Crypto Breaking

US CFTC Chair Michael Selig has told lawmakers and the crypto industry that the agency will continue moving on digital-asset regulation even if Congress does not pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. Speaking in prepared remarks at the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee’s inaugural meeting on Thursday, Selig framed the agency’s approach as a way to “give CLARITY its breathing room” while still preparing rulemaking that could be deployed quickly if the bill stalls.
Selig also described actions already set in motion inside the commission, including work aimed at allowing both registered and non-registered entities to offer leveraged or margined crypto asset trading, alongside efforts to develop protections for developers. His comments came as the broader crypto policy debate in Washington remains tied to the timing of Senate proceedings and ongoing negotiations over the bill’s content.
Key takeaways
Despite CLARITY being the central market-structure proposal, CFTC leadership signaled it will pursue crypto rules independently if Congress cannot finalize the legislation.
Selig said staff have already been directed to consider rules that would enable leveraged or margined crypto trading by both registered and non-registered entities.
The CLARITY bill appears paused until the US Senate returns in September, with a cloture vote requiring 60 support to advance.
Selig’s agenda aligns with the SEC’s parallel approach: proposed digital-asset rules designed to provide clearer regulatory pathways for market participants.
The CFTC is currently operating with a limited leadership panel, with Selig described as the only Senate-confirmed commissioner directing agenda-setting since December.
CFTC: rulemaking won’t wait for CLARITY
In his remarks, Selig argued that the CFTC should not stand still while Congress deliberates. He said the commission would move forward on crypto regulations even without CLARITY’s passage, suggesting the agency could help ensure implementation of the administration’s priorities if the bill is delayed or revised.
“We’re going to give CLARITY its breathing room for a vote,” Selig said, but added that if Democrats cannot support a bipartisan product that reflects compromises from both sides of the aisle and reaches the President, he would direct CFTC staff to “move swiftly” to propose new rules for the industry.
In practical terms, Selig said he has already instructed staff to advance policy work related to crypto trading structures, including allowing leveraged or margined trading on a broader basis. He also pointed to an effort to explore developer protections—an element that has been gaining attention in US crypto policymaking as regulators attempt to distinguish between consumer-facing activity and other categories of software and infrastructure.
Where CLARITY stands in Congress—and why it matters
Although Selig indicated the CFTC is prepared to act on its own, the legislative path for CLARITY remains the major determinant of a unified national market-structure framework. The market-structure bill is currently effectively paused until the Senate returns to session in September. At that point, Majority Leader John Thune is expected to seek a cloture vote.
Under the Senate’s rules as described in the reporting, CLARITY would need 60 votes to pass the chamber and then return to the House of Representatives for final legislative approval before reaching President Donald Trump for signature or veto. This 60-vote threshold is especially consequential because it signals that the bill’s fate depends not only on broad support, but on overcoming procedural resistance.
Any uncertainty around the number of votes needed has been heightened by political questions tied to ethics. The source notes that some Democrats have called for stronger ethics provisions related to the Trump family’s crypto investments, reported as totaling $1.4 billion in 2025. Trump has claimed that a “lot of Democrats” support CLARITY, but it remains unclear whether that support is sufficient to reach the Senate threshold.
For market participants, the distinction is important: if CLARITY passes, it could standardize how US regulators approach key aspects of crypto trading and market structure. If it does not, the CFTC’s willingness to proceed suggests the industry could face a more fragmented regulatory landscape driven by agency rulemaking rather than legislation.
Coordination signal with the SEC’s proposed rules
Selig’s comments also echoed the direction taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the source, the SEC on Tuesday released proposed rules for digital asset regulation that would offer crypto companies a safe harbor policy from tokens being treated as “investment contracts,” along with certain exemptions for issuers.
While the SEC and CFTC operate in different jurisdictional domains, the alignment in messaging suggests regulators are attempting to reduce uncertainty in overlapping areas of the market—especially for trading, token offerings, and associated activities. For investors and operators, that could mean a clearer set of expectations on how rules might apply, even if Congress is still debating a comprehensive framework.
At the same time, regulatory coordination remains imperfect. The SEC proposal is designed around its own statutory interpretation and enforcement priorities, while the CFTC focuses on commodities and derivatives-related market activity. That difference is why agency-by-agency rulemaking may not fully substitute for legislative clarity.
Innovation committee focus: AI, prediction markets, and CFTC jurisdiction
Selig delivered his remarks alongside Innovation Advisory Committee Chair Walt Lukken and the committee’s Designated Federal Officer Michael Passalacqua. Beyond the CLARITY debate, the meeting agenda reportedly included artificial intelligence and prediction markets.
The CFTC has claimed “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, according to the source, based on its view that event contracts on relevant platforms are “swaps.” Selig has said he directed the commission to pursue lawsuits against state-level authorities that challenge this position—referenced in the source in connection with matters involving companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket.
For builders and traders in prediction markets, these jurisdictional disputes are not abstract. They can influence where platforms operate, how products are structured, and what legal risk markets face when expanding into new states or audiences. In that context, CFTC momentum on broader digital-asset rulemaking may also affect how prediction-market platforms plan future product design and compliance programs.
CFTC leadership constraints add urgency
The meeting also highlighted an internal constraint: the CFTC, as described in the source, currently lacks a full panel of commissioners. Selig has been operating as the only Senate-confirmed commissioner within a leadership group expected to consist of a bipartisan five-member panel.
Because of that imbalance, Selig has been solely responsible for directing the agency’s agenda since December, which may help explain the emphasis in his remarks on speed—both in continuing existing initiatives and in preparing contingencies should Congress not reach a legislative conclusion.
In the near term, investors and industry participants should watch whether the CFTC’s ongoing rulemaking work translates into formal proposals, and whether CLARITY can clear the Senate’s procedural and political hurdles in September. The immediate uncertainty is legislative, but the immediate regulatory direction is already becoming clearer from agency-level activity.
This article was originally published as CFTC Chair: Regulation plan proceeds if crypto bill lacks clarity on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance has launched Agent OS, a new developer platform designed to let AI agents access market data, monitor user accounts, and execute crypto trades directly on the exchange. The announcement frames Agent OS as an infrastructure layer that can be connected to popular AI tools, with controls that aim to keep permissions and risk limits under the user’s authority.
According to Binance, Agent OS supports AI environments including ChatGPT, Claude Code, Codex, and Cursor. Users can authorize agents to view account information and place orders only within configured permissions and limits, and they can assign agents to dedicated subaccounts so trading activity and funds remain compartmentalized.
Key takeaways
Agent OS gives AI agents access to Binance market data, the ability to monitor user accounts, and the option to execute trades.
Binance’s model is authorization-based: users define which actions agents can take and impose trading limits.
Agents can be tied to dedicated Binance subaccounts for clearer separation of funds and activity.
Binance says it can observe trades executed via Agent OS but does not see the agent’s external data sources or internal decision-making.
Agent OS also links agents to Binance’s payment and onchain tools for wallet and onchain-service interactions.
What Binance’s Agent OS is designed to do
Agent OS is positioned as a bridge between AI applications and exchange operations. Binance states that developers can connect agents to market information and to user account functionality, then grant those agents the ability to place trades through the exchange under a permissioned setup.
In practical terms, this matters because it reduces the friction of building agent-driven trading systems. Instead of relying solely on custom integrations, users can route trading actions through a platform that is already integrated with Binance’s account and execution infrastructure. At the same time, Binance emphasizes user control by allowing permissions to be configured and access to be revoked at any time.
Permissions, subaccounts, and the limits of what Binance can see
Binance’s announcement highlights a key operational safeguard: users can assign agents to dedicated subaccounts. That approach can help separate balances and trading activity for different strategies or different agent instances, which is particularly relevant when multiple automated systems operate under the same main account.
Binance also describes a visibility boundary. It says it can monitor the trades placed through Agent OS, but it cannot see an agent’s external information sources, interpretation, or decision-making logic—elements that occur within the user’s chosen AI application. That separation is important for privacy and for reducing the need to centralize all agent reasoning inside the exchange environment.
How this fits into the broader “agents” push by exchanges
Agent OS arrives amid a broader trend: crypto trading venues are moving from basic automation toward infrastructure that supports more autonomous AI-driven behavior.
Earlier in the year, Coinbase launched “Coinbase for Agents” in June. That tool also targets AI models such as ChatGPT and Claude, enabling connections to user accounts so models can execute trades and strategies, alongside support for agent-driven payments through Coinbase’s x402 protocol.
Different exchanges are taking different stances on autonomy. In July, Kraken unveiled an AI-powered investing assistant that monitors markets and recommends trades based on users’ goals and risk preferences, but requires user approval before executing trades.
Other players are extending the concept beyond trading. OKX launched a beta marketplace where AI agents can find work, transact using stablecoin payments, and hire other agents for tasks, backed by an onchain reputation system.
Taken together, the sector is converging on a common idea—agents should be able to interact with financial rails—but it’s still diverging on the degree of autonomy and how much responsibility belongs to the user versus the system.
From trading to payments and onchain interaction
Beyond order placement, Binance says Agent OS can connect agents to its payment and onchain tools. The stated goal is to allow agents to make payments and interact with wallets and other onchain services.
This broader scope is a notable shift from “agent as a trading bot” toward “agent as an onchain operator.” If agents can perform payments and wallet interactions in addition to trading, they can potentially be used for a wider range of workflows—such as managing funds across strategies, executing routine onchain actions, or coordinating multi-step operations that blend exchange and onchain activity.
However, the same expansion also raises the stakes for governance and risk controls. Binance’s emphasis on permissions, subaccounts, and revocation becomes even more important when an agent can potentially do more than place orders.
Why industry leaders see agents as a major onchain driver
Binance is not operating in a vacuum. The announcement echoes comments from other crypto executives who have argued that AI agents could take on a meaningful portion of onchain activity. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire have both pointed to the potential for agents to become active participants in onchain ecosystems.
Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao has also described cryptocurrency as a “native currency” for AI agents, reinforcing the idea that exchanges and payment infrastructure could become the operational backbone for agent-driven finance.
Agent OS can be viewed as a concrete attempt to operationalize that vision—turning “agents will use crypto” into “agents can securely interact with exchange systems.” The key question for users and developers will be how quickly these platforms converge on shared standards for authorization, auditing, and safety.
For now, investors, traders, and builders should watch how Agent OS performs in real deployments—especially around permission granularity, subaccount segregation, and what types of agent workflows users actually adopt. The most important unknown is how these exchange-based agent systems will balance autonomy with practical safeguards as AI-driven onchain activity scales.
This article was originally published as Binance Enables Crypto Trading for AI Agents with User Controls on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miners are pouring large sums into AI and high-performance computing (HPC) ventures, but early financial results show that the shift is still far from economically catching up with the scale of the investment. According to BlocksBridge Consulting’s latest Miner Weekly update, miners and AI-adjacent data center operators have committed tens of billions to capital assets—much of it happening before meaningful revenue ramps up.
BlocksBridge reported that 15 publicly listed Bitcoin miners and AI data center companies collectively spent $30.7 billion on capital assets in their latest 2026 reporting periods. That figure is already 42.6% higher than the $21.53 billion they spent across all of 2025. For investors, the key question is whether current AI/HPC revenue growth can narrow the gap between upfront spending and cash returns fast enough to justify the pivot.
Key takeaways
BlocksBridge Consulting says 15 public Bitcoin miners and AI data-center companies spent $30.7 billion on capital assets in their latest 2026 reporting periods—42.6% more than total 2025 capex.
Nine comparable miners spent $5.11 billion on capital assets in the first half of 2026 while generating $341.2 million in directly reported AI and HPC revenue (about a 15-to-1 capex-to-revenue ratio).
AI and HPC revenue from those nine miners rose to $205.8 million in the second quarter, up 52% quarter-on-quarter.
BlocksBridge cautions that converting power and land advantages into AI-ready infrastructure requires expensive build-outs, including substations, buildings, cooling, networking—and sometimes GPUs.
