Crypto Breaking

Bitcoin has found itself at the center of a new wave of quantum-computing anxiety after Jim Cramer said he plans to sell his holdings. Speaking on a Friday episode of CNBC’s “Mad Money,” the former hedge fund manager pointed to remarks made the day before by IBM CEO Arvind Krishna, who suggested investors should treat quantum risk as something to be “paranoid” about within the next few years.
Cramer’s comments arrive as market conditions also appear to be softening. While Bitcoin traded above $63,500 at the time of the report—up 1.7% on Tuesday—it remained down roughly 27% year-to-date, according to TradingView data. At the same time, blockchain and exchange liquidity indicators cited in the report pointed to reduced activity and increased selling behavior among large holders.
Key takeaways
Jim Cramer said he plans to sell all his Bitcoin, citing concerns about quantum computing risks raised by IBM CEO Arvind Krishna.
Blockchain analytics referenced by Lookonchain show at least one large Bitcoin wallet moved roughly 16,400 BTC after a period of inactivity.
Crypto liquidity signals cited from Kaiko data suggest spot trading activity on leading exchanges fell to about $15 billion last week—lowest levels of 2026 in the referenced dataset.
Industry views remain split on when practical quantum threats to Bitcoin could materialize, with timelines ranging from “decades” to “3–5 years.”
Cramer turns quantum fears into a concrete portfolio decision
In his Friday “Mad Money” segment, Cramer said: “I’m going to sell mine [Bitcoin],” directly tying his decision to quantum computing concerns. The impetus was an earlier conversation with IBM CEO Arvind Krishna, who told Cramer to be “paranoid” about the potential threat quantum computing poses to cryptocurrencies over the next three to four years.
The significance for investors is less about whether Cramer personally controls market outcomes and more about how mainstream commentary can sharpen attention on long-term security assumptions. Quantum computing is widely discussed in crypto circles because it could, in theory, undermine certain cryptographic protections if the necessary computational capability becomes feasible.
Still, not all investors interpret quantum talk the same way. The report notes that some market participants leaned into the “inverse Cramer” meme—an investment philosophy that effectively bets against Cramer’s calls—suggesting that certain traders may view Cramer’s bearish stance as a contrarian signal rather than a risk indicator.
Large-holder activity surfaces as exchange liquidity cools
Separate from Cramer’s remarks, the report highlights whale wallet movement alongside weakening trading activity. According to blockchain analytics platform Lookonchain, a whale wallet labeled bc1qpt transferred its entire Bitcoin holdings of 16,400 BTC—worth about $1 billion—into a new address after seven months of inactivity.
Lookonchain’s report of the transfer was paired with a liquidity reference from crypto intelligence platform Kaiko, as shared by The Kobeissi Letter. The cited metric claims that daily cryptocurrency trading activity across the leading 44 spot exchanges fell to about $15 billion last week, described as the lowest level of 2026 in that dataset.
In a Tuesday X post, The Kobeissi Letter characterized the move as part of a broader liquidity contraction, stating it represented a roughly 70% decline from January peak levels and that “crypto market liquidity is drying up.”
For traders, the pairing matters: a wallet moving substantial funds after a long idle period can reflect many possibilities—risk management, restructuring, or trading plans—but when it coincides with lower liquidity, it can heighten sensitivity to price moves. Liquidity tends to influence how easily large orders can be absorbed without significant slippage.
Quantum timelines remain contested—what “risk” actually means
While Cramer focused on a near-term window (three to four years, based on Krishna’s remarks), the report underscores that the broader industry is not aligned on when quantum capabilities could become practically relevant for Bitcoin.
In November 2025, Blockstream CEO Adam Back reportedly said Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years. That perspective suggests a long runway for preparation, implying that immediate panic is likely unwarranted.
By contrast, the report cites an April report from Bernstein that argues Bitcoin could have roughly three to five years to prepare for a post-quantum security upgrade. That timeline compresses the decision window for developers and infrastructure operators and would support the idea that planning should not be deferred.
Adding another layer, the report includes an assessment from Bitget Wallet research analyst Lacie Zhang, who told Cointelegraph that Back’s view is “more accurate and measured,” and that practical quantum threats capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography remain highly unlikely within the next decade.
What remains uncertain across all viewpoints is the translation from “theoretical vulnerability” to “real-world break.” Even when the cryptographic risk is discussed in terms of quantum computing, the market relevance depends on when systems capable of executing the necessary computations will be available, stable, and accessible at a scale that meaningfully threatens the security assumptions behind Bitcoin.
Why this story matters beyond headlines
Even if the exact timeline is disputed, the combination of high-profile mainstream comments and ongoing technical debate may increase investor attention on how Bitcoin and the wider ecosystem plan for a post-quantum world. The report references earlier coverage about Bitcoin’s quantum upgrade path and notes that discussions in the sector have already moved toward considering upgrade mechanisms, including what changes could be made and what would not.
For market participants, the immediate takeaway is twofold. First, quantum talk can influence sentiment even when implementation details are years away, so traders may watch for whether additional infrastructure or policy discussion emerges. Second, the liquidity backdrop described in the report suggests that even routine flows—like large wallet moves—could be more noticeable if trading depth continues to decline.
Going forward, investors should watch for updates that connect the debate to concrete milestones: technical proposals and timelines for post-quantum readiness, as well as whether exchange liquidity stabilizes or continues to drift lower alongside large-holder activity.
This article was originally published as Jim Cramer to Sell Bitcoin as Quantum Fears Persist While BTC Rises 1.6% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A former supervisory FBI agent, Patrick Steven Yaroch, has been charged after prosecutors said he used internal agency systems to obtain credentials for cryptocurrency wallets linked to an adversarial country and then routed funds to his own accounts. The case, detailed in a U.S. federal court filing, highlights how quickly sensitive access credentials can become a direct vector for financial theft in the crypto era.
According to the filing referenced in court documents, Yaroch admitted to 10 unauthorized transfers carried out between late 2024 and early 2025, involving an estimated total of about $1 million in digital assets. Prosecutors said some of the stolen funds were deposited into Suilend to generate yield.
Key takeaways
Prosecutors allege Yaroch used FBI internal systems to obtain wallet credentials tied to an adversarial country.
Yaroch admitted to 10 unauthorized crypto transfers between late 2024 and early 2025, totaling roughly $1 million.
Authorities reportedly recovered devices, seed phrases, and a Trezor wallet used to access accounts on Suilend and on the Kraken exchange.
Roughly $925,000 was transferred to government-controlled wallets with Yaroch’s cooperation.
The filing also describes Yaroch using ChatGPT for investment-related advice in May, underscoring the role of opportunistic decision-making amid ongoing access misuse.
Unauthorized wallet access and yield strategy
The court filing says Yaroch’s actions centered on obtaining the ability to access cryptocurrency wallets associated with an adversarial state and using those credentials to move funds to his own crypto wallets. The alleged scheme did not stop at transferring assets—prosecutors say he also placed at least some of the proceeds into Suilend to earn yield.
By admitting to the transfers, Yaroch effectively confirmed that the conduct was not limited to a one-time theft. The admissions, which prosecutors characterize as a sequence of unauthorized moves spanning several months, indicate he maintained control long enough to interact with decentralized finance infrastructure rather than simply cashing out immediately.
The court documents also describe that after Yaroch self-reported the incident, he was placed on administrative leave, later terminated, and then arrested within days.
How investigators say the scheme was executed
Authorities reportedly retrieved multiple items from Yaroch’s Virginia residence, including devices, seed phrases, and a Trezor wallet. Prosecutors said these materials were used to access accounts on Suilend and a crypto exchange, Kraken.
In the course of the case, investigators moved roughly $925,000 in funds into government-controlled wallets with Yaroch’s cooperation. That figure is important for investors and builders to understand: when access to wallet infrastructure and recovery material exists, the “blast radius” can be quickly reduced if authorities can act fast and gain control of the relevant custody or recovery pathways.
While the filing provides the core mechanics of access and recovery, it also implicitly underscores a broader risk for crypto systems: credential theft can be as damaging as direct hacking. If internal credentials are compromised—whether by insiders or those who obtain privileged access—the attacker’s path to funds can be short and highly efficient.
ChatGPT appears in the timeline
Prosecutors say that in May, Yaroch used ChatGPT for advice after posing a scenario about having “a million dollars” and asking how to invest or spend to maximize profit and return. The filing attributes a specific response to ChatGPT about “building a slower-living vineyard/agricultural lifestyle in places like Cilento or Portugal’s Dão region.”
Even though the exchange itself is not a prosecution theory of how the theft occurred, its inclusion in the court filing paints a picture of decision-making during a period when Yaroch had already—or soon after—secured access to assets he could control. For readers, the key takeaway is not the AI recommendation; it is the fact that illicit access can coexist with attempts to rationalize next steps using whatever tools are available.
A pattern of agent-linked crypto theft
This case adds to a small but notable series of prosecutions in which federal officials and agents are accused of misusing crypto access for personal gain.
Earlier, in 2015, former DEA special agent Carl M. Force diverted about $700,000 in Bitcoin before pleading guilty and receiving a six-and-a-half-year prison sentence, according to a DOJ statement referenced in the coverage. That case was linked to the investigation involving the dark net marketplace Silk Road.
The DOJ similarly reported that former U.S. Secret Service special agent Shaun W. Bridges stole about $350,000 in BTC in 2015, then pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six years in prison. Like the Force case, it was tied to the Silk Road investigation.
In this context, the Yaroch matter appears less like an isolated “crypto crime” and more like a recurrence of a specific vulnerability: when law-enforcement-linked access overlaps with crypto custody mechanisms—wallets, seeds, exchange accounts, and yield platforms—there is an opportunity for misuse that can be difficult to detect until after damage is done.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph highlighted “fake police raid” tactics connected to a $1M Bitcoin transfer, illustrating how both insider and external coercion routes have been used to move large crypto balances. Taken together, these stories suggest that crypto theft continues to evolve along two parallel tracks: technical attacks and social/credential abuse, sometimes involving high-access individuals.
What to watch next
With the alleged transfers spanning late 2024 through early 2025 and authorities already moving a large portion of funds into government control, the immediate focus will likely shift to how the court evaluates Yaroch’s admissions, the role of credential misuse, and the extent of any additional assets or counterparties involved. For crypto market participants, the practical lesson remains clear: insider credential access and wallet recovery material can convert administrative or investigative power into direct custody of funds, making rapid investigation and wallet-level response essential.
This article was originally published as Former FBI Supervisor Pleads Guilty in $1M Crypto Theft Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A former FBI supervisory agent stole roughly $1 million in cryptocurrency and consulted ChatGPT on how to use the funds and relocate to Europe.
Federal investigators charged Patrick Steven Yaroch with interstate transportation of stolen goods and receipt of stolen goods after he allegedly confessed to stealing cryptocurrency from wallets linked to FBI investigations between late 2024 and early 2025.
Former FBI Agent In Custody
Yaroch allegedly stole the cryptocurrency from wallets described in court documents as “adversarial cryptocurrency accounts.” The former agent was arrested on Friday after confessing to the theft.
According to an affidavit filed on August 1, Yaroch discovered private keys that allowed him to access and transfer funds from the wallets to himself. The transfers were completed through a dozen transfers between late 2024 and early 2025.
Prosecutors stated that Yaroch contacted an employee of the United States Department of Justice and requested a meeting to discuss personal matters. However, during the meeting, held at FBI headquarters, he broke down and admitted to accessing the FBI’s systems to obtain the cryptocurrency.
“During the afternoon of July 28, 2026, Yaroch contacted DOJ Employee 1 via Signal and requested to meet to discuss personal matters. Upon meeting DOJ Employee 1 at FBI headquarters, Yaroch immediately started to break down as he told his story.”
Yaroch allegedly told the DOJ employee he had made “some very poor decisions related to cryptocurrency wallets.” He added that he was frustrated because he was “unable to do more to stop people connected to an adversarial nation from using cryptocurrency.” However, prosecutors have alleged he transferred the assets for his personal benefit outside authorized seizure or forfeiture processes, and mixed the cryptocurrency with his personal funds. Yaroch’s crypto holdings eventually totaled nearly $1 million, and investigators searching his home seized a Trezor hardware wallet and handwritten seed phrases.
They also discovered $188,570 in a Kraken account, including $166,000 in USD, $18,000 in USDC, and small holdings of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Yaroch had also transferred $1.02 million into a Suilend account on July 23.
ChatGPT Conversations
Investigators stated that Yaroch turned to ChatGPT to figure out how to use the funds, including questions about how he could invest a million dollars and maximize profits and returns. He also asked the AI about leaving the US and settling in a European country.
Investigators also discovered queries regarding visa requirements and an email draft about job opportunities in Greece. They also discovered details of a planned trip to Portugal, related power-of-attorney documents, and evidence of unreported foreign travel.
