants, this kind of multi-front posture can raise uncertainty about how different categories of digital finance will be treated, and whether compliance requirements will evolve quickly through court challenges.
While CCI and BA seek a near-term halt through a preliminary injunction, the most important next signal for market participants will be what the court decides about whether the case meets the standard to pause enforcement. Until then, the legal fight over the constitutionality of Illinois’ 0.2% transaction tax—and the state’s broader approach to digital finance—remains a developing risk to watch.
This article was originally published as Crypto Trade Groups Move to Halt Illinois 0.2% Tax Before Start Date on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hunter Biden officially launched the politically themed “LAPTOP” memecoin on Wednesday, marking a high-profile entry into the crypto space for a figure long tied to US political drama. Early trading was volatile: the token was reported by CoinGecko at $2.0977 at 3:45 p.m. UTC after opening at $199.50, representing a sharp first-hour slide of 95.7%. CoinGecko also shows more than $13.4 million in volume during that initial period.
On-chain data analyst Bubblemaps said most of the largest holders appear to be wallets funded within the past 10 days, pointing to a rapidly assembled distribution rather than long-term accumulation. The project’s launch quickly drew both backlash and engagement across social media.
Key takeaways
According to CoinGecko, LAPTOP’s opening price of $199.50 fell to $2.0977 within about the first hour, down 95.7% at 3:45 p.m. UTC.
Bubblemaps data indicates a concentration of top holders in recently funded wallets, suggesting short-term positioning around the launch.
Project disclosures describe LAPTOP as a tokenized digital collectible with no utility and no rights to profits, governance, or yield.
Founders received 30% of the 1 billion-token supply, locked for six months and then vested monthly over 24 months.
Airdrop allocations include up to 2% reserved for wallets that lost money on Trump-linked crypto, with eligibility tied to specific conditions outlined in the disclosures.
Launch volatility and early holder concentration
LAPTOP debuted on Ethereum’s Base layer-2 network and saw a rapid, dramatic drawdown from its first trade range. CoinGecko data, cited in the report, shows the token trading at $2.0977 at 3:45 p.m. UTC after an opening at $199.50. Trading activity accelerated quickly, with volume reported above $13.4 million in the early window.
Beyond price action, distribution patterns also stood out. Bubblemaps said that most of the top holders are wallets funded in the past 10 days, implying the token’s early ownership skewed toward accounts that positioned themselves close to the launch rather than participants with longer holding histories.
Such “fresh wallet” clustering is common in memecoin launches, but it can amplify downside risk for new buyers—particularly when supply dynamics include locked founder allocations and marketing-driven initial hype. Traders typically watch for whether holder counts stabilize after the first day and whether liquidity deepens, but those longer-term signals were not part of the early snapshot.
Biden’s response amid backlash over memecoins
Hunter Biden addressed the backlash publicly on X during Wednesday’s market reaction. In a post, he responded to criticism by framing the token’s ticker as “resilience, redemption and recovery.” He also said he understood the cynicism around memecoins and described President Donald Trump’s token as a “grift,” while warning buyers not to expect him—or others—to make LAPTOP more valuable.
The launch campaign is positioned around the “laptop narrative,” referring to a MacBook that Biden reportedly left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019. In the lead-up to the 2020 election, Trump allies promoted material they said came from that device, according to reporting referenced in the article.
Before the official launch, Biden teased the memecoin on Monday by posting the ticker alongside a montage of media coverage related to the laptop. The announcement drew criticism from prominent crypto commentators, including digital investigator Stephen Findeisen (known as Coffeezilla), who urged followers not to buy LAPTOP and called it a “shitcoin.” Other accounts told Biden there was “still time to walk this back,” underscoring that the project entered a market already primed for debate.
Base founder Jesse Pollak also weighed in, saying the project had contacted his team, but that Base made a “conscious decision” not to help with the token’s design or promotion. In other words, while the token launched on Base, the platform’s founder indicated the broader development and promotion workflow was not supported by the network’s team.
What the disclosures say: collectible framing, fixed supply, founder vesting
The project’s own disclosures, published as a PDF, describe LAPTOP as a digital collectible with no utility and no rights to governance, voting, yield, or profit-sharing. The disclosures set a fixed supply of 1 billion tokens, with 350 million tokens circulating at launch.