Capex surges, revenue lags in the AI pivot
The strongest signal in BlocksBridge’s data is the imbalance between spending and monetization. While AI and data-center strategies are widely viewed as diversification pathways for miners facing cyclically tough mining economics, BlocksBridge’s numbers suggest the transition remains capital intensive.
BlocksBridge calculated capital spending by combining cash purchases with allocations to hardware, property, equipment and other productive assets—netting out proceeds and refunds from asset sales. The methodology matters because it points to a “build” phase rather than a purely expansionary one: companies are acquiring and deploying physical assets at speed, even as revenue capture is still ramping.
Drilling into Bitcoin miners specifically, BlocksBridge noted that nine comparable miners invested $5.11 billion in capital assets during the first half of 2026. Yet those firms generated only $341.2 million in directly reported AI and HPC revenue during the same window. The resulting ratio—roughly 15-to-1—illustrates how far the industry is from turning capital deployment into proportionate operating returns.
What is changing: faster AI/HPC revenue growth
Despite the gap, BlocksBridge reported signs of acceleration. In the second quarter, the same group of nine miners generated $205.8 million from AI and HPC businesses, representing a 52% quarter-on-quarter increase. BlocksBridge highlighted Core Scientific, TeraWulf and Bitdeer among the companies showing gains.
For readers watching diversification outcomes, the practical implication is that the pivot may be entering a more revenue-generating stage—at least for some participants. However, the magnitude of earlier spending underscores that even sharp quarter-to-quarter growth may still be insufficient to erase the balance-sheet effect of large capex programs in the near term.
What investors should watch next is whether accelerating revenue translates into improving margins and more consistent demand. BlocksBridge’s figures focus on “directly reported” AI and HPC revenue; the market will likely scrutinize whether additional segments scale without requiring equally steep follow-on investments.
Why the transition is expensive: power and land aren’t enough
BlocksBridge also framed why miners can’t simply repurpose existing infrastructure and expect AI profits quickly. In its analysis, the firm said that power contracts and available land may provide a starting advantage, but turning those inputs into AI-ready capacity involves additional, costly components.
According to BlocksBridge, the build-out can require substations, buildings, cooling systems, networking equipment, and in some business models, GPUs. This helps explain why capex-to-revenue ratios can remain elevated: building AI-capable data center and compute infrastructure is not just an incremental upgrade—it is a construction and integration project with multiple dependency layers.
At the same time, the source notes that it remains unclear whether any recovery in Bitcoin’s price will ease near-term pressure on miners that still operate sizable mining fleets. When cash flows from traditional mining are volatile, the timing of AI revenue maturation becomes even more important.
Broader market signals: miners still betting big as policy improves liquidity
While BlocksBridge’s report centers on AI/HPC economics, the surrounding market context matters because it influences how much funding and operational stress miners can absorb. The article points out that Bitcoin rose more than 13% over the week and returned above $72,000 following a US Treasury announcement that it would at least double the maximum size of its long-term bond buybacks to $4 billion per operation. The move was described as intended to improve liquidity in the Treasury market and was associated with lower yields and a boost to risk appetite.
Even with that supportive backdrop, the central takeaway from BlocksBridge remains: AI diversification is expensive upfront. For investors, this creates a tension—markets may improve financing conditions while the underlying monetization timeline lags behind construction.
Separately, the pivot to AI-linked compute and power has also appeared in investment products. CoinShares announced a strategic change to its industry tracking exchange-traded fund, rebranding it as the CoinShares Bitcoin Mining and Digital Power ETF (WGMI). CoinShares says the fund holds 29 companies spanning bitcoin miners, data center operators, AI semiconductors, power generation and HPC. As of the announcement, the ETF reported $222.4 million in assets under management, and CoinShares described the theme as “the businesses powering the digital economy,” according to its listing page.
For market participants, the launch and rebranding of a targeted ETF can be interpreted as demand from investors for exposure beyond pure mining. Still, such products ultimately depend on underlying company execution—especially whether AI/HPC revenue continues to grow fast enough to justify large capital programs.
Going forward, the most important uncertainty is whether rising AI and HPC revenues can outpace the continuing cost of expansion and integration. BlocksBridge’s quarter-on-quarter growth is encouraging, but investors should monitor whether that momentum persists, improves profitability, and reduces the still-wide spending-to-return gap highlighted in its capex-to-revenue calculations.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Miners Spend $5B+ on AI as Capex Beats Revenue 15:1 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin pushed to a fresh 11-week high on Thursday as trading activity strengthened during the early Wall Street session, reaching $72,505 on Bitstamp. The move unfolded alongside a macro backdrop that turned riskier rather than calmer: US equities opened lower and bond yields rebounded after renewed geopolitical alarm around US-Iran tensions.
While BTC gained more than 4% on the day, several analysts and on-chain observers cautioned that the rally may still be too early to treat as a full “bear market over” signal—especially given the market’s prior sensitivity to liquidity and risk conditions.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD retested around $71,000 before rising to $72,505 on Bitstamp, according to TradingView data referenced in the coverage.
Trump’s “economic warfare” language on Iran coincided with a reversal higher in US government bond yields after a sharp prior-day drop.
WTI crude climbed to $87.69 per barrel, reflecting an energy market that continues to price geopolitical risk.
Analysts argued technical levels and demand signals still need confirmation before calling a lasting bull-cycle shift.
CryptoQuant highlighted renewed spot-and-derivatives demand, though the scale was described as “modest” and will require follow-through.
Bitcoin breaks higher as macro nerves return
TradingView data cited in the report shows BTC/USD moving back above $71,000 prior to setting a new 11-week peak at $72,505 on Bitstamp. The price action came after US markets opened on a weaker footing, with bond yields recovering after falling the day before.
This matters for crypto because Bitcoin’s recent trading has often correlated with shifts in broader risk appetite and expectations for market liquidity. When yields rise quickly—particularly after a period of decline—investors tend to reassess discount rates and near-term risk exposure, which can quickly change the tone of crypto rallies.
US-Iran “economic warfare” rhetoric sparks yield volatility
Equities traded softer after President Donald Trump threatened Iran with what he described as the “most crushing economic operation ever taken against any country,” calling it “Economic D-Day.” The comments were posted on Truth Social, where Trump also framed the escalation as “economic warfare and isolation on an unprecedented scale,” tied to frustration over the absence of a deal concerning the Strait of Hormuz oil route.
Energy pricing reinforced the risk narrative. WTI crude reportedly reached $87.69 per barrel, the highest level since July 24.
At the rates level, the report notes that Treasuries volatility increased after the earlier selloff in yields. The US 30-year yield reportedly traded as low as 5.179% before rebounding to 5.266%—an increase of 9 basis points—nearly erasing the prior day’s downside. The 10-year yield also reversed the previous day’s decline.
In parallel, the US Treasury had announced it would revisit the size of debt buyback operations on Nov. 4, after earlier messaging indicated intervention would at least double the size of liquidity actions from September. However, the report also cites commentary from The Kobeissi Letter suggesting that the intervention might not be enough to stabilize markets if pressure continues, writing on X: “It’s going to take a lot more intervention to tame this beast.”
Rally durability questioned: technicals and cycle timing
After gaining nearly $10,000 over four days, Bitcoin’s advance appeared to raise more questions than it answered. The report highlights trader and analyst Rekt Capital’s view that BTC needs to hold and extend its strength to invalidate a “weakening support” theme. Rekt Capital wrote that technicals were still pointing to $60,000 as a weakening macro support level.
That assessment is important because it frames the move as more than a simple breakout. If price can’t maintain higher levels long enough to alter key technical narratives, rallies can fade quickly—particularly when macro conditions remain unsettled.
The report also references a separate post arguing that four-year BTC cycle patterns may allow for a new macro low before the end of 2026. While cycle timing is inherently uncertain, the key takeaway for readers is that not all market participants are treating the current rebound as evidence of an immediate, uninterrupted trend reversal.
Demand signals return, but confirmation is the next test
One of the more constructive points in the coverage came from on-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant. Its CEO, Ki Young Ju, flagged a return of positive demand for Bitcoin across both spot and derivatives markets—something he said had not been seen since October 2025, when BTC/USD set its most recent all-time high at $126,200.
Ki Young Ju described the demand shift as “modest,” but argued that if it holds for another month, it may be reasonable to conclude that the bear market has ended and a new bull cycle has begun. The report also notes that earlier coverage from Cointelegraph had emphasized missing spot demand as a key catalyst behind the lack of sustained momentum in prior attempts at reversal.
Putting the pieces together, the picture is mixed: Bitcoin is making price progress while macro risk indicators—yields and crude—remain volatile. At the same time, measurable demand dynamics are improving, though observers want to see whether the current uptick sustains rather than disappears after a short burst.
As traders look ahead, the biggest near-term question is whether Bitcoin can maintain levels that matter technically while macro conditions stabilize enough to support the flow of new demand. The next signals to watch are continued strength in spot/derivatives metrics and whether bond yields keep rebounding on renewed geopolitical headlines—or settle into a less disruptive range.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Hits $72.5K as US Warns of ‘Economic D-Day’ on Iran on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s latest rally is unfolding alongside a stark escalation in US public finances, as the US federal debt pushed above $40 trillion for the first time and Treasury yields surged to their highest levels since 2007. The developments have reignited discussion among crypto market participants about whether worsening fiscal dynamics strengthen Bitcoin’s longer-term narrative as a scarce, non-sovereign asset.
At the same time, the US Treasury moved to address stress in the bond market. According to Reuters, interest costs have risen sharply, surpassing Medicare to become the federal government’s second-largest budget expense behind Social Security in the first 10 months of fiscal 2026. The debt milestone also coincided with a Treasury action designed to calm a bond selloff, pushing long-term yields higher overall before a targeted response from the department.
Key takeaways
US federal debt crossed $40 trillion for the first time, renewing debate over whether fiscal instability boosts Bitcoin’s “hard asset” appeal.
Treasury’s plan to increase buybacks of 10- to 30-year debt aims to blunt rising long-term yields, which can influence risk assets and crypto sentiment.
Bitcoin was around $72,600 on Thursday morning, up roughly 6% over 24 hours and 15% over a week, according to CoinGecko data.
Analysts are split on whether debt levels are structurally bullish for Bitcoin—some stress near-term financial conditions, others focus on longer-term hedge demand.
From debt milestone to bond-market pressure
The $40 trillion debt milestone matters because it changes the backdrop for investors across asset classes: more borrowing typically implies greater interest expense and a bigger refinancing need over time. Reuters reported that in fiscal 2026 through the first 10 months, interest costs have climbed to become the federal government’s second-largest budget outlay behind Social Security.
At the same time, a separate Reuters report tied the timing to a Treasury effort to manage a bond selloff. That stress period has coincided with long-term yields reaching their highest point since 2007.
According to Reuters, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday the department would double buybacks of 10- to 30-year debt to at least $4 billion per operation. The immediate market reaction—initially pushing yields and the US dollar lower—helped support a broader risk-on move, with Bitcoin and gold both rallying.
Bitcoin rises as markets weigh fiscal math
Bitcoin was trading around $72,600 Thursday morning, up about 6% over the previous 24 hours and roughly 15% over the past week, based on CoinGecko data. While the rally has attracted attention for potential policy implications, market observers highlighted that macro factors tied to US rates and the dollar may be playing at least as big a role.
Earlier coverage referenced by Yahoo Finance and others attributed parts of Bitcoin’s surge to optimism around friendlier US crypto policy following President Donald Trump’s meeting with industry executives at the White House on Wednesday. Still, Bloomberg-style attributions were not the only explanation. Analysts cited Treasury buybacks and fiscal conditions as additional drivers affecting the “math” investors use when allocating capital.
Why buybacks could help in the short run—and hurt later
TrendLabs founder and chartered market technician JC Parets argued that the Treasury’s increased purchases of longer-term bonds were likely aimed at pushing back against rapidly rising long-term rates. In an analysis cited by TrendLabs, Parets suggested that if markets begin to believe the government will counter higher long-term yields, it can change the valuation assumptions for a wide range of holdings—including Bitcoin.