When presented with the details, Yaroch said he wasn’t planning to funnel money to Portugal, and that his family had planned a trip to the country to meet friends. The complaint states, “FBI WF Agents mentioned to Yaroch that they located the power of attorney forms for Portugal. Yaroch stated he was not planning to funnel money into Portugal. Yaroch told FBI WF Agents that his family had a trip planned to Portugal in September 2026 to meet friends. Yaroch realized he might not be able to attend the trip but stated he hoped his wife and child would still go on the trip.”
Crypto Under Scrutiny
The incident comes at a time when crypto is under intense scrutiny after a wave of security incidents. Coldcard was hit by a major exploit after a 2021 firmware bug bypassed its hardware wallet’s random number generator, allowing hackers to remotely drain $89 million in Bitcoin.
Ostium’s off-chain infrastructure was also compromised after an attacker manipulated BTC-USD price reports, draining 23.75 million in USDC from its liquidity vault.
However, Yaroch’s case is one of alleged insider theft by a supervisory special agent working at the FBI headquarters’ Counterintelligence and Espionage Division.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Ex-Fbi Agent’s Ai-Assisted Retirement Plan Lands Him In Federal Custody on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The United States and Japan have carried out a rare joint intervention to support the yen, and the follow-up messaging from Washington suggests the coordination is likely to intensify rather than fade after a single market move. For crypto markets, the key question is how the intervention affects global dollar liquidity and the balance-sheet stress that can follow when the yen carry trade unwinds.
Earlier this month, the US and Japan conducted their first joint yen intervention since the late 1990s, when the yen was still considered a different kind of funding currency. The event also reinforced the role of Fed-related dollar liquidity channels—an issue that matters to traders broadly, including those holding Bitcoin and other risk assets.
Key takeaways
The first US-Japan joint yen intervention since 1998 sets a potential precedent for future coordination.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent emphasized meeting with Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda ahead of the late-August G20 finance ministers session.
Bessent highlighted the Fed’s FIMA repo facility as a “backstop” and urged that it be upsized to support dollar liquidity.
Japanese two-year bond yields rose above 1.57% on Monday, signaling higher rates and increasing pressure on yen funding strategies.
Crypto market participants view a possible end to the yen carry trade as a swing factor for liquidity conditions and risk appetite.
US-Japan coordination returns to the spotlight
Last week’s intervention was notable not only for its timing but for its design. According to reporting in the source, the New York Fed sold euros on behalf of the US Treasury, using the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), a reserve pool used for currency stabilization activities. The practical goal was to support the yen, which had fallen to around 164 per US dollar—levels described as the weakest in roughly four decades.
That “first since 1998” framing matters because it hints at a shift toward deeper macro-policy coordination. If interventions become more common, markets may start pricing not just immediate exchange-rate stabilization, but longer-term expectations for policy alignment between Washington and Tokyo.
Bessent’s message: more planning, and more liquidity insurance
After the joint intervention, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent publicly drew attention to upcoming coordination with the Bank of Japan. He specifically said he planned to meet with BoJ Governor Kazuo Ueda during the G20 gathering of finance ministers in North Carolina at the end of August. Bessent’s post emphasized ongoing “close coordination” with Japan’s leadership and central bank.
Beyond the meeting itself, Bessent’s focus shifted to liquidity plumbing. He pointed to the Fed’s Foreign and International Monetary Authorities (FIMA) repo facility, describing it as an important backstop and arguing that it should be expanded “in the coming months.”
The core mechanism, as described in the source, is that the Fed provides dollars to foreign institutions. Those institutions can use Treasuries as collateral, which helps increase the supply of dollars outside the US without forcing sales of US Treasuries. For US Treasury markets, that distinction is material: if dollar liquidity support is delivered via repo channels rather than through abrupt Treasury market actions, the risk of destabilizing pricing and yields is reduced.
The yen carry trade unwind: why bond yields and liquidity collide
The yen carry trade has long depended on a relatively low-yielding yen funding base. The source argues that expectations have built around the trade’s gradual disintegration as Japan moves away from the prolonged era of very low interest rates.
A tangible indicator of that shift appeared in the domestic bond market. According to the article, Japanese two-year bond yields rose above 1.57% on Monday, a move interpreted as evidence that low-rate conditions are ending sooner than many markets had previously assumed. When yen yields rise, the economic logic of borrowing in yen and investing elsewhere becomes less attractive, increasing the probability of carry trade unwinds.
The liquidity angle is complicated. Carry trade unwinds can produce sharp cross-currency flows, which may temporarily tighten financial conditions for some market participants. Yet, Bessent’s emphasis on FIMA’s role signals a policy effort to prevent such stress from spilling into broader dollar funding markets—an effort that could support risk assets if it succeeds.
That tension is part of why reactions to the intervention were described as mixed in the source. Economist Mohamed El-Erian argued that Washington is now “bound into coordination” with the BoJ, suggesting that the effectiveness of the strategy may increasingly rely on a broader alignment within Tokyo—across the central bank, the Ministry of Finance, and the Prime Minister’s Office—rather than on US actions alone.
What this could mean for Bitcoin and risk assets
For Bitcoin, the immediate causal path isn’t direct—BTC doesn’t trade on yen carry trade mechanics. But liquidity conditions often influence how investors and institutions manage exposure to volatile assets. In that sense, the same macro levers that affect currency markets can still shape the risk environment for crypto.
The source highlights a particularly bullish hope circulating in Bitcoin circles: that a disorderly or at least notable yen carry trade unwind could ultimately tighten funding stress and reshape global liquidity in ways that benefit BTC. Even if that outcome is framed as a “bull case,” the pathway depends on whether policymakers can cushion the dollar-liquidity shock while also allowing yen stabilization to proceed.
At the same time, there are clear reasons for caution. If Japanese actions push up the cost of borrowing across markets—or if liquidity support via repo facilities proves insufficient—investors could see risk assets react to financial tightening rather than easing. The source specifically notes that Japan’s large holdings of Treasuries could raise yields if more Treasury-related sales occur, which would spill into broader borrowing costs. That’s why the emphasis on FIMA matters: it’s intended to support dollar liquidity without directly impairing Treasuries.
Watch points for traders and long-term holders
The next phase will likely be defined by two things: whether the US and Japan continue institutional coordination after the initial intervention, and how large and sustained any liquidity support becomes via the FIMA repo facility. Traders should also monitor Japanese short-end rates—such as the two-year area cited above—because they offer an early signal of how quickly funding incentives are changing and how much pressure remains for carry trade positions to unwind.
This article was originally published as Yen intervention signals liquidity shifts, putting Bitcoin and risk assets at risk on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Nigeria’s tax authority has laid out detailed rules for how cryptocurrency and other virtual-asset transactions should be taxed, focusing heavily on the compliance role of exchanges and peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplaces. The Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) says platforms must collect, report, and remit taxes under the country’s existing legal framework—while in some cases paying withheld amounts in digital tokens.
In its Guidelines on Taxation of Virtual Assets, the NRS specifies that income tax deducted at source and stamp duty “shall be remitted to the Service in the originating token of the transaction.” Value-added tax (VAT), however, must be remitted in the currency used for the payment.
Key takeaways
Exchanges and P2P platforms are positioned as the primary tax “withholding and reporting” gatekeepers under Nigeria’s virtual-asset tax rules.
Withholding rates differ by activity: 1% applies to taxable disposals, while a 10% rate applies to staking, mining, airdrops, and certain DeFi-related items.
Stamp duty on token-to-fiat and fiat-to-token transfers is set at 1.5% and must be remitted in the originating token, while VAT is paid in fiat.
Withheld amounts are treated as advance payments credited against a taxpayer’s final income tax liability, with individuals on progressive rates and most companies at a 30% rate.
Stablecoin sales are exempt from the 1% withholding tax for taxable disposals.
Withholding rules for exchanges, P2P marketplaces, and service activity
The NRS guidelines assign exchanges and P2P marketplaces central responsibility for withholding, reporting, and remitting tax. Under the framework, platforms must withhold 1% of proceeds from taxable disposals of crypto assets, security tokens, and applicable non-fungible tokens (NFTs).
The document also sets higher withholding for certain forms of virtual-asset income. A 10% withholding rate is applied to proceeds connected to staking, mining, airdrops, and decentralized finance (DeFi) activity where those transactions fall under the rules.
For conversion-related activity, the guidelines address stamp duty for transfers between tokens and fiat. Token-to-fiat and fiat-to-token transfers are subject to a 1.5% stamp duty—again with remittance required in the originating token for the withheld amount—while VAT is remitted in the payment currency.
Practically, these distinctions matter for compliance operations. Different workflows (asset disposal versus yield participation versus token conversion) trigger different withholding and remittance requirements, meaning platforms will need to map transaction types to the appropriate tax treatment and ensure the correct tax is withheld and accounted for at the point of transaction.
How remittances work: “advance” withholding and token-based payment
The guidelines describe withheld amounts as advance payments that are credited against a taxpayer’s final income tax bill. That structure is designed to allow the tax burden to be collected earlier—at the time platforms process transactions—rather than solely through later individual or corporate filings.
Tax outcomes still vary depending on the taxpayer type. Individuals are taxed under progressive rates, while companies other than small companies face a 30% rate, according to the guidelines. The NRS also makes stablecoin sales exempt from the 1% withholding tax tied to taxable disposals, which could reduce withholding friction for certain trading pairs and custody events involving stablecoins.
One of the most operationally sensitive elements is the instruction that certain withheld taxes be remitted in digital tokens, specifically “the originating token of the transaction.” For platforms, this means tax remittance processes must be built to handle crypto-denominated tax obligations rather than relying only on fiat settlements. The guidance’s split—token-based remittance for income tax deducted at source and stamp duty, but fiat remittance for VAT—also increases the need for careful accounting across tax categories.
Nigeria’s tax framework: from executive direction to implementation details
The NRS publication arrives after Nigeria’s government took steps to structure virtual-asset regulation and administrative implementation. An executive order signed by President Bola Tinubu established a Virtual Asset Council chaired by the central bank, with the NRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission serving as vice chairs. Earlier this month, Nigeria’s presidency indicated that the NRS would release a policy to implement the country’s tax laws for virtual assets.
Nigeria’s broader tax overhaul came into force on Jan. 1 under the Nigeria Tax Act, alongside the Nigeria Tax Administration Act of 2025. The legislation treats digital assets as chargeable assets and requires virtual asset service providers to report transaction details, including customers’ names, contact information, and Tax Identification Numbers.
Earlier steps also set the groundwork for taxing crypto gains. Through the Finance Act 2023, Nigeria had already explicitly subjected gains from crypto disposals to taxation via a flat 10% capital gains tax. The 2025 framework did not just continue that approach—it replaced the earlier treatment and, importantly, the guidelines now spell out how gains should be valued and how withholding, remittance, and reconciliation are expected to work.
For investors and traders, the shift from a one-size capital gains treatment toward a withholding-driven model is significant. It changes when tax is effectively collected and how frequently compliance checkpoints occur. Instead of only reflecting tax outcomes at the end of an individual’s or company’s reporting period, platforms may now impose withholding as transactions occur, requiring users to retain adequate records to reconcile advances with final tax liability.
What to watch next for compliance and market participants
As the NRS guidelines take effect, the main question for market participants is execution: how exchanges and P2P operators will implement token-denominated remittances, classify transaction types for the correct withholding rates, and reconcile advance withholding against final tax returns under Nigeria’s progressive and corporate tax rules. Users should expect more documentation and reporting demands, while platforms will need to ensure their transaction monitoring and tax accounting workflows match the categories laid out by the NRS.
This article was originally published as Nigeria Releases Crypto Tax Guidelines for Digital Asset Platforms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Nigeria’s tax authority has issued detailed guidance for how crypto platforms and peer-to-peer (P2P) marketplaces must collect, report, and remit taxes on virtual-asset activity—introducing rules that include paying some tax withholdings using digital tokens themselves.
In its Guidelines on Taxation of Virtual Assets, the Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS) outlines how income tax withholding, stamp duty, and value-added tax (VAT) should be handled under existing law. The document is likely to reshape compliance workflows for exchanges and P2P operators operating in Nigeria, while also clarifying what taxpayers can expect when trading, transferring, or earning yield on crypto assets.
Key takeaways
The NRS says income tax withheld at source and stamp duty must be remitted in the originating token used for the transaction, while VAT must be remitted in the payment currency.
Platforms and P2P marketplaces must withhold 1% of proceeds from taxable disposals of crypto assets, security tokens, and specified NFTs.
A 10% withholding rate applies to staking, mining, airdrops, and decentralized finance (DeFi) activity under the guidelines.
For token-to-fiat and fiat-to-token movements, the rules reference a 1.5% stamp duty.
Stablecoin sales are exempt from the 1% withholding tax, and withheld amounts are treated as advance payments credited against final income tax liability.
How the NRS expects crypto taxes to be remitted
The practical centerpiece of Nigeria’s new guidance is its instruction on settlement currency for taxes. According to the NRS, income tax deducted at source and stamp duty “shall be remitted to the Service in the originating token of the transaction.” In other words, if a withholding-triggering event results in the taxpayer receiving or paying a specific token, that same token is expected to be used when remitting certain taxes to the NRS.