Founder allocation is central to understanding how the token’s supply may behave after the initial trading frenzy. The disclosures state that founders—including Biden—receive 300 million tokens (30% of the total supply). Those tokens are locked for six months and then vested monthly over the following 24 months. That schedule can matter for investors because it defines when additional tokens may enter the market under the project’s control, potentially affecting liquidity and price pressure during vesting windows.
Another 30% of supply is allocated to a mechanism tied to “political, cultural and crypto predictions,” with tokens burned when specified outcomes occur and released to charity if outcomes do not occur as described. The disclosures also outline airdrop structure, including an initial round representing 10% of total supply.
Within that initial airdrop framework, 2% of the total supply is reserved for wallets that lost money on TRUMP, while 8% is allocated for eligible subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack newsletter. The disclosures also describe a separate 10% future airdrop distributed at a foundation’s discretion, which means overall airdrops account for 20% of supply—but the specific TRUMP-loss allocation remains capped at 2%.
For readers assessing risk, the combination of a fixed supply, locked and vested founder tokens, and conditional burning/release mechanisms suggests LAPTOP’s long-term behavior may depend less on external demand shocks and more on whether vesting schedules and outcome-based rules play out as outlined.
Why the TRUMP-loss allocation became part of the narrative
Even before the launch day price action, the memecoin drew attention for tying its distribution to a “reimbursement”-style concept aimed at wallets that lost money on a Trump-linked token. That approach immediately raises questions—especially in memecoins—about eligibility, enforcement, and what qualifies as a “loss.” The disclosures cap the relevant allocation at 2% of total supply, but they do not change the underlying reality that only a limited slice of supply is earmarked for that purpose.
Hunter Biden’s earlier criticism of Trump-adjacent crypto ventures also helped shape the hypocrisy debate surrounding the launch. Earlier posts, as referenced in the article, accused a Trump-linked finance project of leveraging political influence and centralized control to benefit founders. The launch of LAPTOP then positioned Biden as both critic and participant—an asymmetry that appears to have fueled the intensity of social media reactions.
For traders, the key watchpoint is whether the token’s early speculative demand fades into sustained activity, and whether any follow-through occurs around claimed “laptop narrative” momentum beyond day-one attention. For builders and compliance-minded participants, the explicit disclosures are noteworthy: the project is framed plainly as a collectible without utility or profit rights, which can help clarify expectations during ongoing debate about memecoin value propositions.
Going forward, market participants are likely to focus on three things: how much liquidity remains after the initial volatility, whether holder concentration shifts away from newly funded wallets, and how the project’s vesting and airdrop rules—particularly the TRUMP-loss portion capped at 2%—are handled in practice as eligibility and execution become clearer.
This article was originally published as Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy Spurs New Memecoin Launch on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Bank says it has successfully completed a live cross-border payments pilot using its proprietary USBDC stablecoin issued on the public Stellar network. The test involved transfers between U.S. Bank entities in North America and Europe, while also exercising key stablecoin controls such as minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback.
The bank described the pilot as a validation of its internally developed Digital Asset Platform, which is designed to connect tokenized assets and stablecoin operations with existing banking risk, compliance, and operational systems. U.S. Bank said Wednesday that it is now evaluating additional use cases, including cross-border treasury operations, liquidity management, and moving collateral onchain.
Key takeaways
U.S. Bank completed a live cross-border payment test with USBDC on Stellar, transferring value between entities in North America and Europe.
The pilot included not just transfers, but also operational stablecoin capabilities like minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback.
U.S. Bank framed the exercise as proof of its Digital Asset Platform’s ability to integrate stablecoin workflows with traditional bank controls.
The bank is exploring next-step applications such as onchain collateral movement and cross-border treasury and liquidity management.
USBDC pilot targets real payment and stablecoin controls
According to U.S. Bank, USBDC was issued and transferred on the public Stellar blockchain during the pilot. Unlike smaller demonstrations that focus primarily on technical connectivity, this test centered on a banking-grade flow: moving funds between separate U.S. Bank entities across regions, with the stablecoin acting as the settlement mechanism.
Importantly, U.S. Bank said the trial also validated the stablecoin’s administrative and risk features—specifically minting and redemption, as well as the ability to freeze and claw back funds. For banks, those controls are not optional “nice-to-haves”; they are central to compliance and operational governance when tokenized value is used outside of internal ledgers.
U.S. Bank linked the results to its Digital Asset Platform, a system the bank has been building to bridge tokenized assets and traditional banking infrastructure. The bank’s emphasis on integration with risk, compliance, and day-to-day operations suggests the institution is trying to move beyond proof-of-concept toward something that can fit within existing regulatory and internal control frameworks.