“If the market believes the government is going to push back against rapidly rising long-term rates, that can change the math for everything else investors own. Including Bitcoin.”
Other analysts offered a more cautious counterpoint. Bitunix analyst Dean Chen, writing in a market note cited by Cointelegraph, said the debt milestone itself is not automatically bullish for Bitcoin. Chen’s view was that Treasury buybacks may lower long-term yields temporarily and weaken the dollar, but persistent deficits and the continued build-up of financing needs could still push borrowing costs higher again over time.
In that framing, Bitcoin’s direction would depend less on the headline debt number and more on a set of observable financial variables: US dollar strength, long-term Treasury yields, and inflation expectations.
A hedge narrative returns—though “reserve” status remains unproven
Beyond short-term rate dynamics, some analysts focused on the longer-term demand argument. Yield Basis, a DeFi protocol referenced by Cointelegraph, described continued growth in US debt as potentially increasing interest in Bitcoin as a hedge against currency debasement. Their reasoning is rooted in Bitcoin’s fixed supply and the absence of a sovereign issuer, unlike fiat currencies that can be influenced by monetary policy and fiscal financing.
“Whether it will actually become a new reserve asset remains to be seen, but as concerns around fiat currency debasement grow, it will definitely stand out more as a straightforward protective instrument (alongside more traditional assets like gold).”
That position highlights a key tension in the debate: Bitcoin may become more prominent during periods of fiscal strain and money-supply concern, but the step from “hedge” to “reserve” is still not determined by adoption narratives alone. Investors will likely look for sustained shifts in real-world demand signals, not just macro headlines.
What to watch next
For traders and longer-term investors, the immediate question is whether Treasury’s longer-term buyback activity can keep yields from resuming their climb—and whether the US dollar and inflation expectations stabilize. More broadly, the durability of Bitcoin’s rally may hinge on whether the market’s view of fiscal “math” changes from short-term support to persistent concern, or whether deficits ultimately translate into higher borrowing costs again.
This article was originally published as U.S. Debt Surpasses $40T, Renewing Bitcoin Risk vs. Hedge Debate on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Public Bitcoin miners are pouring large sums into artificial intelligence and high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructure as part of a broader push to diversify beyond pure mining revenue. But new data compiled by BlocksBridge Consulting suggests the transition is still dominated by upfront capital spending, with returns lagging far behind.
In its latest Miner Weekly newsletter, BlocksBridge reports that a group of 15 Bitcoin miners and AI data-center companies spent a combined $30.7 billion on capital assets in their most recent 2026 reporting periods. That figure is 42.6% higher than the $21.53 billion these companies spent over all of 2025. The figures help quantify just how expensive it is to build capacity for AI workloads—often in parallel with continuing mining operations.
Key takeaways
$30.7B: Total capital asset spending by 15 Bitcoin miners and AI data-center companies in their latest 2026 reporting periods, per BlocksBridge.
Capex far exceeds AI/HPC revenue: Nine comparable miners spent $5.11B on capex in the first half of 2026 while reporting only $341.2M in directly reported AI/HPC revenue.
Revenue growth is accelerating: AI/HPC revenue from those nine miners rose to $205.8M in Q2 2026, up 52% quarter-on-quarter.
Pivot requires more than power and land: BlocksBridge highlights the need for substations, buildings, cooling, networking, and often GPUs.
Industry funds are reframing the thesis: CoinShares rebranded its strategy ETF to include companies supplying digital power beyond mining alone.
Capex surge highlights the cost of scaling AI-ready capacity
AI and data centers have been widely discussed as diversification paths for Bitcoin mining companies facing a challenging industry backdrop. BlocksBridge’s analysis adds a granular cost lens to that narrative, showing how quickly capital needs expand when miners attempt to convert existing infrastructure advantages into AI-ready computing environments.
According to BlocksBridge, spending was calculated based on cash purchases and allocations to hardware, property, equipment, and other productive assets—after taking into account proceeds and refunds from asset sales. Even with those adjustments, the gap between investment and revenue remains large.
Among Bitcoin miners specifically, the mismatch looks particularly stark. BlocksBridge identifies nine comparable miners that collectively spent $5.11 billion on capital assets during the first half of 2026, generating just $341.2 million in directly reported AI and HPC revenue. That equates to roughly a 15-to-1 capex-to-revenue ratio for the period covered.
Q2 revenue growth suggests demand is building, even if profits lag
While the early spending burden is clear, BlocksBridge also reports signs that AI and HPC revenue is gaining momentum. For the same group of nine miners, total AI and HPC revenue increased to $205.8 million in the second quarter—a 52% quarter-on-quarter rise.
BlocksBridge notes that companies including Core Scientific, TeraWulf, and Bitdeer were among those reporting gains tied to their AI/HPC efforts. The acceleration matters because it indicates the investments are beginning to translate into recognizable business performance, even if the scale of capex still overwhelms what is currently booked as revenue.
For investors and analysts, the immediate implication is that the diversification story is shifting from “planned buildout” to “commercialization,” but with significant timing risk. The cost is already on the balance sheet or cash-flow path; the payoff appears to be arriving later and in uneven increments across companies.
From mining advantage to AI infrastructure: what still must be built
BlocksBridge frames the pivot challenge in practical terms. While miners may have initial advantages—such as access to power contracts and available land—those assets do not automatically become AI-capable capacity. In its reporting, BlocksBridge says that converting such advantages into AI-ready infrastructure typically requires additional components, including substations, buildings, cooling systems, networking equipment, and—depending on the business model—GPUs.
This matters because it clarifies why AI/HPC commercialization can be slower than headline narratives imply. Mining operations can often run with relatively straightforward operational continuity, but AI workloads involve different infrastructure requirements and more intensive engineering to achieve reliability, scalability, and performance.
BlocksBridge also leaves open a key question for the near term: whether any broader improvement in Bitcoin’s price environment will reduce financial pressure on companies still operating large mining fleets. Bitcoin’s price moves can help sentiment and—depending on each firm’s leverage and hedging—may influence how much runway companies have while AI projects ramp.
Earlier this week, Bitcoin rose more than 13% and moved back above $72,000, following a statement by the US Treasury that it would at least double the maximum size of its long-term bond buybacks to $4 billion per operation. That decision was described as aiming to improve liquidity in the Treasury market, initially pushing yields lower and boosting risk appetite.
ETF strategy shifts mirror the broader “digital power” rebrand
In parallel with the infrastructure buildout, parts of the investment industry are adjusting how they package exposure. CoinShares, this week, announced changes to the way its industry-tracking ETF is positioned and branded.
The fund is now called the CoinShares Bitcoin Mining and Digital Power ETF (WGMI). CoinShares reports that the ETF has $222.4 million in assets under management, and that it draws from a broader set of businesses than a pure mining basket. Its “universe includes 29 holdings” spanning bitcoin miners, data center operators, AI semiconductors, power generation, and HPC companies, which CoinShares describes as “the businesses powering the digital economy.” The fund’s details are listed on CoinShares’ site: https://coinshares.com/us/etf/wgmi/.
For market participants, the ETF shift signals that investors are increasingly seeking exposure to the infrastructure layer around compute—not only the economics of mining blocks. Still, BlocksBridge’s capex-to-revenue figures emphasize that this infrastructure layer is currently expensive to build. The critical test will be whether rising AI/HPC revenue can eventually narrow the investment gap as projects move from construction into sustained operating contracts.
Over the next few reporting cycles, readers should focus on whether the revenue ramp continues for individual miners and whether capex intensity begins to cool relative to AI/HPC income. The data already shows acceleration in Q2, but the core uncertainty remains timing: how long it takes for heavy infrastructure spend to convert into durable, scalable returns.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Mining Capex Surges as AI Push Outruns Revenue 15:1 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Grayscale Research sees the SEC’s proposed Regulation Crypto Assets as a potential reset for U.S. token-based fundraising. The framework could give issuers new capital routes while directing more activity toward established public blockchain networks. Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain could benefit if companies move token launches back into the United States.
Ethereum Could Gain From Expanded Token Issuance
Ethereum could capture additional network activity because many token projects already use its infrastructure for issuance and settlement. Grayscale identified Ethereum among the major networks positioned to benefit from renewed U.S. token fundraising. More domestic offerings could increase transactions, smart-contract use, and applications built around Ethereum’s existing ecosystem.
The SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets on August 18 and targeted certain investment contracts involving newly issued crypto assets. The proposal creates two exemptions from standard Securities Act registration requirements for qualifying token offerings. One exemption allows issuers to raise to $5 million during four years.
The second exemption would permit eligible issuers to raise to $75 million in any 12 months. However, those issuers would face financial statement requirements and continued reporting obligations under the proposed framework. Federal antifraud and market-manipulation requirements would also continue to apply to offerings made under the exemptions.
Solana Could Attract New Fundraising Activity
Solana could also gain activity because its network supports token launches, payments, decentralized applications, and other blockchain services. Grayscale included Solana among networks that could receive additional usage if U.S. fundraising rules become clearer. More token issuance could therefore create new demand for transactions and applications operating through the Solana network.
The proposed regulation focuses on newly issued crypto assets rather than blockchain representations of existing securities. That distinction separates Reg Crypto from tokenized stocks, which link digital assets with shares already issued elsewhere. Instead, the SEC wants a dedicated framework for companies raising capital through certain crypto-related investment contracts.
The SEC also proposed a conditional safe harbor addressing when crypto assets remain linked to investment contracts. An issuer could qualify after completing or permanently ending the essential managerial work originally promised under the contract. Qualified assets would then fall outside investment-contract treatment under federal securities definitions covered by the proposal.
BNB Chain Could Benefit From More U.S. Token Launches
BNB Chain represents another major network that Grayscale believes could gain from expanded token-based capital formation. The network already hosts applications, digital assets, and decentralized finance services requiring frequent blockchain transactions. New U.S. token offerings could therefore expand network use if issuers select BNB Chain for distribution.
Reg Crypto follows years of uncertainty surrounding U.S. token offerings after the initial coin offering boom. That uncertainty pushed many projects toward overseas structures or offerings that excluded participation from the United States. The SEC said its proposal aims to reduce incentives for issuers to establish and operate offshore.
The framework still requires completion of the SEC rulemaking process before issuers can use its proposed exemptions. The SEC opened a 60-day public comment period following publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Meanwhile, Congress continues work on broader digital asset legislation that could further define federal market oversight.
This article was originally published as Sec Reg Crypto Could Spark New Token Boom for Eth, Sol and Bnb Chain on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Optimism governance has approved a proposal to redirect 546.9 million OP tokens—previously set aside for user airdrops—into a new initiative aimed at accelerating ecosystem development and institutional engagement.
On-chain approval also follows Optimism’s statement that it does not plan additional airdrops after distributing 269.1 million OP across five rounds. The decision is now a central point of debate among delegates over whether the foundation is moving from broad user acquisition to enterprise-focused growth early enough—and how success will be measured.
Key takeaways
546.9 million OP tokens earmarked for future airdrops will be repurposed to fund Optimism’s new Strategic Ecosystem Fund.
Optimism says it has already completed its airdrop program, distributing 269.1 million OP in five rounds, and views airdrops as more suited to an earlier growth phase.
The fund is designed to support partnerships and incentives intended to grow activity and liquidity on OP Mainnet and OP Enterprise.
Some delegates raised concerns about broken promises to users and questioned how returns on the fund will be evaluated.
At current levels, the repurposed allocation is roughly $50 million, depending on OP’s market price, according to CoinGecko.
Airdrop funds redirected into a strategic ecosystem budget
The governance vote approved the transfer of 546.9 million OP tokens into what Optimism describes as a new Strategic Ecosystem Fund. The intent is to shift resources toward ecosystem growth efforts that—according to the project—are better aligned with its current priorities around institutional adoption.