The NRS draws a sharper line for VAT, stating that value-added tax must be remitted in the currency used for the payment. This separation matters operationally: companies processing Nigerian users’ activity will need systems that can identify the “originating token” for token-based remittance while also ensuring VAT settlement follows the actual payment currency.
The guidelines also position exchanges and P2P marketplaces as key intermediaries in the withholding, reporting, and remittance process, meaning compliance duties do not fall solely on end users.
Withholding rates for trading, yield, and DeFi-linked activity
The NRS sets different rates depending on the type of virtual-asset event. Under the guidelines, platforms must withhold:
1% of proceeds from taxable disposals of crypto assets, security tokens, and applicable NFTs.
10% withholding on staking, mining, airdrops, and decentralized finance arrangements.
1.5% stamp duty on token-to-fiat and fiat-to-token transfers.
The withheld amounts are described as advance payments that will be credited against each taxpayer’s eventual income tax bill. That structure is important for users because it implies the withholding is not intended to be the final tax amount in every case—rather, it should reconcile to the taxpayer’s final liability under Nigeria’s income tax rules.
The NRS also specifies that individuals are taxed using progressive rates, while companies other than small companies face a 30% rate. Additionally, the guidelines note that stablecoin sales are exempt from the 1% withholding tax, reducing one potentially broad category of taxable disposals for which exchanges would otherwise deduct at source.
Nigeria’s wider virtual asset tax architecture
This guidance did not appear in isolation. The NRS framework follows an executive step under which Nigeria established a Virtual Asset Council, chaired by the central bank, with the NRS and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) serving as vice chairs. Earlier in the process, the presidency said the NRS would release policy to implement Nigeria’s tax laws for virtual assets.
The legal baseline for the framework is anchored in Nigeria’s 2025 tax legislation. The NRS points to the Nigeria Tax Act and the Nigeria Tax Administration Act of 2025, which took effect on Jan. 1. These laws treat digital assets as chargeable assets and require virtual asset service providers to report transaction details, including customers’ names, contact information, and Tax Identification Numbers.
That reporting requirement is likely to become a central compliance burden for operators, especially for businesses that previously offered onboarding that did not prioritize Nigeria-specific tax identifiers.
From a flat capital gains tax to detailed withholding mechanics
Nigeria’s approach to crypto taxation has evolved in stages. The Finance Act 2023 previously introduced an explicit tax treatment for gains from crypto disposals, imposing a flat 10% capital gains tax, according to earlier coverage. The current 2025 framework replaces that earlier treatment and—critically for market operators—lays out how valuation, withholding, remittance, and reconciliation should work under the updated rules.
While the guidelines do not merely restate a headline tax rate, their emphasis on specific withholding categories suggests a shift toward a more standardized collection model. For exchanges and P2P platforms, the compliance implication is straightforward: the company’s role in withholding and remitting taxes is now codified, and systems will need to track taxable events across trading, transfers, and certain types of on-chain or programmatic earnings.
For users, the change is less about whether crypto is taxable and more about how taxes get collected during routine activity—potentially meaning taxes are deducted before a final tax calculation is completed.
Nigeria’s guidelines raise immediate questions that operators will need to address as they implement them, including how “originating token” remittance will be handled in complex routing scenarios and how platforms will operationalize stablecoin exemptions while applying token-to-fiat and fiat-to-token duties. The next watchpoint is how exchanges and P2P providers translate the NRS instructions into real-world tax reporting and settlement processes for users.
This article was originally published as Nigeria Issues Crypto Tax Rules for Digital Asset Platforms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto security teams are facing a new imbalance: while AI model developers are restricting their most capable cyber-related systems, only a small number of crypto firms appear to have gained early access to those “frontier” tools.
Coinbase has said it secured access to Anthropic’s restricted Mythos model, and Zcash co-founder Zooko Wilcox has described how Anthropic used Mythos to audit the Zcash protocol at the request of Shielded Labs. Meanwhile, Binance’s chief security officer Jimmy Su told Cointelegraph that the exchange has been trying to make progress but has not obtained the most advanced frontier model.
Key takeaways
Only select crypto companies have reportedly received early access to restricted frontier AI models used for cybersecurity work.
Executives argue that gating advanced models may be necessary at first, but maintaining restrictions could become harder to justify as capabilities converge with public releases.
Uneven access may widen the security gap between defenders and attackers, particularly as AI-assisted exploit workflows reportedly speed up.
Some crypto-adjacent organizations, such as those embedded in critical infrastructure or security tooling, have also joined gated programs.
Why restricted “frontier” models are hard to distribute
The core issue is not whether AI can help security—many teams already use mainstream models for testing and review—but whether defenders get access to the most cyber-capable systems under developer guardrails.
Anthropic has stated that Mythos 5 shares the same underlying model as its publicly available Fable 5, but operates without safeguards that limit sensitive cybersecurity use. OpenAI is described as running a similar tiered approach, with a “Trusted Access for Cyber” pathway for verified defenders and a more permissive cyber-oriented version reserved for a smaller group conducting authorized penetration testing.
Crypto security executives interviewed by Cointelegraph suggested this kind of restricted rollout is likely warranted initially. However, they also highlighted a growing tension: once publicly available models begin to approach the same practical capabilities, continuous gating may become harder to defend—especially if attackers can leverage comparable tools from elsewhere.
Crypto executives push for faster verification pathways
Jimmy Su said Anthropic’s controlled release can be responsible because attackers may benefit from newly released capabilities sooner than defenders. In his framing, limiting early access can reduce the “blast radius,” at least during an initial testing period.
Solana Foundation’s chief information security officer Michael Coates supported guardrails but argued that “legitimate defenders” need a faster route to the models. He said the process should streamline verification and acceptance programs so security teams can use the best available systems to match the pace of exploitation.
Blockchain Capital’s Sean Cheetham expressed a similar long-term view. While restrictions can help avoid immediate misuse, broader availability could ultimately benefit defense because the population of legitimate security researchers is typically far larger than the small groups able to run highly sophisticated attacks. That scale dynamic—more defenders than adversaries—may flip the risk calculus over time.
Who has access—and who appears to be waiting
Despite being the world’s largest exchange by daily trading volume, Binance has not reportedly secured access to Mythos, according to Su. The exchange’s scale underscores the potential operational impact: Binance holds substantial assets on its platform, and a lack of frontier defensive tooling could leave major ecosystems to rely on less capable alternatives.
Beyond exchanges, other organizations have taken different approaches. Cointelegraph previously reported that Fireblocks, which provides custody and security services at large scale, sought access to Mythos but at the time relied on Anthropic’s publicly available model for pentesting. Cointelegraph also cited that Uniswap founder Hayden Adams criticized the safeguards on Fable 5 around cybersecurity prompts earlier this year.
The Ethereum Foundation has said it has been using “coordinated AI agents” to identify bugs across its systems, without disclosing which models were used. Cointelegraph reached out to the Ethereum Foundation, Fireblocks, and Uniswap to confirm whether they had received access to frontier restricted models since then.
Some crypto-adjacent companies, however, have moved further into gated programs. FIS—an infrastructure provider that partnered with Circle for USDC payments functionality last year—reportedly joined Anthropic’s Project Glasswing last month. Project Glasswing is described as Anthropic’s gated program for vetted cyber defenders and organizations responsible for critical software infrastructure to access restricted Mythos models.
HackerOne, which supports bug bounty and security testing for major organizations including crypto exchanges, also said it joined Project Glasswing, though its testing is confined to its own infrastructure rather than customer programs. Separately, Cointelegraph reached out to OpenAI and Anthropic to ask how many crypto firms had received access to restricted models.
AI-assisted attacks are reported to be accelerating
The access gap matters because defenders are not operating in a static threat environment. Cointelegraph reported that Boltz, a Bitcoin swap service, chose to halt its non-custodial bridge after observing a steady rise in AI-assisted hacking attempts over the prior few months. Boltz said attackers are now iterating faster than a team its size can find and patch, pointing to a practical pressure on incident response and code review cycles.
Other security events also suggest attackers are applying automation to find real weaknesses. Cointelegraph reported that Coinkite disclosed a vulnerability affecting some Coldcard devices, where a flaw in wallet seed generation produced less randomness than expected. Coinkite speculated that the attacker could have used AI to review earlier firmware versions to locate and exploit the weakness—even though the company had used what it described as one of the best available AI models to review its code in the weeks before.
Taken together, these reports support a broader concern: even strong internal testing using public AI tools may not be enough if adversaries deploy higher-end capabilities and iterate faster than teams can remediate.
What to watch next for crypto security
The immediate question is whether restricted model access will widen beyond early adopters and whether developers can design guardrails that protect the ecosystem without bottlenecking legitimate defenders. As AI capabilities diffuse—through both public releases and competing models—crypto teams will likely watch not only for new access announcements, but also for changes in exploitation tempo and patch turnaround times across major platforms.
This article was originally published as Crypto Firms Seek Frontier AI Access as Only a Few Get In on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple said it has made two strategic investments aimed at expanding the infrastructure behind tokenized financial assets on its XRP Ledger (XRPL). In an announcement released Monday, the company disclosed funding into Zilo, a global transfer agency provider for wealth managers, and Licuido, a tokenization solutions firm regulated by the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority.
While Ripple did not provide deal sizes or investment terms, the move signals a continued effort to reduce friction in tokenized markets—particularly around how collateral can move and be reused across issuance and settlement.
Key takeaways
Ripple announced strategic investments in Zilo and Licuido to support tokenized asset workflows on XRPL.
The company expects the partnerships to improve regulated transfer agency, issuance, and collateral mobility on its ledger.
Ripple’s stated focus is addressing “idle collateral” by enabling tokenized funds to be used as collateral from issuance.
The announcements follow recent XRPL-related product and adoption milestones, including Aviva Investors’ tokenized fund launch and Ripple Mint for RLUSD.
Why Ripple is tying tokenization to regulated market plumbing
For institutional tokenization to scale, networks need more than smart-contract functionality—they require operational layers such as issuance controls, transfer agency services, and mechanisms that support compliance and collateral management. Ripple framed its investments as part of that broader stack.
According to the company’s announcement, Ripple expects the Zilo and Licuido investments to bring “regulated transfer agency, issuance, and collateral mobility” to XRPL infrastructure. That positioning matters because the capital markets bottlenecks that slow adoption are often less about token mechanics and more about how assets move through regulated processes.
Zilo and Licuido: transfer agency and FCA-regulated tokenization
Ripple said it invested in Zilo, which provides global transfer agency asset solutions for wealth managers. The UK-based company has reportedly raised $58.7 million in total equity funding, based on data compiled by Traxcn.
Ripple also announced an investment in Licuido, a tokenization solutions provider based in the UK and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. The combination of Zilo’s transfer agency orientation and Licuido’s regulated tokenization role suggests Ripple is targeting multiple stages of a tokenized asset’s lifecycle—from issuance through custody-related and operational handling.
Collateral mobility and the “idle collateral” problem
Ripple’s announcement tied the investments to a specific market issue: collateral that sits unused. The company said that by combining the investments, it aims to help address problems related to idle collateral by enabling tokenized funds to be used as collateral from the point of issuance.
In practical terms, this is the type of improvement that could reduce inefficiencies in leveraged trading, structured financing, or other institutional strategies where capital availability matters. If tokenized instruments can be deployed as collateral more directly, it may reduce the need to lock value in separate pools for different steps of the workflow.
However, the company did not provide implementation timelines or technical details in the announcement, leaving open questions about exactly how quickly these partnerships translate into new product capabilities on XRPL. Investors and ecosystem participants will likely want to watch for concrete rollout plans or integrations that demonstrate the promised shift from token issuance to usable collateral.
XRPL adoption momentum: RLUSD tooling and tokenized fund activity
Ripple’s investment news arrives shortly after other XRPL-related developments highlighted momentum in institutional tokenization.
One week prior to the announcement, London-based asset manager Aviva Investors launched a tokenized share class of its US Dollar Liquidity Fund on XRPL after receiving approval from the Central Bank of Ireland, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph. That example illustrates how regulatory clearance and asset-manager participation are becoming central to XRPL’s institutional narrative.
In addition, Ripple last month introduced Ripple Mint, a platform designed to give institutions new ways to access, mint, redeem, and manage its US dollar-pegged stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD). By building tools around stablecoin operations and management, Ripple has been advancing the practical infrastructure institutions need for on-chain settlement and token issuance workflows.
Taken together, these efforts point to a broader strategy: pair ledger-level capabilities with real-world finance counterparts—asset managers, transfer agency providers, and regulated tokenization services—so that tokenized assets can be issued, moved, and operationally managed under compliance expectations.
Tokenized assets onchain: growth, concentration, and what to watch
The broader tokenized real-world assets (RWA) market has continued to expand, reinforcing why firms are investing in infrastructure. According to data compiled by RWA.xyz, XRPL is the 11th-largest blockchain network with $368 million in tokenized RWAs. Ethereum ranks first with $17.1 billion in tokenized RWAs.