Digital Asset Platform becomes a bridge between banking and token rails
U.S. Bank said the transaction helped confirm that its Digital Asset Platform can connect the stablecoin lifecycle to established banking workflows. In practical terms, that means the institution is working to ensure that token issuance and transfer activity can be managed with the same operational disciplines used for conventional banking systems.
The bank is also exploring broader applications for the platform. U.S. Bank specifically pointed to cross-border treasury operations and liquidity management, along with moving collateral onchain—areas where the operational overhead of settlement and the speed of fund movement can materially affect how financial institutions manage capital and risk.
The bank’s framing matters for investors and market participants because it highlights a recurring theme in institutional stablecoin adoption: the technology itself is only part of the story. The ability to integrate with compliance, governance, and operational monitoring often determines whether a pilot can progress into a repeatable product.
U.S. Bank expands on earlier Stellar work
This cross-border pilot builds on U.S. Bank’s earlier digital asset efforts. The bank said it launched a dedicated Digital Assets and Money Movement organization in October 2025 focused on stablecoin issuance, crypto custody, asset tokenization, and digital money movement. That internal structure indicates the project has been treated as a longer-term initiative rather than a short-lived experimental desk.
U.S. Bank also previously indicated that it has been testing custom stablecoin issuance on Stellar since at least November 2025. In that earlier phase, the bank said it was working alongside PwC and the Stellar Development Foundation. Taken together, the timeline suggests the institution has moved from stablecoin issuance testing on a blockchain to a broader operational exercise that includes cross-border transfers and full stablecoin administrative functions.
Readers watching the institutional stablecoin space should note what appears to be the bank’s progression: first establishing the issuance capability and ecosystem partnerships, then refining operational mechanics, and finally running a live cross-border settlement scenario designed to stress the operational and governance layer.
Broader banking stablecoin momentum continues
U.S. Bank’s announcement lands as the wider banking sector continues to accelerate stablecoin projects, even as parts of the industry have pushed back on how stablecoins should be allowed to behave in markets.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that American banks have raised objections to proposals that would let stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms offer yield or rewards. Even so, major lenders and financial institutions are still moving ahead with their own token plans, often positioning them around payments, settlement, and institutional workflows rather than consumer yield incentives.
Cointelegraph also reported that on Sept. 1, 21 large financial institutions—including Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and UBS—announced plans to form a company to issue stablecoins. The group’s plan, as described in that reporting, is to launch a U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027 before expanding to other G7 currencies, with a target spanning wholesale, institutional, and retail use cases. The stated focus includes cross-border payments and digital asset settlement.
Separately, Fidelity has already entered the stablecoin market with its Fidelity Digital Dollar (FIDD), issued through Fidelity Digital Assets and available to retail and institutional investors. According to DefiLlama data referenced by the original coverage, FIDD had about $50 million in circulation at the time of writing, with DefiLlama providing ongoing stablecoin supply tracking: DefiLlama—Fidelity Digital Dollar.
For market participants, these parallel efforts underscore that the industry is not waiting for a single “breakthrough” policy moment. Instead, large banks appear to be pursuing stablecoin infrastructure that can support cross-border and settlement use cases while they work through regulatory and market-structure questions.
Next, investors and builders should watch whether pilots like this translate into broader deployments with measurable adoption—such as increased settlement frequency, expanded corridor coverage, or more formal linkage to treasury and collateral workflows—and how institutions manage stablecoin governance features under real-world regulatory scrutiny.
This article was originally published as U.S. Bank Trial Uses Proprietary Stablecoin for Cross-Border Stellar Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockchain intelligence firm TRM Labs has reportedly doubled its valuation to $2 billion after expanding its Series C funding round led by Blockchain Capital. In an announcement Wednesday, the company said it did not disclose the amount of the latest investment, but stated that its annual recurring revenue has quadrupled over the past three years.
The new financing expansion comes on the heels of a $70 million Series C round in February, which was also led by Blockchain Capital. TRM provides blockchain intelligence and investigation software used by more than 600 government agencies and private-sector organizations across 75 countries, according to the company.
Key takeaways
TRM Labs’ valuation has risen to $2 billion following an expanded Series C round led by Blockchain Capital.
The company did not specify the size of the latest investment, but said its annual recurring revenue has quadrupled in three years.
TRM’s products target investigations into fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, and other forms of digital crime.