The proposal also signals a change in how Optimism is trying to compete. Rather than focusing on distributing tokens broadly to users, supporters argued the allocation could be used to strengthen relationships with chains, protocols, and institutions, and to offer incentives aimed at increasing on-chain activity and market depth.
However, the decision was not universally welcomed. Some delegates pushed back, arguing the tokens had been promised to users and raising questions about accountability. In particular, they wanted clarity on how the foundation would measure whether the fund delivers measurable outcomes rather than simply reallocating value.
The vote is recorded on Optimism’s governance platform: Optimism proposal.
Optimism says additional airdrops aren’t planned
Optimism stated that it has no additional airdrops planned after completing token distribution of 269.1 million OP across five rounds. The project framed this as a lifecycle transition: airdrops, it argued, are most useful during an earlier phase built around wide user onboarding, while its current stage emphasizes institutional and enterprise readiness.
That framing matters because it underpins the justification for repurposing the remaining allocation. If the airdrop program is considered complete, governance can treat the unused reserve as discretionary—while critics view the same reserve as a commitment that should be fulfilled later rather than redirected to new objectives.
Where the OP Stack revenue comes in
Optimism operates as an Ethereum scaling effort, including OP Mainnet and the OP Stack, a framework used by multiple networks. The article’s data points also highlight that Optimism’s broader economic model is not purely dependent on token incentives: the project says more than 30 OP Stack chains contribute revenue to Optimism. This revenue-linked ecosystem context is relevant to the fund debate because it suggests the foundation is trying to balance token-driven growth with platform-level earnings from chains built on its stack.
Optimism references its OP Stack ecosystem here: OP Stack.
Still, delegates’ concerns about measurable outcomes remain important regardless of revenue streams. A strategic fund can strengthen partnerships, but it also creates an additional channel where governance stakeholders will want evidence of effectiveness.
Token impact and broader market signals
Following the vote, OP reportedly traded around $0.09 on Thursday, up roughly 11% over 24 hours amid a broader crypto market rally. Even with the rebound, OP remains far below its peak—more than 93% under its all-time high, based on market tracking data.
CoinGecko data also places OP’s market cap at roughly $214 million with a circulating supply of about 2.29 billion OP. The same dataset implies the governance allocation—546.9 million tokens—is worth in the neighborhood of $50 million at current prices, or close to a quarter of the token’s reported market capitalization.
CoinGecko: OP on CoinGecko.
This matters for investors because token allocation votes can affect expectations about how the ecosystem will be funded and how quickly it can convert into growth. While a funding shift does not guarantee price movement, it can influence sentiment around whether a network is focused on sustainable activity and institutional adoption—or whether it is sacrificing user-facing promises for faster enterprise positioning.
Enterprise narrative under development
Optimism’s decision lands alongside ongoing enterprise-leaning activity. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Optimism signed a memorandum of understanding with Viva Republica, the operator of South Korea’s mobile money app Toss, to test a Korean won-based stablecoin infrastructure for institutional payments over a three-month proof-of-concept period.
This is the kind of partnership angle the governance supporters are effectively betting on with the Strategic Ecosystem Fund: using OP resources to accelerate collaborations that can translate into real-world payment rails and institutional workflows.
Earlier coverage: Cointelegraph report.
Still, the governance pushback underscores the tension investors and users should watch: the network is trying to move toward enterprise growth, but delegates also want assurance that token commitments to users and the promise of earlier allocations are handled transparently.
Going forward, market participants will likely track whether Optimism provides clear reporting on how the Strategic Ecosystem Fund is deployed and what measurable milestones it targets—especially given the vote’s stated goal of growing activity and liquidity on OP Mainnet and OP Enterprise.
This article was originally published as Optimism Redirects 546.9M OP From Future Airdrops to Growth Fund on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Cybersecurity firm Rapid7 has disclosed a large-scale cryptocurrency phishing and vishing campaign dubbed “Operation Asterix,” designed to compromise crypto investors by impersonating popular wallet brands and luring victims to fraudulent applications.
In its report released this week, Rapid7 says attackers obtained data tied to roughly 885,000 phone numbers across multiple countries, then used exchange-account matching to identify targets—ultimately queuing thousands of victim accounts associated with Binance for follow-on attacks.
Key takeaways
Rapid7 estimates the campaign worked from a dataset of about 885,000 phone numbers, with a largest file containing 316,002 German mobile numbers.
Rapid7 found evidence of matching 5,576 accounts associated with Binance users, “queued for attack.”
Among validated exchange-linked targets, Rapid7 calculates an approximate 13.6% “hit rate” from the larger German dataset.
The scheme used impersonation tactics aimed at seed phrase theft, including fake prompts and support-style outreach.
Rapid7’s recovered artifacts indicate automated tooling, including use of AI, to support aspects of the campaign.
How Operation Asterix targets crypto users
Rapid7’s analysis, authored by Anna Sirokova and Jan Recinsky, describes how the attackers moved from acquisition of contact data to attempts at credential and seed phrase theft. The core technique involved directing victims to fake applications designed to impersonate wallets and wallet ecosystems.
According to the report, the fraudulent lures specifically referenced well-known self-custody brands including Ledger, Trezor, and Exodus. The attackers attempted to extract seed phrases by pushing victims toward the counterfeit software and accompanying “support” interactions.
Rapid7 also reports that outreach included both fake emails and phone-based inquiries, consistent with a phishing plus vishing workflow. In other words, the campaign wasn’t limited to a single lure method; it used layered contact channels to increase the odds of a victim engaging with the scam.
Target filtering and exchange-account matching
A major component of Rapid7’s findings is the apparent use of target filtering. The report indicates that the attackers matched 43,066 accounts connected to cryptocurrency users with exchange accounts, which were then validated against the larger set of over 316,000 German phone numbers. On that basis, Rapid7 calculates a “hit rate” of approximately 13.6% for the German dataset.
Rapid7’s findings go further by highlighting that the campaign included a checker for Kraken—used to bulk-validate phone numbers against accounts from that exchange. That implies the adversaries were not simply blasting contact lists; they were trying to confirm that particular numbers corresponded to exchange-registered identities before escalating.
For Binance specifically, Rapid7 says the campaign identified and queued 5,576 accounts for attack. The report frames this as a direct outcome of matching efforts tied to the wider phone-number dataset.
Seed-phrase theft via wallet spoofing
Rapid7’s recovered artifacts point to a strategy aimed squarely at self-custody weaknesses: the combination of wallet brand impersonation and human trust in “official” support channels. Rapid7 says victims were driven to fake apps that mimicked Ledger, Trezor, and Exodus, with the goal of stealing seed phrases.
This matters because seed phrases remain the highest-value target in many crypto theft attempts. Once a seed phrase is obtained, the attacker can often access the associated wallets without needing to bypass complex cryptography—making social engineering a uniquely effective attack surface in practice.
Rapid7’s report also notes that the campaign used AI tools as a significant part of operations. While the disclosure does not provide step-by-step details of how AI was applied, it supports the broader pattern that attackers increasingly rely on automation to scale personalization, message creation, and workflow management.
Why this fits the wider pattern of crypto fraud
Operation Asterix arrives amid a continued run of phishing and social engineering losses across the sector. Hacken, a blockchain security company, reported that phishing and social engineering scams accounted for $306 million of the $482 million lost in the first quarter of the year—according to Rapid7’s reference to Hacken’s figures.
That concentration underscores an ongoing asymmetry in crypto security: many of the most costly incidents still involve attackers exploiting user behavior rather than breaking protocol rules. In that environment, phone-number datasets and exchange-account matching can become especially dangerous, as they help scammers reach likely victims through direct, targeted contact.
The tactics described in Rapid7’s report also echo prior industry incidents: Cointelegraph previously reported on a Trezor customer data breach involving about 14,000 users via its shipping provider, ShipMonk, earlier in August; a nearly $1 million loss for an investor after signing a malicious phishing token approval transaction on Ethereum in July; and a fake Ledger Live app incident on the Microsoft Store in November 2023 that resulted in theft of $588,000 across 38 transactions.
Earlier onchain reporting has similarly highlighted how scammers can use mainstream platforms to distribute fake prompts; Cointelegraph has noted cases where malicious ads impersonating Uniswap appeared via Google, leading to losses reportedly exceeding $400,000.
What to watch next
Rapid7’s disclosure is likely to raise renewed attention on how attackers blend contact-data targeting with wallet brand impersonation and automated tooling. Investors and builders should watch for follow-on indicators such as new fake wallet app deployments and continued exchange-linked targeting methods, while the industry works toward reducing the human friction that scammers rely on.
This article was originally published as Cybersecurity Firm Maps Crypto Phishing Attack on 885,000 Numbers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Europe’s regulatory squeeze on Tether’s USDT is moving beyond announcements and into platform-level implementation, but early data suggests it hasn’t upended global USDT usage.
When Revolut told European users it would delist USDT after Aug. 31, it reinforced a broader pattern: financial platforms are adjusting access to the world’s largest stablecoin as the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) stablecoin framework tightens. MiCA’s stablecoin rules have been phased in since 2024, and the EU-wide transition period ended on July 1, increasing pressure for platforms to remove offerings that don’t comply.
Key takeaways
MiCA appears to be changing where regulated platforms can list USDT, but Artemis Analytics says it has not triggered a clear migration to other venues or chains.
Artemis research quoted in the report indicates no noticeable shift in USDT supply or demand directly tied to MiCA coming into effect in Europe.
Dollar stablecoin demand is increasingly tied to payments and cross-border transfers, not only trading or savings—making it less dependent on which exchanges list a particular token.
Emerging-market stablecoin activity continues to expand, with chain usage on networks such as Binance Smart Chain and Tron rising in the period covered by Artemis data.
For European users, the practical question shifts toward alternatives—potentially euro-denominated stablecoins—though the dollar still remains central to crypto’s benchmark.
MiCA pressure, but no obvious “migration” in USDT activity
MiCA’s stablecoin rules are designed to standardize and regulate issuers and offerings within the EU. As these requirements phase in—and deadlines pass—regulated gateways have been forced to reassess which stablecoins they can support legally.
However, a central point in the reporting is what hasn’t happened. According to Artemis Analytics, the restriction of USDT on a major European front hasn’t produced a measurable shock in broader USDT behavior.
“The data does not indicate any noticeable change in USDT supply or demand attributable directly to MiCA coming into effect in Europe… MiCA didn’t trigger a major venue or chain migration.”
In other words, while compliance has real consequences for retail access in Europe, USDT’s global utility may be resilient enough to absorb those changes without a dramatic reallocation of liquidity across major networks.
Why USDT demand is holding up: stablecoins as infrastructure
A key explanation offered in the piece is that USDT is being used for more than parking value or executing trades. In this framing, dollar stablecoins increasingly function as financial infrastructure—embedded in everyday movement of money, payments, and cross-border settlement.
The report points to Argentina as an illustrative case. Even as conditions around access to physical dollars have changed, stablecoin activity reportedly kept expanding. Lemon, an Argentine crypto and financial services platform, processed $9.3 billion in total volume in 2025—up 60% year-on-year. Transactional users reportedly rose 70% to nearly 1.8 million, and stablecoin volume grew 45% year-on-year.
Those figures are used to support a broader behavioral shift: stablecoins are increasingly treated as part of the payment rails rather than a purely defensive storage tool.
“The role of USDT and other dollar stablecoins is evolving. What we’re seeing is a shift from stablecoins as a store of value to stablecoins as financial infrastructure.”
The report attributes additional detail to Lemon’s business and planning manager, describing use cases that include payments, cross-border transfers, and connecting local users to international balances. The article describes a flow where Argentine users can pay in Brazil using PIX in pesos, receive dollars or euros from overseas credited as USDC, and also move between bank dollars and digital dollar balances. The point for readers: if stablecoins are operating across multiple payment paths and rails, their demand is harder to track solely through which tokens are available on regulated European platforms.
MiCA’s European “gateway” effect vs. global chain usage
Artemis data cited in the report also challenges the idea that MiCA would immediately restructure stablecoin usage on major chains. The article says Artemis observed daily users increasing on networks favored for low fees and day-to-day stablecoin use.