RWA.xyz data also showed that total RWA holders increased by 50% to 1.57 million over the past 30 days, while the total value of tokenized assets rose by 1.5% to $37.3 billion. Those figures suggest that, despite concentration at the top, the sector is not standing still—participation and capital have both been trending upward.
For XRPL participants, the key takeaway is that growth in tokenization demand may increasingly depend on the maturity of the operational layer. Ripple’s stated goal—improving collateral mobility and transfer agency and issuance capabilities—directly targets a set of constraints that can limit institutional use even when tokenization technology exists.
Next, market observers will likely focus on whether Ripple can translate these investments into measurable product outcomes on XRPL—especially around regulated issuance workflows and the ability for tokenized funds to function as collateral from issuance, as Ripple described. Concrete integrations, pilot deployments, and partner announcements will be the clearest indicators of how quickly the strategy moves from concept to capability.
This article was originally published as Ripple Backs Zilo and Licuido for Tokenized-Collateral Use at Issuance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The US Senate’s schedule is becoming a key variable for the crypto industry as lawmakers prepare to enter summer recess at the end of this week, according to Bernstein, a wealth manager. Bernstein says that the odds of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) advancing are falling, raising the risk of another short-term downturn in crypto valuations—particularly for Bitcoin.
In a Monday report shared with Cointelegraph, Bernstein also warned that a missed legislative push could spark a “knee-jerk” reaction from market participants. Still, the firm points to a counterbalance: if Congress stalls, regulators may intensify efforts already underway under existing authorities, including the SEC and CFTC’s Project Crypto.
Key takeaways
Bernstein says CLARITY momentum is weakening as the Senate approaches its summer recess, increasing the risk of additional downside for the market.
The firm expects the crypto market to bottom and regain momentum toward late Q3 or early Q4 ahead of the mid-term period, if timing pressures persist.
Prediction market activity on Polymarket puts CLARITY passage before the end of 2026 at 31%, down from 38% week-to-date.
Bernstein argues that legislative delays could lead to more proactive SEC and CFTC policy releases tied to token classification and DeFi rules under Project Crypto.
Recess risk and the “knee-jerk” market reaction
Bernstein’s central concern is timing. With the Senate preparing to start summer recess, the window for passing CLARITY appears to narrow. The wealth manager said that if the legislation does not advance, the market could interpret the outcome as a near-term delay in US crypto market structure reform.
In Bernstein’s view, that could trigger an immediate negative “industry knee-jerk reaction,” potentially translating into another leg down for Bitcoin and the broader crypto market. The firm’s outlook is not purely bearish, however: it also anticipates that—tactically—the market could find a bottom and begin building momentum toward late Q3 and early Q4 before the mid-terms.
What Project Crypto could do if CLARITY stalls
Bernstein’s report highlights an important asymmetry. While markets may react negatively to legislative delays, the same outcome could push regulators to move faster within their current legal frameworks.
Project Crypto is a joint initiative intended to use existing agency authority to develop a workable regulatory approach for digital assets while Congress finalizes broader legislation under CLARITY. The SEC first announced Project Crypto under Chairman Paul Atkins in July 2025, and it was later expanded into a joint staff effort between the SEC and the CFTC in September 2025. (SEC announcement: https://www.sec.gov/about/sec-launches-project-crypto; CFTC/SEC expansion referenced by Cointelegraph: https://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/FederalRegister/finalrules/2026-05635.html.)
According to Bernstein, the SEC and CFTC could respond to Congress’s slowdown with additional interpretive releases and clearer guidance. The firm specifically points to potential developments involving:
Token “taxonomy” and interpretive guidance tied to how different types of tokens should be treated.
Clearer rules related to decentralized finance (DeFi).
Acceleration of an “innovation exemption” concept for issuing tokens that would be exempted from securities status during a finite period.
For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that regulatory clarity might not arrive only through CLARITY. If Congress can’t deliver in the near term, markets may increasingly price regulatory outputs—such as guidance, interpretive releases, and rulemaking momentum—emanating from the SEC and CFTC.
Polymarket odds slip to 31% for passage by end-2026
Bernstein’s concern about dwindling prospects for CLARITY is echoed by market-implied probabilities. Polymarket data shows the odds of the act being signed into law before the end of 2026 at 31%, down 7% over the past week and down 9% over the past month. The market reports roughly $3.7 million has been wagered on the outcome. (Source: Polymarket.)
The drop matters because prediction markets often reflect shifting expectations around legislative scheduling and political willingness—especially when credible procedural deadlines approach. In this case, the timing implied by summer recess is a direct catalyst for priceable uncertainty.
Earlier coverage also indicates that expectations have moved in recent months: on June 26, Galaxy Digital cut its odds of CLARITY becoming law in 2026 to 50%, warning that the US Senate was running out of time to pass the market-structure bill before its August recess (as noted in Cointelegraph’s reporting: https://cointelegraph.com/news/galaxy-cuts-2026-clarity-act-odds-50).
Political and industry friction around the bill
Beyond Senate calendar risk, CLARITY is navigating political and institutional scrutiny. Cointelegraph reported that White House officials are reportedly weighing a bipartisan ethics counterproposal received on Thursday after weeks of negotiations between Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego.
Per sources familiar with the matter who spoke to crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett, the proposal would allow state attorneys general to sue the Department of Justice if it fails to enforce ethics laws against federal officials. (As reported by: https://www.cryptoinamerica.com/p/president-trump-weighs-bipartisan.) The relevance for crypto stakeholders is indirect, but it underscores how broader political processes can consume attention and time that might otherwise be directed toward stalled legislation.
CLARITY’s substance has also faced resistance. The banking industry has pushed back, arguing that the draft could let crypto firms offer yields on stablecoins without meeting requirements they say apply to traditional financial institutions. Cointelegraph also flagged that the act’s stablecoin yield provisions have drawn concern from banking groups (related link referenced in the source material: https://cointelegraph.com/news/aba-banking-associations-clarity-act-yield).
As those tensions persist, the bill’s path becomes less predictable—one reason prediction market odds and institutional forecasts can move quickly as legislators approach procedural inflection points like recess.
With the Senate headed into recess, traders and long-term participants should watch two things in parallel: whether CLARITY gains any late-stage momentum before lawmakers leave, and whether the SEC and CFTC accelerate practical guidance under Project Crypto—especially around token classification and DeFi—if Congress fails to deliver the legislative clarity the market is pricing.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: Failed CLARITY Act could pressure crypto valuations down on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Romance scams remain a persistent threat in Asia, with Hong Kong police reporting a concentrated spike in cases tied to fake “crypto investment” schemes. Between July 24 and July 30, authorities logged 25 romance-linked fraud reports, totaling about $9 million in losses, according to the Hong Kong Police Force.
In one reported case, an insurance agent lost $3.3 million after being persuaded by a fabricated online boyfriend to invest through a fraudulent crypto application—an approach scammers have increasingly used to mimic legitimate trading platforms while manufacturing returns on screen.
Key takeaways
Hong Kong recorded 25 romance-linked fraud cases in a single week (July 24–July 30), with combined losses near $9 million.
Scam operators build long relationships via dating and messaging apps, then push victims toward a fake crypto trading app showing false profits.
Hong Kong’s HashKey Exchange said JPMorgan Chase approved its move to open a client money account.
Malaysia withdrew support for Malaysia Blockchain Week after controversy over an after-party tied to an influencer with adult-content history.
Several regulatory and industry shifts across Asia—stablecoin rulemaking in South Korea and Bitget exiting Japan—signal continued policy tightening alongside operational changes.
Hong Kong’s romance scams: from chat rooms to fake trading apps
Hong Kong police say scammers often initiate contact through dating platforms or messaging apps, then spend weeks or months developing trust. Only after victims become emotionally invested do criminals introduce the idea of cryptocurrency investing.
Fraudsters then direct victims to a website designed to resemble a genuine trading application. The platform typically displays rising balances and “profits” to encourage additional deposits. The fraud usually becomes clear only when victims attempt to withdraw funds and find that transfers are blocked or accounts cannot be accessed.
Police reported that, in the case involving an insurance agent, the scam escalated to $3.3 million—demonstrating how quickly these schemes can move from initial persuasion to large-value transfers. The broader week-long total of $9 million suggests the pattern is not isolated, but part of an active criminal campaign.
Regional compliance signals: HashKey gets JPMorgan client money approval
While Hong Kong grappled with scam activity, the city also saw a separate development that touches on institutional readiness: HashKey Exchange said it received approval from JPMorgan Chase to establish a client money account, per statements from the company’s parent group.
HashKey framed the approval as a step forward in enabling client money handling within its regulated operating framework. For investors and counterparties, client money arrangements are often a practical building block for institutional confidence—especially for firms dealing with custody-like responsibilities and segregation expectations.
That said, the scam reports underscore a different reality for retail users: even where regulated exchanges expand capabilities, criminals can still exploit individual naivety through counterfeit apps and social-engineering tactics.
Malaysia Blockchain Week support pulled over OnlyFans-linked after-party backlash
Malaysia’s crypto sector faced reputational and administrative pressure after the government withdrew support for Malaysia Blockchain Week. Organizers said the decision followed controversy related to an after-party featuring an influencer previously known for adult content.
Earlier coverage noted that Malaysia Blockchain Week was linked to promotional materials circulating online, after which event organizers apologized to the Ministry of Digital and the Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation. Organizers then reportedly canceled the performance and removed references to the event from its website.
The episode highlights a recurring tension for blockchain conferences: while policy conversations often focus on regulation and technology, broader public scrutiny and political optics can still shape whether governments are willing to publicly back industry gatherings.
China: warning over Bitcoin extortion scams using publication name
In China, a state-affiliated outlet—reported as China Business Journal—warned that fraudsters were impersonating the publication to extort companies. According to the newspaper, scammers demanded Bitcoin payments while claiming they had uncovered damaging information through “undercover investigations.”
The warning described use of a Proton Mail address for contacting businesses, along with threats to publish alleged material unless companies paid in Bitcoin. This is another example of how crypto payments are increasingly used as a tool in non-crypto-specific crimes: the asset acts as the settlement mechanism for intimidation rather than part of a legitimate investment process.
The same broader period included other reported crypto-related developments, including police academy research claiming an AI system capable of detecting illegal crypto transactions with nearly 90% accuracy, and arrests tied to crypto money laundering connected to telecom fraud.
South Korea moving toward stablecoin regulation as tax debate continues
South Korea’s policy roadmap remains under construction, with a reported plan by the Financial Services Commission to draft a consolidated Digital Asset Basic Act alongside the ruling Democratic Party. The reported draft scope includes stablecoin issuance and circulation, digital asset business rules, exchange entry requirements, disclosures, internal controls, and standards for system resilience.
At the moment, South Korea’s Parliament is considering multiple separate bills related to digital assets and stablecoins. Disagreements have reportedly prevented the country from finalizing elements of the next-stage crypto legislation.
Separately, the opposition’s effort to repeal planned crypto taxes has moved to a committee. The government has said the changes would take effect on January 1, 2027, even though adjustments had been postponed on three prior occasions.
For market participants, the key practical takeaway is that stablecoin policy may be consolidated—but the timing and political hurdles remain uncertain. Traders and issuers should watch for how lawmakers reconcile competing approaches between regulation needs and tax policy, especially as monthly stablecoin flows have reportedly continued to move offshore.
Singapore and Japan: restructuring pressures and account exit timelines
Singapore-based prime brokerage FalconX has reportedly cut capacity amid a prolonged crypto market slump. Bloomberg reported that FalconX laid off about 10% of its global workforce while preparing for a longer downturn, including a strategic shift in Singapore toward crypto derivatives trading.
The report also said FalconX planned to withdraw its license application with the Monetary Authority of Singapore, while maintaining a broader Asian footprint and expanding its European business. The company’s reported headcount prior to layoffs—approximately 350 across the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong—signals how consequential these decisions can be for regional market infrastructure.
In Japan, Bitget announced it would stop providing services to residents of the country and begin account restrictions on November 1. The exchange said it stopped accepting new registrations from Japan residents, and that any positions still open by December 31 would be forcibly closed.
For Japanese users, such forced-closure timelines are particularly important because they reduce the window for risk management actions like rebalancing, exit planning, and compliance checks with alternative services.
What to watch next
Across Asia, enforcement and policy developments are unfolding alongside industry reshaping—yet the Hong Kong romance-scam figures and other extortion warnings show that social-engineering fraud remains a live risk. Investors and users should stay alert to “too-good-to-be-true” returns shown inside unfamiliar apps, while tracking how stablecoin and exchange-related rules evolve in South Korea, Singapore, and Japan.
This article was originally published as Malaysia Blockchain Week: OnlyFans Romance Scam Drains $3.3M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Boltz, a non-custodial Bitcoin swap provider, has paused its service “until further notice,” citing what it describes as a sharp rise in automated, AI-assisted probing attempts against its infrastructure. In a statement published on X, the team said multiple exploits over recent months were contained individually, but that the pace of attacker iteration has begun to outstrip the ability of a small security team to find and patch issues quickly.