Federal procurement activity and a legal challenge involving an ICE contract have placed TRM’s role in government-focused intelligence in the spotlight.
Valuation lift tied to revenue growth
For investors, TRM’s disclosed performance metrics matter as much as the valuation headline. The company’s claim that annual recurring revenue has quadrupled over the past three years signals accelerating commercial traction, even though the size of the most recent Series C expansion remains undisclosed.
Before the February round, TRM was valued at $930 million, according to data compiled by Traxcn. It then crossed the $1 billion valuation threshold in a Series C that reportedly included Citi Ventures and Galaxy among the investors, setting up the momentum that now culminates in the doubled valuation.
Why demand is growing for blockchain intelligence
TRM says its AI-powered tools are used to investigate fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, and other categories of digital crime. That positioning aligns with the company’s references to broader enforcement and complaint trends.
TRM pointed to reported losses submitted to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center rising to $21 billion in 2025 from $16 billion in 2024. The firm also said it has observed a 40% year-over-year increase in criminal adoption of AI in 2026, citing its AI-in-Crime Adoption Index.
While those figures are company-provided context rather than independent metrics released alongside the funding update, they help explain why blockchain intelligence vendors are being treated as strategic infrastructure by both public agencies and regulated private institutions.
US government work and the court challenge
The funding expansion arrives roughly two months after US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded TRM a roughly $95 million, one-year contract for forensic software and support services for Homeland Security Task Force investigations. Such awards can be pivotal for blockchain intelligence firms: they not only provide revenue visibility, but also serve as proof points that government teams can integrate the tools into ongoing operations.
However, TRM’s government role has not been without controversy. Earlier coverage notes that rival Chainalysis challenged ICE’s sole-source award in federal court later that month, alleging the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.” The dispute underscores a key tension in the government procurement landscape for specialized digital forensics: even when a contractor claims performance and fit, competitors may argue process and selection standards were not met.
For TRM, the court case is important to monitor alongside the commercial narrative of rising revenue. For potential customers and partners, the outcome could influence procurement timelines, contract renewals, and how agencies evaluate alternative vendors for similar intelligence and investigation needs.
What to watch next
With TRM’s valuation now at $2 billion and revenue growth framed as a multi-year trend, the next signals to track are whether the company can sustain its A recurring revenue momentum and how the legal challenge around ICE’s contract develops—especially if it affects future government purchasing decisions.
This article was originally published as TRM Labs Raises Series C, Doubling Valuation to $2B on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Consensys Software Inc., the Ethereum-focused firm behind MetaMask, plans to restructure by splitting its consumer-oriented business from its institutional blockchain infrastructure operations. The company says the separation is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, creating two independent companies with distinct leadership and strategic priorities.
According to a Business Wire announcement, Joe Lubin will serve as chairman and CEO of MetaMask while also taking the role of executive chairman of the new Consensys. The institutional business—focused on Ethereum protocols and infrastructure—will be led by Mike Kriak as CEO, with David Cunningham as president.
Key takeaways
Consensys will separate into two independent firms by the end of 2026: MetaMask (consumer self-custody) and a new Consensys (Ethereum protocols and institutional infrastructure).
The new Consensys will house Consensys’ protocol and infrastructure portfolio, including Linea, Besu, and Teku.
MetaMask is positioned to broaden beyond a wallet into payments, savings, investing, and other traditional financial products.
Consensys says MetaMask has surpassed 100 million downloads across about 190 countries and supported “trillions of dollars” in transaction volume.
From one umbrella to two focused companies
The planned reorganization reflects what the company describes as increasingly different objectives between its consumer-facing and institutional-facing teams. In the announcement, Consensys frames the split as a way to allow each business to pursue its own roadmap without competing for shared priorities.
Under the new structure, MetaMask will remain the centerpiece of the consumer division, with an emphasis on self-custody. Consensys also outlined that MetaMask’s expansion is not limited to crypto holdings and decentralized app access; it is intended to extend into areas such as payments, savings, and investing, as well as “traditional financial products.”
Meanwhile, the institutional infrastructure company will consolidate Consensys’ Ethereum protocol and infrastructure activities. The company says this entity will focus on Ethereum infrastructure while supporting financial institutions looking to deploy blockchain technology for tokenization, stablecoins, and other onchain financial services.
What will live under “MetaMask” vs. “the new Consensys”
Consensys’ announcement is explicit about the portfolio split. The new Consensys entity will house the company’s protocols and institutional infrastructure businesses, including Linea, Besu, and Teku.