Specifically, the report states that daily users on Binance Smart Chain rose from about 318,000 in June 2024 to 1.56 million by July 2026. It also says daily users on Tron increased by 44% to around 908,000.
“That looks like expanding global and emerging market usage rather than a Europe-specific migration, and there’s no clear MiCA-timed break in the chain data.”
This distinction matters: it suggests MiCA is primarily changing how users in Europe access certain dollar stablecoins through regulated channels, not erasing the underlying demand for stablecoin settlement itself.
In the reporting, WeFi’s chief executive and co-founder Maksym Sakharov ties the behavior directly to utility. Users, the report argues, tend not to pick a stablecoin simply because it appears on a particular regulated platform. Instead, stablecoin choice is described as being driven by counterparty use, liquidity depth, and the ability to operate across markets.
“Users do not choose a stablecoin only because it is available on one regulated platform. They choose it because counterparties use it, liquidity is deep, and it works across many markets.”
The article also includes a perspective from OKX Europe’s chief executive, Erald Ghoos, saying OKX Europe has not offered USDT to European users for around two years. In that sense, the report frames the latest deadline as less of a fresh disruption for some platforms than for others that still maintained access later into the compliance cycle.
Europe’s alternatives and the dollar challenge
If USDT access on regulated EU gateways shrinks for some users and platforms, the next question becomes what those users switch to—and whether the alternatives can offer comparable liquidity and usability.
The report underscores a structural advantage the dollar has historically enjoyed in crypto: the US dollar remains the dominant benchmark across markets. Even though euro-denominated stablecoins may reduce friction for European end users by lowering the need for conversion, liquidity and network effects are unlikely to change overnight.
Still, the piece points to an emerging institutional interest in euro stablecoins. OKX Europe’s Erald Ghoos is quoted saying institutional players are showing increasing interest in creating more EUR-denominated stablecoins:
“What we are seeing from institutional players is interest in creating more EUR-denominated stablecoins, which is worth watching as it develops.”
MiCA determines which stablecoin products can be offered through regulated European platforms, but it cannot rewrite global crypto’s reference currency by itself. The report’s overall framing is that regulation may reshape the EU’s “front door,” while stablecoin demand—especially where it’s tied to cross-border flows—continues to follow deeper market utility and network adoption.
For investors and builders, the next thing to watch is whether USDT restrictions inside regulated EU channels lead to measurable changes in Europe-specific liquidity patterns over time—or whether usage simply routes through other networks and jurisdictions while stablecoin demand continues to grow globally. MiCA may be altering access, but the report suggests the larger stablecoin engine is still running on fundamentals tied to payments and interoperability.
This article was originally published as MiCA Rules Target USDT in Europe as Other Stablecoins Face Less Scrutiny on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Rapid7 has disclosed details of a large-scale cryptocurrency phishing operation dubbed “Operation Asterix,” designed to target people through phone and email lures that ultimately aim to extract crypto seed phrases. The campaign reportedly reached into datasets covering roughly 885,000 phone numbers across multiple regions, with the largest tranche tied to Germany.
In Rapid7’s investigation, the phishing workflow included targeting users connected to the Binance exchange, producing 5,576 accounts matched to exchange users that were queued for attack. The firm also found evidence of fake communications impersonating Crypto.com, highlighting how the operation blended vishing tactics with exchange-branded messaging.
Key takeaways
Rapid7 traced Operation Asterix to a dataset of about 885,000 phone numbers, with Germany the largest source (316,002 numbers).
The campaign identified 43,066 accounts tied to crypto exchange users and generated 5,576 Binance-matched targets for follow-on attacks.
Attackers used fake Ledger, Trezor, and Exodus applications to pressure victims into revealing seed phrases.
Rapid7’s artifacts suggest automated tooling, including “checker” logic for Kraken account validation, alongside AI-assisted components.
Operation Asterix: scale, filtering, and “hit rate”
Rapid7’s report describes Operation Asterix as a campaign built around “targeting” rather than indiscriminate spam. According to the firm, attackers matched 43,066 accounts to cryptocurrency users using data validated against the broader German dataset containing more than 316,000 mobile numbers. Rapid7 estimates this translates to an approximate “hit rate” of 13.6% for the validated matching process.
The company also points to recovered artifacts indicating a separate checker function aimed at bulk-validating phone numbers against accounts associated with Kraken. This matters because it suggests the operation was not limited to a single exchange or geography; instead, it used verification steps to determine which phone numbers were most likely to correspond to crypto users.
How victims were lured: impersonation and seed-phrase extraction
At the center of Rapid7’s findings is the social-engineering phase of the campaign. Analysts Anna Sirokova and Jan Recinsky write that the attackers attempted to move victims toward fake applications impersonating well-known self-custody brands, including Ledger, Trezor, and Exodus.
Rapid7 says victims were driven to these impersonation surfaces with the objective of obtaining seed phrases—an outcome that can permanently compromise funds if users enter them into attacker-controlled flows. The phishing operation also used direct contact channels: attackers reached out through fake support emails and phone inquiries designed to look legitimate.
Rapid7’s findings also emphasize the operational chain—how contact was established, which targets were selected, and how the campaign progressed toward data exfiltration. While the report focuses on observed behavior in artifacts recovered by the security team, the practical implication for users is straightforward: even when the message appears to come from a brand or support channel, the risk is highest when the interaction attempts to steer victims toward entering recovery information.
Binance and Crypto.com were among the exchanges impersonated
One of the most consequential elements in Rapid7’s disclosure is how the campaign narrowed down real exchange users. The report states that it identified 5,576 accounts matched to users on Binance that were queued for attack. Rapid7 also reports that recovered logs included fake emails impersonating Crypto.com.
For traders and long-term holders, this pairing of exchange-linked targeting with brand impersonation underscores a common problem: attackers often aim to compromise trust in familiar service identities. Rather than relying solely on generic phishing, Operation Asterix appears to have used verification steps and exchange references to increase the likelihood of a victim responding.
Rapid7’s account of the target composition further indicates that the campaign’s infrastructure included lists beyond Germany. The largest file contained 316,002 German mobile numbers, while additional directories reportedly covered phone numbers associated with regions including Hong Kong, Bulgaria, and the UK, alongside US and Canadian fintech-related lists and Ledger-related lists.
Broader crypto security context: a persistent human-layer threat
Operation Asterix lands in a wider pattern of crypto fraud that repeatedly exploits users rather than breaking underlying protocols. The article notes that, according to blockchain security company Hacken, phishing and social engineering drove most of the crypto industry’s losses in the first quarter, accounting for $306 million out of a reported total of $482 million lost.
This is consistent with earlier incidents referenced in the same material. For example, it points to a Trezor-related personal data breach involving its shipping provider ShipMonk reported in August, a separate Ethereum-related case in July where a crypto investor lost nearly $1 million after approving a malicious phishing token approval transaction, and a prior episode in November 2023 where a fake Ledger Live app placed on the Microsoft Store led to theft totaling $588,000 across 38 transactions.
Taken together, these examples reinforce that crypto users face two different—but overlapping—risk categories: technical compromise through malicious software and direct loss from social-engineering flows that trick users into granting access or revealing recovery material.
What to watch next
As Rapid7’s disclosure shows, campaigns like Operation Asterix increasingly combine datasets, exchange validation, and impersonation of popular self-custody brands—meaning the most urgent question for users isn’t only whether phishing exists, but whether attackers can improve their targeting accuracy. Investors should watch for follow-on reporting from security teams on the specific tooling and any indicators of compromise tied to the fake Ledger, Trezor, and Exodus lures, while continuing to treat unsolicited support messages and “wallet recovery” requests as high-risk until independently verified.
This article was originally published as Cybersecurity Firm Maps Crypto Phishing Campaign to 885,000 Numbers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw a surge in demand on Wednesday, pulling in $517.2 million in net inflows—marking their biggest single day since May 4. That strong session helped lift total August net inflows to $1.47 billion, extending a momentum shift that has become increasingly noticeable as the month progresses.
According to data referenced by Cointelegraph, the funds have drawn in roughly $1 billion since Monday, representing their strongest weekly net inflow since the week ended Jan. 16, when they attracted about $1.42 billion.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin spot ETFs recorded $517.2 million in net inflows on Wednesday, the largest single-day figure since May 4.
August net inflows reached $1.47 billion as inflow strength continued after Monday’s near-$1 billion total.
Spot Ether ETFs added $189.2 million in net inflows on Wednesday, bringing this week’s Ether inflows to about $291.5 million.
ETF inflows coincided with a broad crypto price rally and US Treasury action to expand long-dated debt buybacks.
Market attention also returned to US crypto policy progress, following renewed discussion of the CLARITY Act.
ETFs post best day since May amid risk-sensitive market signals
The latest ETF numbers arrived alongside a rising crypto tape. At the time of writing on Thursday, Bitcoin was trading near $72,000, up 11% over the prior 24 hours, according to CoinGecko. Ether also gained sharply, up 19% to $2,286.
The close timing matters because it suggests the inflows were not isolated to ETF-specific flows alone. Instead, they came during a day when broader market conditions appeared to favor assets perceived as hedges against currency debasement rather than pure “risk-on” trades.
Cointelegraph quoted Jonatan Randin, senior market analyst at PrimeXBT, saying the Treasury’s move to expand buybacks at the long end helped push yields and the US dollar lower—while gold and silver outperformed equities. In his view, the market interpreted the action as a currency-related development rather than a growth catalyst.
Why Treasury buybacks and regulation talk may be feeding the same narrative
The Wednesday ETF inflow surge was linked to two parallel storylines: the US Treasury’s decision to expand buybacks of longer-dated government debt, and renewed attention on crypto regulation after President Donald Trump urged Congress to advance the CLARITY Act at a White House event.
Cointelegraph’s reporting connected the Treasury decision to the broader price action, including the way Bitcoin traded in sympathy with gold and silver. Randin’s comments emphasized that Bitcoin’s correlation shifted toward the “debasement trade”—an environment where investors often look to hard assets rather than companies or conventional growth exposure.
Investors tend to focus on the interaction between rates, the dollar, and liquidity expectations because those factors can influence whether demand flows into speculative or “hedging” allocations. When ETFs see strong net inflows while Bitcoin’s price behavior resembles traditional hedges, it can indicate a different driver than simple momentum trading.
Ether ETFs also benefit as weekly inflows climb
While Bitcoin led the day’s flows, Ether ETFs also contributed to the broader picture. Spot Ether ETFs logged $189.2 million in net inflows on Wednesday, increasing this week’s net inflows to about $291.5 million.
That matters for market structure: simultaneous strength across major spot products can reinforce the impression that inflows are responding to a macro or policy-driven catalyst rather than reflecting a rotation limited to a single asset.
At the same time, the gap between Bitcoin’s $517.2 million inflow and Ether’s $189.2 million highlights how investor positioning still appears weighted toward Bitcoin as the primary institutional gateway for spot exposure.
What to watch next: whether ETF inflows hold after the catalyst
The immediate question for readers is whether the Wednesday surge was a one-off reaction to Treasury headlines and renewed regulatory urgency—or the start of a more sustained inflow trend. With Bitcoin and Ether both sharply higher and ETF inflows reaching notable multi-month highs, investors will likely watch subsequent daily flow prints, changes in yields and the dollar, and any tangible movement around US crypto policy discussions.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Spot ETFs Pull $517M in Biggest One-Day Inflow Since May on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Link Attracting Whales Amid Robust Buy-In
The entire cryptocurrency market is now in a fresh wave of bullish trend as Bitcoin and Ethereum made impressive gains during the past 24 hours. The positive performance of the two largest cryptocurrencies has spilled into altcoin space, with several altcoins gaining significant value.
In that regard, Chainlink’s LINK has emerged as a focus of traders after the token registered a robust uptrend during the last day. LINK has gained above 8%, taking the coin’s value close to $10.65. The uptrend comes at a time when LINK had been trading with weak momentum and lack of direction.