The pause arrives amid broader concern across crypto that AI capabilities—when paired with automation—can compress the time between vulnerability discovery and real-world exploitation. Boltz also emphasized that the shutdown is an operational decision rather than a response to customer losses, stating that no user funds have been at risk due to the non-custodial nature of its swaps.
Key takeaways
Boltz is disabling swaps temporarily after reporting an accelerated pattern of “automated AI-assisted probing” in recent months.
The company says its team cannot patch vulnerabilities quickly enough relative to attacker iteration speed, despite containing prior exploits.
Boltz states that swaps are cryptographically secured and non-custodial, and that no user funds have been at risk.
Solana’s security leadership has argued for “autonomous defense” to match threats operating at machine speed.
Boltz pauses swaps as automated probing intensifies
In its X post, Boltz attributed the decision to a “steady increase” in automated AI-assisted attempts to probe its systems over the course of this year. The firm said it has dealt with several exploits during that period; while each incident was contained, the overall pattern—attackers iterating faster than the service’s ability to remediate—has become difficult to manage.
“Over the past months… we have dealt with several exploits. Each was contained, but the pattern is clear: attackers now iterate faster than a team our size can find and patch.”
After reviewing security scans, Boltz said it cannot responsibly re-enable swaps while it is still being actively targeted by multiple groups, and while fixes are in progress. The company also described a recent acceleration, stating that within just a few days it saw a “drastic acceleration” in attacks and does not believe the asymmetry will reverse soon.
For users, the practical implication is straightforward: swap execution is paused, and the company is effectively prioritizing security remediation over service continuity. For builders and investors, Boltz’s decision is another sign that as threats become more automated, smaller teams running open-source infrastructure may face rising operational risk—especially when patch cycles are measured against attacker speed rather than human-led testing schedules.
Non-custodial design remains, but swap operations are suspended
Boltz’s service enables non-custodial, trustless atomic swaps, including transfers between Bitcoin mainnet and Bitcoin-related layers such as Lightning Network and Liquid Network. Because the swaps are non-custodial, Boltz said users retain full control of assets throughout the process.
The company stressed that, despite the security incidents it has described, no user funds have ever been at risk. Boltz’s reasoning is tied to its cryptographic approach: the swap mechanism is built so that custody is not transferred to Boltz in a way that would expose users to direct theft of funds.
Boltz also said its API will remain available to process refunds, and that its support team will continue to be reachable. That matters for downstream users and integrators because it suggests the pause is focused on swap re-enablement rather than an abrupt cessation of all related functionality.
“What we are seeing is a major paradigm shift for Bitcoin services operating on an open source stack, and it needs careful analysis. Do not expect swap services to resume shortly.”
At the time of writing, DefiLlama data showed Boltz’s total value locked at $180,860, providing a snapshot of the service’s on-chain footprint while it remains paused.
Why AI-driven automation raises the patching bar
Boltz’s announcement reflects a recurring theme in crypto security: when attackers can automate discovery and testing, the window for defenders to respond shrinks. The firm’s complaint is not only that vulnerabilities exist, but that the attack pattern is now iterative and fast enough that a small team cannot keep up with the remediation workload—even when individual exploits are contained.
This tension between offense speed and defense capacity is also echoed by Solana Foundation’s security leadership. Earlier coverage of Solana Foundation’s chief information security officer, Michael Coates, pointed to a need to move beyond purely human-scaled security processes. In July, Coates told Cointelegraph that the industry has reached a “tipping point” where humans cannot scale to meet AI-enabled threats.
“The only path forward we have is to have autonomous defense that operates at the speed of machines.”
That framing helps explain why Boltz’s response may be longer-term than a routine patch cycle. If defenders can’t reliably close the loop faster than attackers probe and iterate, even “contained” incidents may signal an ongoing risk environment rather than an isolated problem.
Boltz’s operational decision also mirrors comments from other crypto-adjacent services dealing with frequent exploitation. PayPerQ, an AI prompt-payment platform that accepts payment in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, said it has been fighting off exploits every other week for several months and believes many could be AI-powered. The company described the current situation as “very dangerous,” reinforcing the idea that AI assistance may be becoming a force multiplier for attackers.
What investors and users should watch next
Boltz has not offered a timeline for re-enabling swaps, and its statement explicitly cautions that swap services should not be expected to resume shortly. The key question for users is whether Boltz can reduce the probing-to-patching gap through changes to its security posture—such as tighter monitoring, faster remediation pipelines, and more automated defenses—before attacker iteration once again outpaces its team size.
For the broader Bitcoin ecosystem, Boltz’s pause is a timely reminder that non-custodial design can limit direct user fund exposure, but it does not eliminate operational and reliability risks. Readers should watch for how quickly Boltz can restore swap functionality, and whether the industry’s push toward machine-speed security becomes a practical requirement rather than a theoretical goal.
This article was originally published as Boltz Temporarily Suspends Service Following AI-Driven Hack Attacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s crypto exchange Bithumb said it intends to pursue a preliminary listing review in 2027 and complete an initial public offering (IPO) in 2028. The plan follows a corporate restructuring aimed at clarifying responsibilities across its business units and reducing potential conflicts of interest ahead of regulatory scrutiny.
In its announcement, Bithumb said preparations will include strengthening internal controls and moving from domestic accounting standards to K-IFRS, the international financial reporting framework used by listed companies in South Korea. The exchange added that the schedule could shift depending on market conditions and the timing of reviews by relevant authorities.
Key takeaways
Bithumb targets a 2027 preliminary listing review and an IPO completion in 2028, subject to regulatory timelines.
The exchange is restructuring its business, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, to separate responsibilities and limit conflicts of interest.
Bithumb plans to upgrade internal controls and adopt K-IFRS accounting as part of its listing readiness.
The IPO push comes amid intensified competition among South Korean exchanges as rivals deepen ties with traditional finance and technology groups.
Recent issues linked to promotional controls and audits at Bithumb-affiliated listed firms add more scrutiny to the group’s broader compliance posture.
Restructuring and K-IFRS as IPO prerequisites
Bithumb’s statement points to two major adjustments intended to make it more “listing-ready.” First, it has reorganized its business structure, including the spin-off of Bithumb Asset, to sharpen accountability across units and reduce the risk of overlapping interests.
Second, it said it will upgrade internal control systems and switch to K-IFRS from domestic accounting standards. For exchanges preparing for public markets, the shift to K-IFRS typically signals an effort to align financial reporting with the requirements expected of companies after they become subject to broader investor and regulator oversight.
The exchange also cautioned that its timetable is not guaranteed. “Market conditions” and the review schedules of relevant authorities could change the pace of its listing process.
Fiat rails and competitive pressure from legacy finance
Bithumb is one of five South Korean exchanges that support fiat trading via real-name bank accounts, an offering delivered through its partnership with KB Kookmin Bank. That positioning matters because fiat on-ramps and compliance-driven user onboarding are central parts of how South Korean exchanges operate and how regulators evaluate market infrastructure.
Meanwhile, Bithumb’s IPO ambitions arrive as competitors push deeper connections with traditional finance and technology players. According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, Mirae Asset Consulting took control of rival exchange Korbit on July 23. Cointelegraph also reported that Upbit operator Dunamu is pursuing a share-swap arrangement that would make it a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Financial, though completion is contingent on regulatory and shareholder approvals.
This backdrop suggests that Bithumb is not just preparing for capital markets—it is also moving in a landscape where large corporate backers may influence customer acquisition, risk management, and the pace of product and infrastructure development.
A compliance test after a 620,000 BTC crediting mix-up
Bithumb’s listing plans also come with attention on its operational controls. In a February promotional error, Bithumb mistakenly credited customer accounts with balances totaling 620,000 Bitcoin rather than distributing 620,000 Korean won in cash rewards. Cointelegraph previously reported that Bithumb recovered 99.7% of the erroneous credits, while customers sold about 1,788 BTC before account freezing.
At a Feb. 11 National Assembly parliamentary hearing, Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won said the exchange’s process for checking the intended distribution against its actual holdings had failed, and that the promotional amount was not set aside in a separate account. Reporting on the hearing was carried by Yonhap.
For investors, that incident is relevant even though it involved a promotional mechanism rather than core trading operations. It highlights the importance of robust reconciliation procedures—an area regulators often scrutinize when a company moves from private or quasi-private market activity into public-company oversight.
Audit and listing troubles at Bithumb-linked firms
Bithumb’s IPO preparation is further complicated by audit and listing problems reported for companies linked to the exchange. Cointelegraph noted that Vidente, a major Bithumb shareholder, and Bucket Studio, which indirectly controls Vidente, have had their share trading suspended since March 2023 due to audit and other listing issues.
Yonhap reported that in June, Bucket Studio appointed a former police official as its standing auditor, and that Vidente plans to appoint a former National Tax Service official to the same role. Yonhap also said South Korea’s Government Public Service Ethics Committee cleared both hires after concluding there was no close relationship between the officials’ previous duties and their new roles.
While these developments do not automatically block Bithumb’s own listing timeline, they add another layer of scrutiny to the group’s corporate governance narrative—especially as Bithumb positions internal control upgrades and accounting standard changes as central steps toward public-market readiness.
As 2027 approaches, the key question for readers will be whether Bithumb’s announced restructuring, internal control upgrades, and K-IFRS transition can withstand regulatory review while addressing the operational and governance pressure points already in the public record. Any adjustment to the timetable could offer early signals about how regulators weigh those factors against the exchange’s preparation efforts.
This article was originally published as Bithumb Maps 2028 IPO Timeline as It Tightens Internal Controls on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

You can audit smart contracts. You can’t audit yourself. And AI just made human manipulation infinitely more convincing.
The Security Problem Nobody Wants To Admit
The crypto industry has spent billions on smart contract audits, multi-signature wallets, hardware security modules, penetration testing, and bug bounties.
All of it assumes the attack vector is technical.
It’s not.
The Solana Foundation’s new CISO Michael Coates said it publicly this week: crypto’s biggest security threats in 2026 are increasingly coming from AI-powered social engineering and compromised credentials. Not smart contract exploits. Not protocol vulnerabilities.
People.
The attackers shifted targets. They’re not trying to break the code anymore. They’re trying to break you.
And AI just gave them tools to do it better than ever.
What Social Engineering Actually Means
Social engineering is the art of manipulating humans into doing things that compromise security.
It’s not new. Con artists have always existed. Phishing emails have been around for decades. Fake customer support calls are as old as telephones.
But here’s what changed in 2026:
AI made social engineering indistinguishable from reality.
Before AI: A phishing email had grammatical errors, strange formatting, a slightly off email address. Trained eyes could catch it.
After AI: A phishing email is grammatically perfect, emotionally calibrated to your specific psychology, sent from a domain that looks exactly right, at a time when you’re most likely to be distracted, referencing real details from your public profiles.
Before AI: A fake customer support call had an accent, a script, tell-tale signs of inauthenticity.
After AI: A deepfake voice replicates your exchange’s actual support team. The conversation flows naturally. It knows your account details because it scraped your public information. It knows how to build rapport before asking for anything.
Before AI: A fake emergency message from a colleague was detectable because it didn’t sound like them.
After AI: It sounds exactly like them because AI trained on their communication style, their LinkedIn posts, and their email patterns.
The human brain evolved to detect threats from other humans. It didn’t evolve to detect threats from AI systems trained specifically to exploit human psychology.
Why Crypto Is The Perfect Target
Every industry faces social engineering. But crypto has properties that make it uniquely vulnerable.
Irreversibility. When someone tricks a bank customer into a wire transfer, there’s a chance, small but real, of reversal. When someone tricks a crypto user into sending funds, it’s gone—permanently. No chargeback. No fraud department. No appeal.
Pseudonymity. Attackers are harder to trace. The accountability that discourages fraud in traditional finance is weaker in crypto.
High Stakes In Individual Wallets. A single compromised wallet can contain life-changing sums. The ROI on targeting a crypto user versus a traditional bank customer is significantly higher.
Community Of Sophisticated Users Who Think They’re Immune. This is the most dangerous property. Crypto users tend to be technically sophisticated. They know about phishing. They know about scams. They think they’re too smart to fall for it.
That confidence is the vulnerability.
The most effective social engineering targets people who think they can’t be manipulated because they’ve stopped being vigilant.
The Attack Pattern That’s Working Right Now
Coates described the shift clearly: attackers are targeting people, not protocols.
Here’s what that looks like in practice in 2026:
The Fake Emergency: You receive a message, voice, text, or email that appears to be from your exchange’s security team. There’s been suspicious activity on your account. You need to verify immediately or face suspension. The urgency is real. The consequences feel immediate. You act without thinking carefully.
The message was AI-generated. The voice was deepfaked. The urgency was engineered.
The Compromised Colleague: Someone in your organization receives what appears to be a message from a trusted colleague—perhaps your CFO, your CTO, your CEO—asking for a wallet transfer. The tone is right. The context makes sense. The request is urgent because there’s a deal closing.
The colleague never sent it. Their communication style was scraped and replicated.