While the announcement does not detail whether these products will change in scope after the separation, the strategic direction is clear: an infrastructure-first company designed to work with institutions, where the customer is more likely to value deployment, reliability, and enterprise integration over consumer growth metrics.
In contrast, MetaMask’s mandate centers on consumer self-custody and product-led expansion into finance-adjacent services. The company’s messaging suggests that the consumer operation will continue to evolve from a browser extension into a broader interface for onchain and finance-related experiences, including functionality connected to stablecoins and yield strategies—while remaining within a self-custody framework.
Consensys says MetaMask has been downloaded more than 100 million times across roughly 190 countries and facilitated trillions of dollars in transaction volume.
MetaMask’s push into consumer finance features
Part of the logic behind the split appears tied to how MetaMask has expanded beyond its original “wallet for decentralized applications” role. Launched in 2016 as an Ethereum browser extension, MetaMask has added new product lines over the past year, including tools associated with payments, yield, and access to tokenized real-world assets.
In June, Consensys said MetaMask launched Money Account, which it describes as allowing users to earn up to 4% variable APY on eligible mUSD stablecoin balances. The company also stated that the yield is generated through decentralized finance lending strategies rather than interest paid by MetaMask or by the stablecoin issuer.
Earlier in the year, MetaMask added access to tokenized financial products for certain users. In February, Consensys reported support for 200 tokenized US stocks, exchange-traded funds, and commodities via Ondo Global Markets, limited to eligible users outside the United States.
That same month, MetaMask rolled out a Mastercard-enabled spending card across 49 US states. Consensys said the card expanded a previously available product that had already reached markets including Europe, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.
Taken together, these updates help explain why a consumer-first business might benefit from separation: MetaMask’s expanding feature set increasingly resembles a consumer finance platform—while the institutional protocols business is oriented toward deployment infrastructure for enterprise and regulated use cases.
Why the split matters for builders and investors
Restructuring a major Ethereum software provider can matter beyond internal operations, because it shapes where resources and attention flow. A dedicated institutional infrastructure unit may allow teams behind Linea, Besu, and Teku to focus more narrowly on scaling, tooling, and integration work relevant to financial institutions and enterprise networks.
For investors and market participants, the split also provides clearer lines of accountability: MetaMask’s leadership and product execution can be assessed primarily through consumer adoption and the rollout of finance features, while the new Consensys can be evaluated on the delivery of Ethereum infrastructure services and institutional deployment outcomes.
At the same time, Consensys’ own framing highlights that the separation is not simply organizational—it is strategic. The company says the consumer and institutional businesses have “increasingly different priorities,” and the timeline suggests it expects those differences to become more consequential as each unit pursues its own growth and partnerships.
Readers should watch how Consensys handles continuity during the transition, especially how MetaMask’s expanded financial features and the institutional protocols roadmap will evolve up to the end-of-2026 completion target.
With the split planned but not yet finalized, the key near-term question is whether the product lines will remain consistent for users while each company sharpens its focus—particularly as MetaMask continues moving into payments and tokenized asset access, and the institutional unit deepens its work supporting stablecoin and tokenization initiatives.
This article was originally published as Consensys to Separate MetaMask and Launch Institutional Blockchain Unit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane says the lender’s 2023 voluntary wind-down was driven less by solvency concerns and more by political pressure tied to the Biden administration. In an inaugural Substack post published Tuesday, Lane argues that Silvergate could have continued operating after meeting large withdrawal demands in late 2022—contradicting the thrust of multiple regulator reviews that pointed to funding, governance, and compliance failures.
The dispute matters beyond Silvergate’s collapse because it sits at the center of a broader, ongoing debate: whether US regulators effectively squeezed crypto-focused banks through risk management scrutiny and supervisory actions, or whether the failures were primarily internal. Lane’s account adds a firsthand perspective to a record that includes Federal Reserve and SEC enforcement actions, as well as official reviews highlighting weaknesses in how the bank managed its concentrated deposit base and compliance obligations.
Key takeaways
Alan Lane claims Silvergate remained solvent through periods of heavy withdrawals, citing liquid assets that could be sold or pledged.
Lane attributes the 2023 liquidation decision to “political pressure,” while Federal Reserve-related reviews emphasize funding risks and governance and compliance shortcomings.
A Federal Reserve Office of Inspector General review in 2023 linked Silvergate’s collapse to its dependence on crypto depositors and multilayered funding risks.