The uptrend is being backed by whales. Market trends suggest that there has been continued accumulation of LINK by whales rather than one-off very large transactions.
Such an accumulation can prove very important as buying pressure on LINK can play an essential role in supporting the token. Unlike other transactions, LINK buying activities indicate that there have been gradual purchases of the token by certain market players. Analysis of LINK shows that it has appreciated by more than 19% in just one week.
Link Breaks Crucial Resistance Barrier
The new price rise has been accompanied by yet another vital technical development. Specifically, LINK has risen above the crucial diagonal resistance barrier that previously prevented its price from moving higher. Another technical development is that LINK has risen back into its daily cloud area.
It is crucial to break resistance barriers because it indicates there is enough buying power to push the price past a point where sellers previously existed. Breaking out of the daily cloud adds more weight to the technical development in terms of overcoming an area that was earlier seen as a barrier.
Short-Term Correction Is Still Possible
Even with the improvement in the technical setup, LINK is still susceptible to a short-term correction, especially after the recent gains in its price.
The coin has appreciated quickly, and there might be some selling pressure from traders who choose to book profits from the current rally. However, this does not mean that a correction in LINK invalidates the bullish setup, especially when LINK is still trading above its previously reclaimed resistance levels.
The fact that whales are continuing to buy LINK can also help during any short-term sell-off. As long as whales continue to accumulate LINK amid the new technical levels, the recent breakout can become a long-lasting move.
At the moment, LINK’s technical setup of continuous whale accumulation, increasing momentum, and a break above major technical resistances has made the altcoin a favorite among traders. For some time now, LINK has been one of the weakest coins, and the token has been showing some of its best bullish setups in some time. It will be vital for upcoming sessions to determine what happens next.
This article was originally published as Link Price Gains Momentum on Increasing Whale Accumulation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

GnosisDAO has voted to approve a major upgrade for Gnosis Chain: the network will transition from operating as a standalone layer-1 to becoming a ZK-proven “Ethereum Economic Zone” (EEZ) rollup aligned with Ethereum. The decision is intended to move Gnosis Chain’s transaction settlement to Ethereum while still running its smart contracts in an environment designed to improve how users and applications interact with Ethereum-native liquidity and assets.
In the governance vote, Gnosis Chain reported that GIP-153 passed with 123,158 GNO in support, 115 against, and 151 abstaining across 54 voters. The proposal’s turnout totaled 123,425 GNO, surpassing the 75,000 GNO quorum requirement. Gnosis Chain now says an initial launch is targeted for late 2026 or early 2027, contingent on the EEZ technology being ready.
Key takeaways
GnosisDAO approved GIP-153 to transition Gnosis Chain from layer-1 to an EEZ rollup that settles transactions on Ethereum.
The vote cleared the 75,000 GNO quorum with 123,425 GNO in turnout, signaling broad governance support despite a low “no” count.
Under the proposal, Gnosis Chain’s validator set would be retired, shifting settlement responsibility to Ethereum validators.
Gnosis Chain-native contracts would gain tighter access to Ethereum assets and liquidity, including the ability to call Ethereum and use results within the same transaction.
The EEZ concept is aimed at reducing fragmentation across Ethereum’s growing rollup landscape, potentially lowering reliance on bridges.
What GIP-153 changes for Gnosis Chain
The approved proposal, GIP-153, outlines a fundamental architectural shift. Instead of settling transactions on its own chain as a layer-1, Gnosis Chain would settle transactions on Ethereum, making it effectively an Ethereum layer-2 that depends on Ethereum’s validator set for settlement finality.
In the same proposal framework, Gnosis Chain’s existing validator set would be retired, aligning core settlement with Ethereum while preserving the network’s application layer. Gnosis Chain also said it would retain its “existing applications, balances and xDAI gas token,” suggesting a continuity plan for users and developers even as the underlying consensus and settlement model changes.
A key promise of the EEZ approach is improved on-chain interoperability for smart contracts. The proposal states that Gnosis Chain-native smart contracts would be able to call Ethereum and use that information in the same transaction—an ability it claims is not currently available on existing layer-2 systems.
Why the EEZ framework is being pursued
At a broader level, the EEZ concept is designed to address a structural issue in Ethereum scaling: fragmentation. As Ethereum’s rollup ecosystem has expanded, liquidity and usage have increasingly become siloed across separate networks. Different rollups can also limit how easily contracts from one environment can synchronously coordinate with contracts on another.
According to the coverage referenced in the original report, the EEZ framework was developed by Gnosis and ZisK, with funding from the Ethereum Foundation. The stated objective is to unify Ethereum-aligned rollups so that smart contracts across different participating networks can execute synchronously—without requiring bridging mechanisms.
This matters for investors and builders because bridges and cross-chain messaging have become recurring points of failure in the broader ecosystem. The EEZ plan attempts to reduce one major source of operational and security risk while improving how assets and logic can interact across rollups.
Timing is also a central uncertainty. Gnosis Chain’s rollout target—late 2026 or early 2027—explicitly depends on the underlying EEZ technology being sufficiently developed. That means market participants may want to track technical milestones and readiness signals long before deployment.
Buterin’s critique and the rollup security trade-off
The push for an EEZ-aligned design comes amid ongoing debate about how layer-2s fit into Ethereum’s long-term architecture. Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin previously argued that some assumptions behind the original L2 vision no longer hold up. In a Feb. 3 X post, Buterin wrote that “the original vision of L2s and their role in Ethereum no longer makes sense, and we need a new path,” pointing to potential weaknesses including centralized sequencers and trusted bridging mechanisms.
Those concerns align with the EEZ pitch: move settlement closer to Ethereum’s security model and reduce bridge dependence while enabling more direct execution pathways for cross-network smart contract interactions.
Rollup adoption remains substantial. Data referenced from L2Beat indicates that 22 Ethereum rollups are listed as securing $27.82 billion, while the platform tracks $34.88 billion in total value secured when including validiums, optimiums, and other scaling networks. As that footprint grows, the industry pressure for smoother composability and reduced fragmentation is likely to intensify.
Standard Chartered: fewer bridges, more composability
Standard Chartered’s digital assets research team has also weighed in on what an EEZ could change operationally and economically. In a May 28 report shared with Cointelegraph, Geoffrey Kendrick—global head of digital assets research—said the EEZ could reduce reliance on blockchain bridges and increase the usability of assets in EVM environments.
Kendrick wrote that “the EEZ will have the benefit of reducing the need for bridges (where hacks tend to occur) and increasing the usability of assets in EVM chains.” He added that these factors are “likely to lead to greater activity in the Ethereum ecosystem.”
From an application standpoint, Kendrick also highlighted the potential for stronger composability. The idea is that smart contracts across participating networks could interact within the same transaction, enabling richer cross-asset and cross-contract workflows without the fragmentation that can arise when operations span multiple independent rollups.
What to watch as the transition approaches
With GnosisDAO’s approval now in place, the key question for the market is execution: whether EEZ technology progresses on schedule and whether Gnosis Chain can migrate while maintaining continuity for users and developer tooling. As the late-2026/early-2027 target draws closer, attention will likely shift to implementation details—especially how Ethereum settlement, synchronous execution, and bridge reduction are delivered in practice.
This article was originally published as GnosisDAO Votes to Integrate Gnosis Chain into Ethereum Economic Zone on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Nexo has begun offering regulated, crypto-backed credit lines to eligible customers in Australia, positioning the service as a way to access liquidity without selling digital assets. The company said the rollout follows its registration as a credit representative under Australia’s National Consumer Credit Protection Act.
In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph on Tuesday, Nexo described credit lines that let borrowers take Australian dollars or stablecoins, while posting cryptocurrency collateral. The firm said payouts are typically available within 24 hours and that the products come with flexible repayment structures, no fixed term, and no origination fees.
Key takeaways
Nexo Australia launched crypto-backed credit lines after becoming a credit representative under Australia’s National Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Eligible customers can borrow either Australian dollars or stablecoins using cryptocurrency collateral, avoiding asset sales.
Availability is generally within 24 hours, with flexible repayments and no fixed term or origination fees.
Interest rates are described as ranging from 0.9% to 21.9%, tied to the selected credit line and the customer’s loyalty tier.
Nexo cautioned that borrowing against digital assets involves margin-call and liquidation risks if collateral value declines.
What Nexo’s Australia launch covers
According to Nexo, the new credit lines are designed for clients who want to unlock value from their holdings without liquidating them. Borrowers can choose between taking funds in Australian dollars or in stablecoins, with their cryptocurrency acting as collateral.
The firm also said there are two variants—Smart and Standard credit lines. Peter Stanhope, general manager at Nexo Australia, told Cointelegraph that the main differences are in interest rates, which assets can be used as collateral, and how collateral is managed when a borrower’s loan-to-value ratio rises.
Rates, repayment terms, and product differences
Nexo said the credit lines generally have no fixed term and include flexible repayment options, alongside “no origination fees.” It also provided a wide interest-rate range—0.9% to 21.9%—depending on both the particular credit line and the customer’s loyalty tier.
While Nexo did not break down the full pricing schedule in the announcement, its explanation of Smart versus Standard credits focused on practical risk mechanics: the way collateral is handled as leverage increases. That matters for borrowers because crypto markets can move quickly, and changes in collateral value can directly affect whether a margin call is triggered.
Collateral risk: margin calls and possible liquidation
Nexo stressed that borrowing against digital assets carries built-in downside protections for the lender—along with potential losses for the borrower. In its statement, the company said credit products involve margin-call and liquidation risks. If the value of posted collateral falls, clients could lose some or all of their collateral.
For users, this highlights a key trade-off of crypto-backed lending: liquidity is obtained without selling, but the loan structure effectively subjects collateral to price volatility. Borrowers considering the service will need to understand how the loan-to-value ratio is calculated and what thresholds prompt additional collateral demands or liquidation events.
Regulatory milestone and compliance positioning in Australia
Nexo’s move is described as a regulatory milestone in a market where consumer credit rules have been a central theme. The company said its Australian entity is registered with AUSTRAC as a virtual asset service provider and that it is a member of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA). These details place the firm within Australia’s broader compliance and dispute-resolution frameworks.
The launch also arrives after another notable step by a competitor earlier in the decade of Australia’s evolving crypto regulation. In May 2026, Block Earner became the first crypto loans company in Australia to secure its own Australian Credit License from ASIC, according to coverage Cointelegraph previously published here.
That comparison underscores an important distinction in how credit is being structured and authorized across the industry. Nexo’s approach hinges on being a credit representative under Australia’s consumer credit framework, while Block Earner’s earlier milestone involved obtaining a credit license from ASIC. For borrowers, the practical difference can come down to how lending activities are authorized and supervised, and what protections apply.
Why this matters for borrowers and the broader market
Crypto-backed loans have long appealed to users who want to maintain exposure to digital assets while accessing cash for spending or strategy changes. Nexo’s Australian rollout is notable because it frames that familiar model inside a regulated consumer credit pathway, potentially lowering friction for mainstream borrowers who want clearer standards for credit conduct and complaint handling.
At the same time, Nexo’s own warnings make clear that regulated access does not eliminate the core economic risk of lending against volatile collateral. The most consequential factor for customers will remain leverage management—how often and how quickly margin calls could be triggered as market prices change.
Investors and borrowers watching Australia’s credit market should pay attention to how these products perform during periods of volatility—especially around loan-to-value monitoring and the handling of margin events—as well as how other providers navigate the licensing versus credit-representative routes under Australia’s consumer credit regime.
This article was originally published as Nexo Starts Regulated Crypto-Backed Loans in Australia on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hyperliquid’s native token, HYPE, jumped sharply after President Donald Trump said U.S. regulators are working on a “compliant and legal” pathway that could allow the decentralized trading platform to serve American users. The move highlighted how much market participants are willing to reprice crypto assets on the prospect of clearer access to the United States—despite the absence of concrete implementation details.