The Too-Good-To-Be-True Opportunity: You’re approached on LinkedIn, Discord, or Telegram by someone who seems genuinely informed about your project, your portfolio, your interests. They have an opportunity—an early investment, an exclusive access, a partnership. The conversation feels real over days or weeks.
It’s AI maintaining a relationship at scale, designed to eventually extract something.
The Recovery Scam: You posted publicly about a crypto problem. Someone, AI or AI-assisted, found it immediately and reached out offering help. They’re helpful, knowledgeable, and patient. They walk you through “recovery steps” that actually compromise your wallet.
All of these work on smart people. Because intelligence doesn’t protect against emotional manipulation. It often makes it worse—smart people are better at rationalizing why the exception is real this time.
The Quantum Problem In The Background
While social engineering is the immediate threat, Coates also flagged what’s coming: quantum computing.
Post-quantum cryptography is no longer a theoretical concern. Anthropic’s AI recently broke a post-quantum cryptography candidate, raising serious questions about the security assumptions underlying current encryption.
Solana is evaluating post-quantum cryptography. Other chains are doing the same.
This is a technical problem that technical solutions can address. Unlike social engineering, which targets humans, quantum threats target mathematics. Mathematics can be upgraded.
But here’s the uncomfortable overlap: the transition to post-quantum cryptography will itself become a social engineering attack surface.
Users will receive communications claiming they need to “upgrade their wallet security” or “migrate their funds to quantum-resistant addresses.” Some of those communications will be legitimate. Some will be AI-generated attacks designed to look legitimate during the transition.
The technical threat and the human threat converge.
Why “Just Be Careful” Isn’t A Solution
The standard advice: be careful. Verify before you act. Don’t click suspicious links. Check email addresses carefully. Never share your seed phrase.
This advice was adequate when social engineering was low-fi, when attacks were detectable by someone paying attention.
It’s not adequate anymore.
Coates said something important: crypto must “meet users where they are” instead of expecting them to act as security experts.
That’s an acknowledgment that the current model—educate users, hope they stay vigilant—is failing.
Because AI-powered social engineering doesn’t require users to make obvious mistakes. It requires them to make very small lapses in judgment at carefully engineered moments.
You’ve been careful a thousand times. The attack only needs to work once.
What Actually Protects You
If human vigilance is insufficient, what works?
Systems That Don’t Require Perfect Human Judgment.
Multi-signature requirements that mean no single person can authorize a large transfer alone. Time delays on large transactions that create a window for human review. Anomaly detection that flags behavior inconsistent with your patterns.
These aren’t exciting. They’re friction. But friction is the point.
The best security doesn’t make you smarter. It makes the attack harder even when you’re not being smart.
Verification Protocols That Don’t Rely on Communication Channels.
If a “colleague” sends an urgent transfer request, the verification doesn’t happen over the same channel. It happens via a pre-established out-of-band protocol—a specific phone number, an in-person confirmation, a code word.
AI can replicate communication channels. It can’t replicate physical presence or pre-established secrets.
Institutional Humility.
The most dangerous users are the ones who’ve never been fooled because they believe they never will be. The most secure users are the ones who assume they’re vulnerable and design their behavior accordingly.
Security isn’t about being smarter than the attacker. It’s about designing systems that work even when you’re not at your best.
The Industry’s Uncomfortable Admission
Coates’ statement represents something significant: a major blockchain foundation publicly admitting that the threat model has shifted.
For years, the crypto security conversation was dominated by smart contract audits, protocol security, code review. The implicit assumption: the humans are fine, the code needs protecting.
Now the CISO of a major blockchain foundation is saying: the humans are the vulnerability. The code is (relatively) fine.
That’s a meaningful shift, and it has implications for how the entire industry thinks about security.
You can’t audit your way out of this one. You can’t write a bug bounty for human psychology. You can’t patch the vulnerability that makes people respond to urgency.
The security stack has to include the human layer, not just user education, which is clearly insufficient. System design that compensates for human fallibility under pressure.
What This Means For Everyone In Crypto
If you’re a user: your biggest risk isn’t a smart contract exploit. It’s a well-timed, well-crafted message that catches you in a moment of stress, urgency, or distraction. Design your security protocols assuming that moment will happen. Remove single points of human failure.
If you’re building: user education is necessary but not sufficient. Build friction into high-stakes actions. Design for the distracted, pressured, temporarily-fooled user, not the ideal vigilant one.
If you’re in security: the threat model has to include AI-powered social engineering as a primary attack vector, not an edge case. Red team exercises need to include sophisticated AI-assisted social engineering simulations.
If you’re an investor: ask every project you invest in: what’s your human security layer? Not just your smart contract audit. What protects against AI-powered attacks on your team members?
The Real Arms Race
Everyone talks about crypto’s AI arms race as a trading problem. AI trading against AI. Faster algorithms, better predictions.
The real arms race is in security. Attackers using AI to exploit human psychology at scale. Defenders using AI to detect anomalous behavior and flag suspicious communications.
One side is attacking a fixed vulnerability: human cognitive limitations under pressure.
The other side is defending a moving target: human behavior across thousands of employees, users, and community members.
The attackers have a structural advantage. They only need to succeed once.
The defenders need to succeed every time.
That asymmetry is the actual security crisis in crypto. Not the code. The people.
This article was originally published as The Biggest Crypto Threat In 2026 Isn’t Hackers. It’s Your Own Brain on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy sold 1,638 Bitcoin between July 27 and Sunday, according to an 8-K filing released Monday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The sale, carried out at an average price of $63,957 per BTC, generated about $104.7 million—making it the company’s second-largest Bitcoin selloff of the year.
Strategy said the proceeds were split between its preferred-stock dividend program and its STRC share repurchase activity. Following the transaction, the company reported holding 842,138 Bitcoin, purchased at an aggregate cost of $63.5 billion.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s latest disclosed Bitcoin sale totaled 1,638 BTC at an average of $63,957, raising roughly $104.7 million.
About $52.4 million of the proceeds was used for dividends on STRC preferred stock, with $52.3 million directed to STRC repurchases.
Strategy also reported increasing its US dollar reserve to $4 billion as of Sunday, funded in part by MSTR share sales.
STRC traded below its $100 target value in Monday pre-market trading, a condition that can affect Strategy’s financing flexibility.
The filing comes amid renewed commentary from industry observers urging Strategy to prioritize cash reserve replenishment over additional BTC buys.
Bitcoin sales fund dividends and STRC buybacks
In the Monday SEC filing, Strategy detailed the July 27–Sunday sale of 1,638 BTC and the resulting proceeds. The company reported using $52.4 million to cover dividend payments on its STRC preferred stock and $52.3 million to repurchase STRC shares.
While this latest selloff follows earlier activity, it is not Strategy’s first major Bitcoin sale this year. The company previously disclosed selling 3,588 BTC for about $216 million on July 6, as covered earlier. It also reported selling 32 BTC in early June, which it described as its first reported BTC sale since a 2022 tax-loss transaction, according to earlier coverage referenced in the filing materials.
The decision matters for investors watching how Strategy balances its core goal—maintaining Bitcoin exposure—with the practical need to support dividend obligations and preferred-share economics. When BTC is sold to meet shareholder payouts, investors often scrutinize whether the company’s capital framework preserves the intended pace of future Bitcoin accumulation.
US dollar reserve rises to $4 billion after equity-related funding
Beyond the Bitcoin sale, Strategy reported raising $290.6 million through MSTR share sales during the same period. According to the filing, $250 million of those proceeds was earmarked to increase its US dollar reserve, which stood at $4 billion as of Sunday. The company also allocated $28.9 million for STRC repurchases and $11.7 million to its cash balance.
In a Monday post on X, Strategy founder and chairman Michael Saylor said the company repurchased $81.2 million worth of STRC stock and extended its US dollar runway by 57 days to 2.3 years. The runway estimate is important because it reflects how long Strategy can continue executing its stated capital approach—particularly dividend-related payments—without being forced to accelerate either Bitcoin sales or external funding.
STRC below target value raises questions about financing conditions
Strategy’s STRC perpetual preferred stock functions as one of the company’s tools for financing Bitcoin purchases. However, in Monday pre-market trading, Yahoo Finance data showed STRC at $89.40, or 10.6% below its $100 target value. Strategy’s common stock, MSTR, was also down slightly in pre-market trading, declining 0.9%.
Trading below the intended par can influence Strategy’s ability to raise funds through STRC sales. It may also affect the company’s incentive to adjust dividend levels to make STRC more attractive to prospective buyers and help stabilize the preferred-stock market price.
This is not a purely theoretical concern. Investors have previously focused on dividend coverage and cash planning as part of Strategy’s broader capital strategy. In a June 24 X post, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju argued that Strategy should pause further Bitcoin purchases and rebuild cash reserves, after the company’s dividend coverage fell to 14 months from seven years, based on the reporting tied to that commentary. Ju said the company should adopt a systematic framework for purchase timing.
Earlier, Strategy had also laid out a capital framework in an 8-K filing dated June 29. That disclosure included an approach in which Bitcoin sales can fund dividends, an increase of STRC’s annual dividend rate to 12%, and a report that the US dollar reserve had grown to $2.55 billion.
What to watch next
With Strategy reporting both a sizable Bitcoin sale and a significant rise in its US dollar reserve to $4 billion, the near-term question for investors is how sustainably the company can fund dividends and preferred-share repurchases while maintaining its desired Bitcoin exposure. Traders should watch STRC’s trading price relative to its $100 target and monitor whether Strategy’s stated runway and purchase timing adjustments continue to evolve in future filings.
This article was originally published as Strategy Liquidates 1,638 Bitcoin to Pay Dividends, Buy STRC Back on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FalconX, the digital-asset prime broker that acquired 21Shares last November, has reportedly cut about 10% of its workforce as it braces for what Bloomberg describes as a prolonged downturn in crypto markets. The staff reduction, reported Monday, comes as the firm looks to refocus its business and tighten spending across key regions.
According to people familiar with the matter cited by Bloomberg, FalconX is also reshaping its Singapore strategy—shifting emphasis toward crypto derivatives trading—and plans to withdraw its license application with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). Bloomberg further reported that the company intends to keep a presence in Asia while expanding its European operations.
Key takeaways
Bloomberg reports FalconX has reduced roughly 10% of staff as the firm anticipates a longer-than-expected crypto market slump.
FalconX is reportedly pivoting in Singapore toward crypto derivatives and intends to withdraw its MAS license application.
The workforce cut affects staff across multiple markets, after FalconX previously had around 350 employees in the US, UK, Singapore, and Hong Kong.
FalconX’s move aligns with broader industry cost reductions seen across exchanges and crypto service providers during the downturn.
The report highlights a wider sector shift from pure spot trading toward derivatives and tokenized asset products.
Workforce cuts and a broader corporate reset
Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter, said FalconX carried out the layoffs as part of preparations for what it described as an extended downturn. Before the reduction, the company employed about 350 people across the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong, according to the report.
Bloomberg also noted that FalconX is reshaping its strategy in Singapore by placing more focus on derivatives-related activity. At the same time, the firm is reportedly preparing to withdraw its license application with MAS, signaling that it expects its Singapore roadmap to change materially rather than waiting for approval.
Cointelegraph reached out to a FalconX spokesperson for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Singapore licensing changes signal a strategic pivot
The decision to withdraw a licensing application—if confirmed—marks a tangible adjustment to FalconX’s approach in Singapore. Rather than pursuing the planned regulatory pathway, the firm is reportedly moving toward a derivatives-focused business model while maintaining its wider regional footprint.
Bloomberg’s report also suggested that FalconX plans to keep operating in Asia, but with a different emphasis, while expanding in Europe. For investors and counterparties, these kinds of shifts can affect how firms allocate liquidity, structure partnerships, and manage regulatory risk across jurisdictions.
FalconX’s earlier acquisition of 21Shares in November also frames the importance of this period: prime brokerage activity and related capital markets services can be highly sensitive to trading conditions, volatility, and institutional engagement—variables that tend to soften during extended bear-market stretches.
Industry downsizing grows as trading volumes cool
The reported workforce reduction adds FalconX to a broader list of crypto businesses scaling back operations during the market downturn. Bloomberg’s report places the company alongside moves already seen from exchanges and infrastructure providers, including Coinbase, Crypto.com, Luno, Gemini, and BitGo, according to references cited in the original coverage.
While the scale and reasons vary by firm, the pattern is consistent: when spot activity and retail participation weaken, businesses often reduce headcount and reallocate resources toward segments that may hold up better—such as derivatives, institutional services, and tokenized real-world asset products.
Exchanges increasingly lean on derivatives and tokenized products
Pressure on exchanges has been building as Bitcoin and other digital assets retreated from last year’s highs, weighing on trading volumes and retail engagement. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph cited analysts who believe Bitcoin may not yet have reached a market bottom, implying that the broader industry could face continued headwinds.
At the time of the original reporting, Bitcoin was last trading below $64,000—about 50% under its October peak above $126,000. In such conditions, many platforms appear to be searching for revenue resilience beyond spot trading.