The SEC charged Silvergate Capital, Lane, and former risk officer Kathleen Fraher in July 2024 over alleged deficiencies in AML-related monitoring and investor disclosures.
Government agencies later withdrew early-2023 crypto-risk supervisory statements, but regulators’ enforcement actions continued to shape the post-mortem.
Lane argues Silvergate could withstand the withdrawal wave
Lane’s central claim is that Silvergate did not collapse because it lacked liquidity or capital to operate. He wrote that the bank had the capacity to keep running after it satisfied withdrawals equivalent to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022.
In the post, Lane argued that liquidation became the path of least resistance only after political pressure intensified. He described a “coordinated attack by the Biden Administration” as the reason Silvergate chose liquidation “in the face of political pressure.”
Lane also pointed to the bank’s reserves and balance sheet actions during the period. In a January 2023 business update, Silvergate reported that digital asset deposits declined 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion over the quarter. The bank said it sold $5.2 billion in debt securities and recorded a $718 million loss, while reporting $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. Lane’s post leans on this picture—liquid assets were available, and funding outflows did not automatically imply insolvency.
Even if Lane’s liquidity framing is accepted, regulators’ accounts differ sharply on what ultimately caused the wind-down. Lane presents a solvency-and-strategy argument; multiple supervisory findings emphasize risk concentration, rapid funding dynamics, and compliance and governance problems.
Regulators’ assessments focus on concentration, governance, and risk controls
A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General examined Silvergate’s failure, citing the bank’s heavy reliance on crypto depositors, rapid growth, and multilayered funding risks as key drivers behind the decision to liquidate. The review also highlighted weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management, and suggested examiners could have acted more aggressively and decisively.
Lane’s Substack post pushes back on the compliance narrative. He said no regulator had proven that Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed. That assertion sits in tension with the SEC’s later enforcement actions, which specifically targeted AML monitoring practices and related disclosures.
For investors, this difference is not just rhetorical. If regulators’ conclusions primarily reflect internal control failures, then industry access to banking may be constrained mainly by compliance performance. If, instead, supervisory pressure was the decisive factor, the risk lens for lenders and crypto businesses could shift toward how regulators manage institution-level risk tolerance rather than how firms execute monitoring and governance.
SEC enforcement and the AML-monitoring allegations
Lane’s account also intersects with the SEC’s July 2024 charges. According to the SEC’s press release from that time, the agency charged Silvergate Capital, Alan Lane, and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors regarding the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers.
In the SEC’s allegations, Silvergate’s automated system failed to monitor transactions worth more than $1 trillion, and the bank allegedly failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers involving FTX entities.
Lane later settled the SEC case without admitting or denying the allegations. The SEC reported that the settlement included a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar. Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies, according to a Federal Reserve enforcement press release dated July 1, 2024.
Taken together, these actions support the core of regulators’ post-mortem: even if deposit withdrawals accelerated stress, supervisory authorities argued the bank’s monitoring and governance posture contributed to its inability to stabilize.
Did the industry face supervisory “pressure”? The withdrawn statements
Lane also cited early-2023 interagency crypto-risk statements as evidence of pressure on the broader industry. The Federal Reserve’s regulatory materials described guidance urging banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities. The Fed also stated that institutions were neither prohibited nor discouraged from serving specific customer classes based solely on that guidance.
However, that episode did not remain permanent. In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the earlier statements, according to a Federal Reserve press release about the withdrawal.
That timeline is important for readers trying to weigh Lane’s claims against the regulatory record. The supervisory stance of early 2023 may have influenced how banks managed crypto-related risk; the later withdrawal suggests agencies eventually reassessed how the guidance was framed. Still, the SEC and Federal Reserve actions tied to Silvergate’s own monitoring and risk controls remained part of the enforcement backdrop—suggesting that whatever broader pressure existed, regulators also found failures in how Silvergate operated.
What to watch next for the “regulation vs. solvency” question
Lane’s Substack post will likely intensify the split between those who view Silvergate’s liquidation as a response to external political and supervisory pressure and those who see it as the logical endpoint of internal risk concentration and control failures. The key question now is whether further filings or proceedings clarify which factors were decisive in the wind-down—and how regulators’ changing guidance will be interpreted going forward by crypto-focused lenders.
This article was originally published as Silvergate Ex-CEO Says Biden Pressure Drove 2023 Wind-Down on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.