HYPE traded near $62 shortly before Trump’s remarks, then rose as much as 16% to a 24-hour high of $72.28, according to CoinGecko data. The token later settled around $70, up roughly 20% on the day, with 24-hour trading volume reaching about $1.4 billion.
Key takeaways
HYPE surged more than 20% over 24 hours following Trump remarks about a compliant U.S. pathway for Hyperliquid.
Price action likely reflected expectations of future U.S. access, which could change how HYPE is perceived and valued.
Hyperliquid Strategies (Nasdaq: PURR) spiked alongside the token, but the company says it is independent of Hyperliquid.
A large spike in PURR October $8 call options drew attention, though public data does not confirm the motivation or whether any trading involved nonpublic information.
Trump’s regulatory signal lifts HYPE
The catalyst came during a Wednesday White House event. Trump said he understood that CFTC Chair Michael Selig and “Mike” are working to bring Hyperliquid into the U.S. “in a fully compliant and legal fashion,” adding, “Working very hard on that.” The comments referenced the CFTC’s role in crafting regulatory pathways for market activity connected to digital assets.
For traders, the timing mattered: HYPE’s rally began immediately around the remarks and extended into the following hours. According to CoinGecko, the token’s intraday move ranged up to $72.28 before settling near $70. In practical terms, that kind of rapid repricing tends to occur when markets believe the probability of a regulatory breakthrough has increased—especially for networks associated with accessible on-ramps and clearer participation by U.S. users.
Still, the market reaction has not been matched with policy specifics. Neither the CFTC nor Hyperliquid has released a formal proposal describing what “compliant” U.S. access would look like, whether any application has been submitted, or when a compliant service could launch.
Why “U.S. access” can reprice decentralized platforms
Decentralized trading platforms often face a recurring challenge: how to reconcile the mechanics of open, protocol-driven exchange with U.S. regulatory expectations. When senior U.S. officials publicly suggest that regulators are working on a pathway, investors may anticipate changes that could broaden the addressable user base.
That expectation is visible in the way the token moved relative to the lack of concrete details. HYPE rallied on the notion that U.S. availability could reduce friction for American participants, which in turn can affect liquidity expectations and demand. The rally also appeared to extend to firms whose equities investors associate with the ecosystem.
However, it’s important to separate a “possible pathway” from a finished regulatory outcome. Without published requirements or a stated process, traders remain exposed to uncertainty: the implementation could take longer than markets expect, or the eventual structure could differ from what investors are currently pricing.
PURR shares surge—and options trading raises questions
Alongside HYPE, shares of Hyperliquid Strategies, a Nasdaq-listed treasury company trading under the ticker PURR, surged Wednesday. Yahoo Finance reported the stock closed at $9.39, up 30.4%.
The relationship is nuanced. While the company shares the Hyperliquid name, Hyperliquid Strategies’ own disclaimer states it is independent and not affiliated with Hyperliquid.
Options activity added another layer to the story. CNBC reported that roughly four hours before Trump spoke, someone reportedly paid about $65,000 for 719 PURR call options with an $8 strike price expiring in mid-October. CNBC said the contracts were purchased at approximately $0.90 each and were quoted at $2.45 by the close, implying a position value near $176,000 and an unrealized gain of roughly $111,000.
Public options data also corroborated unusually heavy interest in that contract. According to OptiView data cited by CNBC, 2,575 of the October $8 calls were traded during the session, compared with just 67 contracts in open interest beforehand. The same data indicated volume was more than 140 times the contract’s 30-day average.
At the same time, the publicly available information does not establish who placed the order, nor does it prove that the trades were based on nonpublic information. The data shows elevated activity but cannot confirm intent. There is also no clear evidence of insider trading in the reporting, and the CFTC had previously publicly disclosed a July 15 meeting with Hyperliquid Labs and Hyperliquid Strategies.
For investors, this matters because option flows can be an early indicator of where expectations are forming—yet they can also reflect hedging, speculation, or tactical positioning that is not directly tied to any official development. Without additional disclosures, the “why” behind the PURR options remains unresolved.
What to watch next
For now, HYPE’s rally underscores how quickly crypto markets can respond to regulatory signals—but the next move depends on clarity. Readers should watch for any follow-up from U.S. regulators or the involved companies that outlines an actual compliant framework, including application status, timelines, and how U.S. access would be operationalized.
This article was originally published as HYPE Rallies 20% After Trump Signals Legal U.S. Route for Hyperliquid on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senator Ruben Gallego has urged U.S. lawmakers to slow down the push to put the CLARITY Act on the Senate floor, warning that moving too quickly—before remaining disputes over ethics and stablecoin yield are resolved—could derail the bill’s chances of ultimately clearing Congress.
Speaking at the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on Wednesday, Gallego said the industry should encourage continued negotiations among Senate Democrats and Republicans rather than forcing an immediate vote. He also pointed to unresolved procedural work needed to package the measure—including committee handling and logistics for sending it to the House.
Key takeaways
Sen. Ruben Gallego warned that a “fast vote” on the CLARITY Act could produce an outcome that lawmakers do not want, potentially setting the legislation back.
He said Democratic support depends on establishing “sufficiently strong” ethics restrictions, and that the White House has not provided a detailed response to compromise language.
The concern aligns with broader pressure from the Trump administration to move toward swift passage, including calls to pass a “fair version” of the bill.
Gallego’s comments also reflect the practical reality that Senate leadership expects to delay action until September, suggesting negotiations may still be unfinished.
Why Gallego says timing matters for the CLARITY Act
Gallego’s intervention frames the CLARITY Act not just as a policy debate, but as a coalition-building challenge. He argued that legislators still must complete multiple steps before a vote can happen in a way that stands a realistic chance of meeting the Senate’s threshold for passage.
While the Senate could, in theory, take up legislation immediately, Gallego emphasized that lawmakers are still working through outstanding components. He said Congress has to address the bill’s Agriculture Committee portion, assemble the broader package, and determine how the legislation would move to the House.
In his remarks, Gallego urged colleagues not to “go for a fast vote,” explaining that rapid action can lead to a quick result without delivering the desired final outcome. He added that premature movement could “set it back further,” underscoring his view that the political process is still unsettled.
Tillis and Gallego say White House hasn’t answered ethics proposal
A central point in Gallego’s warning was ethics. He said he and Republican Senator Thom Tillis submitted compromise ethics language to the White House ahead of the congressional recess, but that the administration has not responded point-by-point.
Gallego described a pattern of outreach that, in his account, has produced no clear engagement: he said the proposals were repeatedly sent and returned “blank,” returned with language that was not as forward-moving, or were met with no response. He argued that if ethics restrictions are not strong enough, it will be difficult to attract Democratic support—support he views as necessary to move the bill forward.
Cointelegraph attempted to obtain comment from the White House but did not receive a response before publication.
Administration pressure contrasts with Senate procedural delays
Gallego’s comments come as the administration continues to press for progress on the CLARITY Act. Earlier this week, Trump urged Congress to pass a “fair version” of the bill during a White House appearance with crypto executives.
At the same time, Senate leaders have indicated that the chamber will not push for immediate action. Reporting from Cointelegraph said that Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed on Aug. 7 that the Senate was “punting” the vote and that the bill would be queued up “first thing” after lawmakers returned from recess—language that effectively sets the focus on a September timeframe rather than an immediate floor push.
White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt previously indicated that the administration would continue negotiating with Democrats until the September vote, while also adding that it “can’t afford to wait forever.” This creates a narrow window in which ethics language and other unresolved elements must be settled enough for negotiators to build a coalition capable of reaching the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Gallego’s remarks suggest a tension between that timeline pressure and what he believes still needs to be resolved. In his view, if lawmakers prematurely force a vote before disputes are resolved and the coalition is assembled, the bill risks failing—or winning only in a form that satisfies fewer members than required.
What remains unclear, and what to watch next
Gallego’s warning turns attention to the mechanics of getting from draft policy to final legislation that can actually clear the Senate and proceed to the House. His comments highlight that even if the CLARITY Act is broadly backed in principle, the details—especially around ethics and how stablecoin yield issues are treated—may be decisive for Democratic support.
Going forward, observers should watch whether the White House provides the point-by-point engagement Gallego says it has not yet delivered, and whether Senate leadership’s September timeline is matched by measurable progress in assembling the bipartisan coalition needed for passage. If negotiations remain unresolved, Gallego’s core concern is likely to take center stage: that rushing the process could reduce the odds of a durable legislative outcome rather than improving them.
This article was originally published as Gallego Warns Fast CLARITY Act Vote Without White House Input Could Delay on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sen. Ruben Gallego has warned that pushing the proposed CLARITY Act toward an early Senate vote before lawmakers finalize unresolved ethics and stablecoin-yield issues could derail U.S. crypto legislation rather than accelerate it. Speaking at the SALT Wyoming Blockchain Symposium on Wednesday, Gallego said Congress still needs to complete several procedural steps that could determine whether the bill can actually clear the Senate.
His remarks add friction to the Trump administration’s push for faster movement on the legislation, even as Senate leaders have previously signaled they intend to wait until after the August congressional recess. Gallego’s core message was that timing without agreement may produce an outcome lawmakers “don’t want,” potentially forcing the bill to be restarted later with weaker momentum.
Key takeaways
Sen. Ruben Gallego urged lawmakers to avoid a “fast vote” on the CLARITY Act until disputes—particularly around ethics and stablecoin yield—are resolved.
Gallego said he and Sen. Thom Tillis submitted compromise ethics language to the White House before the recess but received no clear, point-by-point response.
The warning suggests procedural action in the Senate could arrive before a bipartisan coalition is in place, risking failure at the 60-vote threshold.
While the White House has pressed for a “fair version” of the bill, Senate leaders have already indicated the vote could be deferred to September.
Why Gallego says rushing the process could backfire
Gallego framed his concern around how complex the legislative package still is. In his view, the Senate cannot simply move forward to voting if the bill’s components haven’t been fully coordinated and assembled into a final package capable of winning the votes needed for passage.
He specifically noted that lawmakers still have work to do, including addressing the bill’s Agriculture Committee portion, consolidating the broader package, and determining how to route it to the House. Gallego argued that these steps matter because an early vote could lock lawmakers into a timeline that doesn’t match negotiation progress.
“Don’t go for a fast vote,” Gallego said. “A fast vote gets you a fast result, but I’m not sure it’s the result you want.” He added that Congress still had “a lot of steps to complete,” and that “any premature movement is going to set it back further.”
The practical implication for investors and market participants is straightforward: if the bill is advanced before the coalition is ready, the probability of a legislative stall increases. That can prolong uncertainty around U.S. crypto market structure even if the bill ultimately returns later with stronger terms.
Ethics negotiations appear to be the sticking point
Gallego’s criticism also focused on the bill’s ethics framework. He said he and Republican Sen. Thom Tillis had submitted compromise ethics language to the White House before the congressional recess. However, he told the symposium he had not received a detailed response addressing the proposal point-by-point.
According to Gallego, the lack of feedback has made it difficult to close the gap needed for Democratic lawmakers to support the bill. He argued that “sufficiently strong ethics restrictions” were important to earn Democratic support and move the legislation forward.
“We’ve been sending offers over and over again to the White House, and they’ve been coming back either blank, or they’ve come back even slightly further back, or we’ve heard nothing,” Gallego said.
Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive a response before publication, leaving Gallego’s characterization of stalled negotiations unaddressed in the reporting.
Administration push for speed vs. Senate procedural timing
Gallego’s warning complicates the broader push for swift passage coming from the White House. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described the administration’s push for moving toward passage, and on Wednesday Trump urged Congress to pass a “fair version” of the CLARITY Act during a White House appearance with crypto executives.
However, Senate timelines have already suggested that immediate action may not be available. In a report discussed by Cointelegraph, Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed on Aug. 7 that the chamber was “punting” the vote and that CLARITY would be queued up “first thing” after lawmakers returned from recess—positioning September as the likely window for consideration.