CoinGecko data referenced in the original article suggests that the “crypto TradFi” sector—covering tokenized assets, derivatives, and traditional finance-style products—grew fivefold to $6.6 billion between January 2025 and June 2026. Tokenized stocks and commodities were described as leading contributors to that expansion.
Coinbase’s most recent earnings, as referenced in the original coverage, also underscored how the mix can shift during a downturn. Even though the company missed earnings expectations, it reported that 88% of second-quarter net revenue came from businesses other than spot Bitcoin trading, with derivatives, prediction markets, and tokenized assets playing a more prominent role.
Taken together, these developments point to a central industry tension: spot-driven revenue models can be difficult to sustain in extended drawdowns, while firms with deeper derivatives distribution, tokenization services, or institutional market-making capabilities may have more levers to manage through volatility cycles.
What to watch next is whether FalconX’s reported Singapore licensing withdrawal and derivatives emphasis translate into measurable growth in activity—or whether the company’s European expansion becomes the next major operational focus. For the wider market, the key signal will be how quickly trading ecosystems shift their revenue dependence away from spot as conditions remain uncertain.
This article was originally published as FalconX Lays Off 10% of Staff as Crypto Slump Drags On: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FalconX, the digital-asset prime brokerage that acquired crypto ETF issuer 21Shares in November, has laid off about 10% of its workforce as it braces for a longer crypto market downturn, Bloomberg reported Monday.
Bloomberg, citing people familiar with the matter, also said the firm is reshaping its Singapore approach—shifting emphasis toward crypto derivatives trading and planning to withdraw its license application with the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The company intends to keep a presence in Asia while expanding its business in Europe.
Key takeaways
FalconX reportedly cut roughly 10% of staff amid expectations of an extended downturn, according to Bloomberg.
The firm is reportedly pivoting its Singapore strategy toward crypto derivatives while preparing to withdraw its MAS license application.
FalconX plans to maintain operations in Asia but is looking to grow its footprint in Europe, Bloomberg said.
The move aligns FalconX with other crypto firms that have reduced headcount during the market slowdown.
Broader exchange activity is shifting beyond spot trading toward derivatives and tokenized real-world assets, CoinGecko and Coinbase reporting suggest.
FalconX cuts staff as it plans a longer runway
Before the layoffs, FalconX employed about 350 people across the United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Hong Kong, Bloomberg said. The report frames the cuts as part of a broader effort to operate through what it describes as a prolonged market slump.
Cointelegraph reached out to FalconX for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Strategic pivot in Singapore, expansion in Europe
Beyond the workforce reduction, Bloomberg reported that FalconX is changing course in Singapore. The company is reportedly concentrating on crypto derivatives trading there, while planning to withdraw its license application with the Monetary Authority of Singapore.
While that withdrawal would mark a significant shift in its regulatory posture, Bloomberg also said FalconX expects to remain active in Asia. At the same time, the firm intends to expand its European operations—suggesting management is reallocating risk and resources toward regions it believes can better support its near- to mid-term growth plans.
Part of a wider wave of crypto downsizing
FalconX’s reported cuts add to a growing list of crypto companies scaling back operations during the downturn. Bloomberg’s report places FalconX alongside headcount reductions at exchanges and infrastructure providers mentioned by Cointelegraph, including Coinbase, Crypto.com, Luno, Gemini, and BitGo.
The shared theme is not just lower demand for trading products during a market cool-off, but also an industry-wide reassessment of costs, regulatory exposure, and product focus—particularly as volumes and retail participation tend to soften when asset prices pull back from prior peaks.
Exchanges broaden beyond spot as tokenized finance grows
Market pressure has been felt across trading venues. With Bitcoin and other digital assets retreating from last year’s highs, exchanges have seen trading volumes and retail engagement weigh on performance, and some analysts have argued that the market may still be finding its base rather than having fully bottomed.
Cointelegraph previously noted that some market participants believe Bitcoin has not yet reached a market bottom. At the time of the earlier reporting referenced in the source material, Bitcoin was trading below $64,000—about 50% under its October peak above $126,000.
In response, many exchanges are pushing into areas that can support activity even when spot momentum fades. CoinGecko, as cited in the source, reported that the “crypto TradFi” sector—which includes tokenized assets, derivatives, and other traditional finance products—grew fivefold to $6.6 billion between January 2025 and June 2026. That growth profile points to a strategic shift toward revenue streams less dependent on purely spot-driven cycles.
Coinbase’s latest earnings, cited in the source, also illustrate how some major platforms are positioning around products beyond spot Bitcoin trading. While Coinbase missed earnings expectations, it reported that 88% of second-quarter net revenue came from businesses other than spot Bitcoin trading, with derivatives, prediction markets, and tokenized assets cited as increasingly important contributors.
For FalconX, the reported emphasis on derivatives in Singapore fits this broader industry pattern: when spot trading slows, derivatives and structured products can help sustain engagement from more sophisticated participants and hedgers. However, the operational implications of withdrawing a license application—while still planning to operate in the region—will be something investors and clients may want to watch closely, since regulatory access can materially affect product availability and timelines.
Going forward, readers should monitor two things: whether FalconX’s European expansion accelerates in tandem with the Singapore changes, and how the firm’s reported shift toward derivatives aligns with the wider migration toward tokenized and TradFi-linked offerings as the market’s next phase remains uncertain.
This article was originally published as FalconX Lays Off 10% of Staff as Crypto Downturn Drags On: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin analysts are pointing to August as a potential inflection point, hinging on whether the asset can secure a key monthly close that would confirm a technical bear-market bottom signal. Separately, Grayscale research suggests the bottom could have occurred earlier than the typical four-year cycle implies, pushing the focus to macro conditions rather than the calendar.
According to a Monday report shared with Cointelegraph by 10x Research founder Markus Thielen, Bitcoin’s July performance did not meet the threshold needed to validate a technical bottom. However, the firm argues that a monthly close near $63,000 in August could flip several of its cycle indicators to a bullish configuration.
Key takeaways
10x Research says a July monthly close failed to confirm its technical bottom signal, but an August monthly close near $63,000 could trigger a reversal indication.
10x Research continues to favor long positions, but would turn more neutral if Bitcoin breaks key support levels and moving averages.
Grayscale’s Zach Pandl told investors in a July 22 report that Bitcoin may have bottomed earlier than the four-year cycle would suggest, potentially placing the cycle low in September or October.
Macro variables—especially Fed policy and changes in the 10-year Treasury yield—remain central to timing both analysts’ outlooks.
Other market participants highlight supply-side stress indicators, including the share of Bitcoin held at a loss.
What needs to happen for a 10x Research bottom signal
10x Research’s technical framework centers on cycle indicators tied to Bitcoin’s monthly price behavior. Thielen said in the Monday report that Bitcoin closed July below the level required to confirm the firm’s bear-market bottom setup.
When the analysis was prepared, Bitcoin was trading at $63,140. That matters because 10x Research argues the distance from the July closing level to the next confirmation threshold may be small. In its view, if Bitcoin prints an August monthly close around $63,000, the change could be sufficient to turn multiple cycle indicators bullish.
Importantly, 10x Research is not treating the signal as unconditional. The firm said it continued to favor long positioning, but would shift to a neutral stance if Bitcoin breaks key support levels and moving averages—an acknowledgement that technical confirmation can fail if price action deteriorates before the month ends.
Macro risks remain the timing driver
While the chart-based trigger is specific, 10x Research frames macro policy as the overriding variable. Its base case assumes the Federal Reserve holds interest rates steady. But the firm also flagged two key uncertainties: further increases in the 10-year Treasury yield could raise the probability of a September rate hike, and the Iran conflict adds geopolitical risk that could disrupt risk assets more broadly.
That emphasis on the macro backdrop is also echoed by Grayscale. In a July 22 report, Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl argued that Bitcoin’s timing might not match the traditional four-year cycle pattern, but that macroeconomic conditions—including Fed policy—still represent the primary mechanism shaping Bitcoin’s price.
Grayscale: a bottom may have come early—cycle low could be later
Grayscale’s view diverges from a strict reliance on the four-year cycle. Pandl told investors that Bitcoin may have bottomed earlier than the traditional four-year cycle would suggest. Under that interpretation, the cycle low would still fall in September or October, even if the earliest “bottoming” signals appeared sooner.
For traders and portfolio managers, the practical difference is not just the date—it is what to monitor. If bottoming can occur in phases, then early relief rallies or stabilization periods may not immediately complete the cycle, and investors may need to watch macro catalysts that can either sustain or reverse the improvement.
Supply-side pressure and the loss-held supply signal
In addition to technical and macro narratives, market structure indicators are contributing to the debate about how close Bitcoin may be to a durable bottom.
Earlier in July, crypto brokerage K33 pointed to a supply-side stress measure: more than half of Bitcoin’s supply was held at a loss. K33 described this as another sign that the market could be approaching a bottom, because prior periods with similar loss concentration were followed by strong subsequent returns.
K33 also reported that Bitcoin bottomed within 13 to 31 days of when that threshold was reached in 2017, 2018, and 2022. The key takeaway for investors is that the timeline is not only about price resistance or moving averages—distribution and holder pain can compress into a short window that may precede a broader trend reversal.
Another data point referenced in the broader discussion is long-term holder behavior. In a June interview, Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten told Cointelegraph that long-term holders’ record balance of 14.7 million BTC was an indication Bitcoin was nearing a bottom. The idea aligns with a broader pattern often seen during bear markets: if long-term holders absorb supply while not distributing into weakness, downside pressure may eventually fade.
What to watch as the month turns
For now, the near-term question is straightforward: can Bitcoin produce an August monthly close around $63,000 in a way that validates 10x Research’s cycle indicators, while macro conditions do not undermine the setup. Investors should also monitor how supply-side stress measures evolve and whether the market behavior stays consistent with the historical windows flagged by K33—because that combination of technical confirmation and shifting holder dynamics is what will determine whether “bottoming” turns into a sustained trend.
This article was originally published as 10x Research: Bitcoin’s Bear-Market Bottom Could Form in August on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Expectations for the US Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY) are fading as the Senate prepares to begin its summer recess at the end of this week, according to wealth manager Bernstein. With lawmakers stepping away from the calendar, Bernstein warns that the bill’s stalled progress could weigh on crypto valuations again—even as it may also open the door to more active regulator-led rulemaking.
In a Monday report shared with Cointelegraph, Bernstein framed the near-term risk as a possible “industry knee-jerk reaction” if Congress fails to advance CLARITY. At the same time, the firm argued that a legislative setback might prompt the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to intensify policy work under their existing authorities through Project Crypto.
Key takeaways
Bernstein says odds for CLARITY passage appear to be declining as the Senate heads toward summer recess, increasing near-term downside risk for crypto.
The firm expects a market bottom and improving momentum toward late Q3 or early Q4, but only if conditions evolve as anticipated after the recess.
Even without congressional progress, Bernstein expects Project Crypto activity—such as interpretive releases and DeFi-related guidance—to accelerate.
Prediction market activity on Polymarket currently implies only a 31% chance that CLARITY is signed into law by the end of 2026.
Banking industry pushback remains a key factor behind legislative friction, particularly around stablecoin yield provisions.
Why summer recess could hurt crypto sentiment
Bernstein’s analysis centers on congressional timing. The firm notes that the Senate’s scheduled move into summer recess could reduce the likelihood of CLARITY being passed before lawmakers pause their work. If that happens, Bernstein expects an immediate negative reaction from the industry—an event-driven sentiment hit that could translate into further declines for Bitcoin and the broader market.
However, Bernstein also provided a tactical view of the trade-offs. The analysts suggested that, despite a potential near-term drop, the crypto market could stabilize and start regaining momentum toward late Q3 and early Q4 ahead of the mid-term cycle.
Regulators may move faster under Project Crypto
While Bernstein warned about the consequences of legislative inaction, it also argued that regulatory outcomes could shift in parallel. In the firm’s view, Senate failure on CLARITY may lead the SEC and CFTC to adopt a more proactive stance, accelerating rulemaking and guidance initiatives under Project Crypto.
Project Crypto was first announced by SEC Chairman Paul Atkins in July 2025, and later expanded into a joint staff effort between the SEC and CFTC in September 2025, according to the SEC’s announcement and the CFTC filing describing the initiative. The objective is to create an operational regulatory structure for digital assets using existing agency authority while Congress finalizes broader market legislation under the CLARITY Act.
Bernstein said the two agencies could publish more interpretive materials tied to token taxonomy, develop clearer rules relevant to decentralized finance (DeFi), and speed up an “innovation exemption” for token issuers seeking temporary relief from securities classification during a finite period.
Prediction markets price in lower CLARITY odds
External market signals appear to be aligning with Bernstein’s caution. Polymarket data, cited by the firm, shows odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law before the end of 2026 at 31%. That represents a drop of 7 percentage points over the past week and 9 percentage points over the past month, with roughly $3.7 million wagered on the outcome, according to Polymarket’s event page: Clarity Act signed into law in 2026.
This is not the first time odds have been revised downward. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Galaxy Digital cut its 2026 CLARITY odds to 50% on June 26, warning that the Senate was running out of time to pass the market structure bill before its August recess.
Ethics and banking opposition add to the legislative drag
Beyond scheduling risk, the politics around CLARITY may be influenced by other developments. White House officials are reportedly weighing a bipartisan ethics counterproposal received on Thursday following negotiations between Republican Senator Thom Tillis and Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego. The proposal would reportedly allow state attorneys general to sue the Department of Justice if it fails to enforce ethics laws against federal officials, according to sources cited by crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett in reporting at Crypto in America.
Separately, the bill continues to face industry pushback—particularly from banking groups. The CLARITY Act is intended to create the first US regulatory framework for digital assets, but banking-sector concerns have focused on how stablecoin yields would be treated. Critics argued that the draft could allow crypto firms to offer yields on stablecoins without being subject to the same requirements as traditional financial institutions.
Cointelegraph previously reported that banking and related groups pushed back on stablecoin yield provisions, including in an article that can be found here: ABA, state banking groups push back on CLARITY Act stablecoin yield provisions.
For investors and builders, the near-term question is whether CLARITY becomes another casualty of legislative timing—or whether regulatory agencies can partially offset congressional delay through Project Crypto releases that clarify token categories and reduce uncertainty for DeFi and token issuance. Over the next few weeks, market participants will likely watch what, if anything, the Senate manages to advance before recess, and whether the SEC and CFTC accelerate guidance in response to a stalled vote count.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: CLARITY Act setbacks may pressure crypto valuations on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin begins the first full week of August trading around the $63,000 area as traders look past a difficult macro calendar and focus on a fresh, ongoing catalyst from within the crypto ecosystem. Sentiment is being tested by the fallout from a Coldcard wallet hack, while broader markets await key US data and geopolitical signals that can swing risk assets.
At the same time, investors are weighing whether August will follow the bearish script that has marked prior cycles. Even with July ending higher, analysts point to technical resistance and liquidation zones that could amplify downside if momentum fades.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin is hovering near $63,000 as traders digest the continuing Coldcard hardware wallet incident and its effects on flows.
Crypto market participants say US nonfarm payrolls—due Thursday—may drive volatility depending on how labor strength and unemployment evolve.
Oil prices slid after President Donald Trump signaled potential movement on an Iran-related deal, adding to macro uncertainty for risk assets.
Long-term holder behavior appears consistent with accumulation, even as near-term traders warn that resistance could keep August pressured.
CoinGlass and other technical observers highlight the 50-month EMA around $65,827 as a key barrier, while derivatives positioning points to liquidation risk near $64,200.
Why Treasury and FX policy still matters to crypto
The week’s macro backdrop is shaped not only by upcoming US economic releases, but also by renewed attention to how dollar liquidity and Treasury market stress can spill into global financial conditions. According to QCP Capital, the US and Japan executed a rare coordinated foreign-exchange intervention last week, designed to support the yen after it neared levels around 164 per USD, based on TradingView data.
QCP Capital emphasized that the operation’s mechanics matter: the New York Fed acted as a fiscal agent using the Federal Reserve’s Foreign and International Monetary Authorities (FIMA) repo facility, rather than reflecting a Federal Reserve monetary-policy decision. In QCP’s view, that distinction highlights how institutions outside the FOMC can still move liquidity and influence broader conditions.
Further, industry commentary cited a desire to reduce the risk of Japan selling large quantities of US Treasuries, which could otherwise disrupt the dollar environment. Louise Loo of Oxford Economics told CNBC that volatile conditions tied to potentially fiscally aggressive policies in Japan could extend into US Treasury markets, destabilizing the dollar.
In a post on X, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent also argued the FIMA facility could be used again, describing it as an “important backstop” and encouraging that it be “upsized” in coming months. For crypto traders, the practical takeaway is that interventions affecting FX and Treasury-market liquidity can quickly shift risk appetite—often before any direct crypto-specific news lands.
US payrolls, oil, and the Iran signal: the risk-asset checklist
For digital-asset markets, the next major swing factor is Thursday’s nonfarm payrolls release. Earlier in this cycle, weaker-than-expected labor numbers put pressure on expectations for how aggressively the Federal Reserve might move on rates, a dynamic that coincided with a reaction in Bitcoin when June payroll data came in well below forecasts, as Cointelegraph previously reported.
Market positioning for Thursday remains mixed. Continuum Economics, for example, expects July nonfarm payrolls to rise by 120k overall (and 110k in the private sector), while also projecting unemployment will edge up to 4.3% from 4.2%. The firm’s forecast also notes average hourly earnings rising by 0.3% in line with its trend, according to its published preview.
Beyond labor data, traders are monitoring signals related to US-Iran de-escalation. On Sunday, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that he had agreed to cancel further strikes on Iranian territory “subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL,” adding language about potential opening of the Strait of Hormuz and an end to Iran’s nuclear threat. Oil responded quickly, with both WTI and Brent down by more than 8% on Monday.
For crypto markets, the relevance of oil is straightforward: sustained moves in energy prices often feed into inflation expectations and, by extension, interest-rate expectations. When the path of rates is uncertain, risk assets—including Bitcoin—tend to trade with sharper sensitivity to macro surprises.
Coldcard hack: exchange inflows rise, but not in an outsized way
On the crypto side, one of the most immediate concerns remains the Coldcard wallet hack. Earlier coverage cited a “low-entropy bug” in Coldcard hardware wallets, with theft activity continuing for multiple days. Galaxy Research’s Alex Thorn advised Coldcard users to move funds “ASAP” and suggested using higher transaction fees to reduce the time spent interacting with the wallets.
Yet exchange flow data suggests the reaction is not turning into a broad, panic-driven transfer into trading venues. According to CryptoQuant, net exchange inflows were 34,932 BTC on Friday and 8,768 BTC on Sunday. CryptoQuant’s data framing indicates the inflow volume, while meaningful on certain days, aligns with typical levels seen during the month rather than representing a one-off liquidation wave.
What did change more noticeably was the number of inbound transactions. CryptoQuant data shows exchanges received 31,217 inbound BTC transactions on Friday, dropping to 19,537 on Sunday. CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno attributed the influx mainly to transactions between 1 and 10 BTC, which he said had their highest daily total since early February.
Separately, CryptoQuant reported that on a rolling 30-day basis Bitcoin long-term holders remain in a broad accumulation phase. In its analysis, the BTC LTH Accumulation & Distribution indicator showed LTH supply inflow around 220.4K BTC, implying ongoing inflow into long-term holdings outweighs distribution back to the market.
That combination—exchange activity rising in transaction count, but long-term holders still accumulating—suggests the market is processing the incident through behavior that is more nuanced than a simple rush to sell.
August caution: resistance levels and leverage-built downside
Even as Bitcoin finished July about 7.4% higher, traders are preparing for a difficult August. CoinGlass data shows monthly performance for BTC/USD came in slightly below its 2025 result, but the broader narrative remains that downside pressure can return during August, consistent with patterns some analysts associate with prior midterm-era behavior.
Rekt Capital pointed to the 50-month exponential moving average as an ongoing ceiling, stating on X that the 50-month EMA continues to act as resistance. That level is near $65,827, and the expectation is that repeated rejections could set up further downside continuation.
Derivatives positioning adds another layer of near-term risk. CoinGlass data tracking clusters of high-leverage BTC bets highlighted $64,200 as a potential area where forced liquidations could occur if price moves higher against leveraged positions.
On the other end of the spectrum, quant analyst David Eng described Bitcoin as “sitting on its long-term statistical floor” around $63,000, referencing a power law framework that expects price to grow as a power of time. While such models do not guarantee short-term price direction, they help explain why some participants remain willing to accumulate near specific long-horizon reference points.
With long-term holders accumulating quietly while near-term technicals and leverage maps warn of friction, the next macro prints and any follow-through from the Coldcard incident will likely determine whether August breaks from prior weakness—or extends it.
Traders should watch Thursday’s nonfarm payrolls for cues on rates and risk appetite, while also tracking whether Coldcard-related wallet activity continues to translate into exchange selling or stays contained to transaction-level spikes; the answer could shape how quickly Bitcoin sheds or absorbs this month’s technical pressure.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Week Ahead: US Signals Possible Yen Intervention on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy, the publicly traded Bitcoin holding company formerly known as MicroStrategy and led by chairman Michael Saylor, disclosed another sizable Bitcoin sale in an SEC filing. In the period from July 27 through Sunday, the company sold 1,638 BTC and used the proceeds to support capital-market obligations tied to its preferred stock financing structure.
According to the company’s Monday 8-K filing, the sale totaled $104.7 million at an average price of $63,957. Of that amount, $52.4 million was allocated to dividend payments on its STRC preferred stock, while $52.3 million funded STRC share repurchases.
Key takeaways
Strategy sold 1,638 Bitcoin from July 27 through Sunday, generating $104.7 million, per an SEC 8-K.
Dividend funding and STRC buybacks accounted for nearly all sale proceeds, underscoring how Bitcoin liquidity is being used to manage preferred-stock obligations.
The company says it now holds 842,138 BTC, bought at an aggregate cost of $63.5 billion.
Strategy also raised $290.6 million through MSTR share sales during the same period, increasing its US dollar reserve to $4 billion as of Sunday.
STRC trades below its $100 target value—something investors may watch because it can affect the attractiveness and efficiency of future STRC fundraising.
Bitcoin sales feed dividends and STRC repurchases
In the latest disclosure, Strategy characterized the July 27-to-Sunday transaction as one of its larger BTC sales for the year. The company’s filing indicates this was its second-largest Bitcoin sale of 2024.
Crucially, the proceeds were not used for general corporate purposes. Instead, they were split between two items linked to STRC: dividend payments on the preferred stock and STRC repurchases. Together, those allocations amounted to just over $104.7 million, leaving little room for other uses from this tranche.
Strategy’s total Bitcoin balance after the sale stands at 842,138 BTC, with the company reporting an aggregate acquisition cost of $63.5 billion.
How this compares with earlier reported BTC sales
The latest sale follows other previously disclosed events that frame Strategy’s approach to managing its capital structure.
Earlier coverage noted that Strategy sold 3,588 BTC for about $216 million on July 6. The company also disclosed that it sold 32 Bitcoin in early June—its first reported BTC sale since a 2022 tax-loss transaction.
While each sale reduces the company’s Bitcoin exposure, the repeated pattern of tying sale proceeds to STRC-related obligations suggests Strategy is treating Bitcoin liquidity as part of a broader financing and cash-management playbook rather than treating every sale as an isolated departure from its prior accumulation stance.
Cash buffer grows as USD reserve rises to $4 billion
Alongside the BTC sale disclosure, Strategy reported raising additional funds through MSTR share sales during the same period. According to the 8-K, it raised $290.6 million, with multiple allocations.
The filing states that $250 million of the MSTR proceeds was used to increase Strategy’s US dollar reserve, which stood at $4 billion as of Sunday. It also reports that $28.9 million funded STRC repurchases and $11.7 million was added to the company’s cash balance.
In a post on X on Monday, Michael Saylor said Strategy repurchased $81.2 million worth of STRC stock and extended its US dollar “runway” by 57 days to 2.3 years.
STRC trading below target and what that may imply
Strategy’s financing mechanism includes its perpetual preferred stock, STRC. Market data cited in the report suggests STRC was trading at $89.40 during Monday’s pre-market session, or about 10.6% below its $100 target value, according to Yahoo Finance data.
In the same period, the company’s common stock—MSTR—was indicated to have declined roughly 0.9% in pre-market trading, based on Yahoo Finance data referenced in the article.
Trading below STRC’s intended par has potential consequences for Strategy’s capital strategy. If STRC remains below target value, investors may view future fundraising through STRC sales as less efficient for Strategy—because selling preferred stock at a discount typically brings in fewer dollars per unit sold relative to the target. That, in turn, can increase the importance of the company’s dividend policy to attract buyers and provide support to STRC pricing.
Earlier comments from CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju had urged Strategy to pause Bitcoin purchases and replenish cash reserves after dividend coverage deteriorated. In a June 24 X post, Ju said the company should “pause Bitcoin purchases, rebuild cash reserves, and adopt a systematic framework for purchase timing.” Earlier reporting in the same context noted that dividend coverage had fallen to 14 months from seven years.
Strategy has previously responded to these concerns by laying out a framework for capital allocation. A June 29 8-K filing described a capital framework allowing Bitcoin sales to fund dividends, raised the annual dividend rate on STRC preferred stock to 12%, and disclosed that the US dollar reserve had grown to $2.55 billion.
What investors should watch next is whether the new $4 billion USD reserve and the disclosed approach—using Bitcoin sales to service STRC dividends and repurchases—continues alongside STRC trading conditions, particularly how far STRC remains below target and whether Strategy’s dividend and preferred-stock buyback activity accelerates or slows in subsequent filings.
This article was originally published as Strategy to Sell 1,638 Bitcoin for Dividends and STRC Buybacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.