Patrick Witt, a White House crypto adviser, had previously said the administration would negotiate with Democrats until the September vote, while also stating the administration “can’t afford to wait forever.” That tension—between negotiating leverage and deadline pressure—is now colliding with Gallego’s insistence that substantive ethics resolution must come first.
In other words, even with a September target already on the table, Gallego’s comments suggest the real question is whether negotiations are likely to produce a version strong enough to build a bipartisan coalition—particularly given the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
What lawmakers still need to finalize before any Senate vote
Beyond ethics language, Gallego indicated multiple procedural and substantive hurdles remain before the bill can be ready for the next legislative stage. He mentioned the need to resolve the bill’s Agriculture Committee component, then assemble the broader package, and finally determine the correct path for sending the finalized measure to the House.
He also linked these remaining tasks to timing and negotiating discipline. For Gallego, the key risk is that procedural momentum—such as a vote being placed on the calendar—could outpace the actual work of building consensus. If that happens, the Senate could be forced into action on a version that lacks enough support, turning a negotiation problem into a legislative failure that makes future compromise harder.
The larger takeaway is that U.S. crypto regulation is still being shaped by how these bills navigate both policy disputes and legislative mechanics. Even when political actors want speed, the Senate’s structure and voting math reward coalitions that are assembled deliberately rather than rushed.
Readers should watch whether the White House provides the detailed ethics feedback Gallego says it has not yet delivered, and whether negotiators converge on a version of the CLARITY Act capable of clearing the Senate—particularly as September approaches.
This article was originally published as Gallego Warns Rushed CLARITY Act Vote May Delay Key Legislation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Centrifuge has expanded its tokenized-fund liquidity options by integrating Symbiotic’s Liquid Lane into three of its funds, enabling eligible holders to exchange fund positions for USDC through an onchain request-for-quote (RFQ) process.
The integration applies to Janus Henderson’s JAAA (an AAA-rated collateralized loan obligation strategy), JTRSY (a short-duration US Treasury strategy), and New York Life Investment Management’s HYB (a US high-yield corporate bond strategy). Together, these tokenized funds represent about $1.6 billion in assets under management, according to the announcement.
Key takeaways
Centrifuge is adding Symbiotic’s Liquid Lane as an additional USDC redemption route for three tokenized funds, spanning loans, Treasuries, and high-yield credit.
Liquid Lane uses an RFQ marketplace where market makers can pull liquidity from vaults to fill redemption requests.
The structure is designed to let investors receive USDC immediately, while the funds’ standard redemption process occurs separately.
Symbiotic’s head of ecosystem, Felix Lutsch, framed Liquid Lane as an improvement in transaction capital structure and redemption flow—rather than a claim to being the first “instant redemption” solution.
The move adds to Centrifuge’s existing liquidity arrangements, including routes already used for JTRSY and HYB.
How Liquid Lane changes Centrifuge redemptions
Symbiotic’s Liquid Lane is built around an onchain request-for-quote marketplace. In practice, eligible holders submit redemption requests that market makers can respond to via RFQs. Instead of market makers needing to rely solely on pre-positioned inventory, Liquid Lane allows participating liquidity providers to access liquidity stored in vaults to meet those redemptions.
Once a market maker acquires the fund tokens through the RFQ settlement, it can then obtain the underlying redemption through the issuer or route the position again through a separate RFQ transaction. Centrifuge’s stated objective for the integration is to provide USDC to investors immediately, while letting the funds complete their normal redemption process on their own schedule.
Funds onboarded: JAAA, JTRSY, and HYB
The Symbiotic route is being applied across three Centrifuge-issued tokenized funds.
Janus Henderson’s JAAA targets collateralized loan obligation exposure with an AAA rating. Its JTRSY strategy focuses on short-duration US Treasuries. New York Life Investment Management’s HYB offers exposure to US high-yield corporate bonds.
For investors, the practical significance is breadth: the Liquidity Lane route spans different credit profiles and duration characteristics. That matters in tokenized fund markets where demand for liquidity can vary by asset type, and where some participants treat tokenized funds as either yield products or as components in onchain collateral and financing workflows.
Not the first route—an emphasis on capital economics
Liquid Lane is not Centrifuge’s first liquidity pathway. Felix Lutsch, Symbiotic’s head of ecosystem, told Cointelegraph that the company is not trying to claim exclusivity as an early provider of instant redemption functionality.
“We’re not claiming to be first, and other liquidity routes exist. That’s healthy for the market,” Lutsch said.
Earlier in 2025, Centrifuge announced a partnership with Wintermute to provide 24/7 instant redemptions for JTRSY. HYB also launched in June with a separate liquidity arrangement aimed at near-instant redemptions.
Where Lutsch said Liquid Lane differs is in the underlying capital structure that supports redemption transactions, not simply the speed of settlement. He described a marketplace design that allows multiple market makers and curators to participate without forcing each market maker to pre-fund and carry inventory for particular assets. In Lutsch’s view, that approach targets a core market issue: low tokenized-asset trading volumes have historically reduced incentives for liquidity providers to commit capital.
“The bigger constraint has been flow,” Lutsch said, pointing to the challenge of building consistent redemption demand in tokenized markets.
Why aggregating redemption demand could matter
Lutsch argued that pooling redemption demand across issuers and asset classes can improve liquidity economics—particularly as tokenized funds increasingly show up as collateral and financing assets in onchain markets.
That framing connects today’s integration work to a broader shift in how tokenized fund products are being used. When tokenized funds move beyond standalone investment wrappers and start serving as building blocks for onchain lending, collateral management, and other structured finance use cases, liquidity tends to become less about one-off redemptions and more about dependable throughput under changing market conditions.
In that context, additional liquidity routes are not just incremental product features. They can reduce friction for holders who need to exit positions quickly and can help liquidity providers manage exposure more efficiently when they can participate through a shared marketplace rather than relying on dedicated inventory for each asset.
How big is the push within Centrifuge?
Janus Henderson has been a major contributor to Centrifuge’s growth. Cointelegraph previously reported that Janus Henderson’s JAAA and JTRSY products supported Centrifuge surpassing $1 billion in total value locked, according to institutional demand coverage from that earlier period.
More broadly, Token Terminal data cited in the source article indicated that by December 2025 Centrifuge had attracted about $1.3 billion in new inflows, driven primarily by Janus Henderson’s two funds. JAAA alone contributed about $1 billion in total value locked and was described as one of the largest tokenized funds in the market.
With Liquid Lane now added across JAAA, JTRSY, and HYB, the integration effectively targets three substantial strategies within Centrifuge’s ecosystem, rather than testing a liquidity route on smaller holdings.
What to watch next
As Centrifuge expands liquidity routes through Symbiotic and other counterparties, investors should watch whether USDC settlement-through-RFQ becomes consistently used as redemption volume grows, and whether market makers’ participation broadens beyond a small set of active liquidity providers in tokenized funds.
This article was originally published as Centrifuge Integrates Symbiotic Liquidity, Expands $1.6B in Janus Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has unveiled a new regulatory proposal aimed at giving crypto issuers a clearer path to raising capital—while attempting to keep investor protections intact. In remarks accompanying the initiative, SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce said the move represents progress away from what she characterized as the agency’s prior reliance on “inapt” rules for digital asset offerings.
SEC Chair Paul S. Atkins, in a separate statement, argued that the SEC’s earlier enforcement-led posture has pushed some investment activity “offshore,” potentially limiting the protections the regulator can offer to investors in the U.S. Taken together, the statements position the proposal as an attempt to shift from case-by-case litigation to a more predictable framework for certain crypto-related investment contracts.
Key takeaways
SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce called the new proposal a step toward “clear, sensible, enforceable” rules for crypto offerings.
SEC Chair Paul Atkins linked prior enforcement emphasis to capital shifting “offshore,” reducing investor protections available domestically.
The SEC’s Tuesday notice outlines a “clear and fit-for-purpose” framework for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
The proposal arrives after the U.S. Senate failed to advance the broader Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
SEC leadership signaled willingness to proceed with rules even without CLARITY’s passage, according to Atkins’s recent comments.
SEC proposal seeks a dedicated framework for crypto investment contracts
In a Tuesday notice, the SEC proposed new rules intended to establish what the agency described as a “clear and fit-for-purpose framework for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.” The core goal is to allow qualified entities to raise capital with rules that are tailored to how these offerings are structured, rather than attempting to force crypto into existing categories that may not map cleanly to modern digital asset arrangements.
Peirce’s remarks framed the proposal as a meaningful improvement over the SEC’s previous approach. She pointed to the challenges faced by market participants under the agency’s tendency to apply a set of rules she called “inapt” to crypto. Her emphasis was not merely on regulatory activity, but on the shift toward guidance that market participants can interpret and comply with in advance—an issue that affects how issuers plan compliance, structure token sales, and manage investor disclosures.
For investors and traders, the stakes are similarly practical. A clearer framework can reduce uncertainty around which offerings fall within enforceable boundaries, potentially improving the quality and consistency of disclosures rather than leaving compliance largely determined by enforcement outcomes after the fact.
Atkins: enforcement pressure may have driven activity abroad
Atkins’s separate statement added a policy argument for why the SEC is moving toward rulemaking. He said the SEC’s prior enforcement-heavy approach has “driven investment offshore,” which he argued can limit the protections investors receive “here.”
That perspective effectively reframes the regulatory debate: rather than focusing only on whether the SEC can prove violations in court, Atkins suggested that a rules-based system is better positioned to provide investor safeguards within the U.S. market. The underlying tension is that strict enforcement without corresponding guidance can leave firms uncertain about compliance boundaries, encouraging them to seek alternatives—potentially in jurisdictions with different regulatory approaches.
While the proposal’s details were not laid out in the statements themselves, the framing indicates a shift in emphasis: the SEC is trying to offer a workable regulatory runway so capital raising can occur under an established structure, rather than depending primarily on enforcement-driven clarity.
Rulemaking comes after CLARITY Act stumbles in the Senate
The timing of the SEC’s action matters. According to the reporting referenced in the article, the proposal was announced days after the U.S. Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—legislation intended to provide a broader regulatory framework for financial regulators overseeing the crypto industry.
In addition, the article notes that SEC leadership had previously indicated the agency would not wait indefinitely for congressional action. On July 27, Atkins told CNBC that the SEC was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” on digital assets if the Senate failed to pass the CLARITY Act.
That backdrop helps explain the strategic logic of the SEC’s proposal. When comprehensive statutory changes stall, regulators often face pressure to fill gaps through rulemaking. The SEC’s approach can also be read as an attempt to create interim structure—particularly for crypto offerings that the SEC views as falling under “investment contract” analysis—while Congress considers whether and how broader market-wide definitions should be codified.
Market participants weigh odds for CLARITY, and watch the SEC’s next steps
Beyond the SEC’s statements, the article references Galaxy Digital’s assessment of CLARITY’s prospects. It says Galaxy cut its odds on passage in 2026 to 10%, warning that multiple political issues remain unresolved. The referenced note also suggests the Senate would have only about two to three weeks to pass the bill when it reconvenes on Sept. 14.
That kind of uncertainty underscores why the SEC’s move may carry outsized significance for the market. If investors and issuers see congressional action as unlikely in the near term, rulemaking becomes the main mechanism shaping how crypto offerings are regulated in the U.S.
Still, what happens next will likely determine how meaningful the proposal is for day-to-day compliance. Investors, issuers, and compliance teams should watch for how the SEC defines the scope of “certain investment contracts involving crypto assets,” how it structures registration and disclosure requirements under the framework, and what the timeline looks like for finalization. Equally important will be whether market participants interpret the rules as reducing uncertainty enough to outweigh remaining legal and political risks.
For now, the SEC’s proposal—and the leadership’s explicit comments about the limitations of earlier “enforcement-first” strategy—sets up an important test: can clearer, fit-for-purpose rules deliver the predictability both regulators and market participants have been seeking, especially in the absence of a comprehensive CLARITY pathway?
This article was originally published as Pauline Peirce Says SEC’s Draft Crypto Rules Are a Key Improvement on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.