Crypto Breaking
18.9k Posts
Crypto Breaking
Square Verified+Report
Block User
Get real-time cryptocurrency news, blockchain updates, market analysis, and expert insights. Explore the latest trends in Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, and Web3.
5 Following
32.8K+ Followers
31.5K+ Liked
Posts
All
Quotes
Article
Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par PriceStrategy’s preferred stock tracker, STRC, ended July trading well below its $100 par value, but management signaled that the company’s next preferred dividend rate will not rise. Executive chairman Michael Saylor said the August dividend will remain at 12%, continuing a payout level that was set after a June performance dip.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor confirmed the dividend will hold at 12% for August. He also noted the company will keep its semi-monthly payment cadence for the second straight month after shareholders approved that change in June, following the earlier decision to increase the dividend by 50 basis points to 12%.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s executive chairman said the August STRC dividend will remain at a 12% rate, not increase.
STRC has continued to trade below its $100 par value throughout July, despite a monthly price rebound that began after the June dividend hike.
Management reiterated a longer-term objective for STRC to trade near $99–$100, without specifying a timeline.
Strategy reported building a large cash reserve—cited as $3.75 billion—to support preferred stock payouts and related obligations.
Dividend holds at 12% as preferred shares stay below par
Although STRC shares did not reach par in July, the stock did gain momentum over the month. The shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, up 5.42% for the month that started with the dividend adjustment.
Earlier, management had lifted the dividend rate in response to weak performance in June—raising it by 50 basis points to 12%. After that change, Strategy’s preferred payout strategy moved toward semi-monthly distributions, a structure that takes effect for the second month in August after the June shareholder vote.
Trading activity on Friday was also notably lighter than typical: volume was about two-thirds of the Nasdaq-listed shares’ daily average, according to the figures referenced in the report. That detail matters because it suggests the month’s rebound did not coincide with a surge in participation, even as investors processed the dividend update.
Management’s $99–$100 target meets a lower-than-par reality
Even as the next dividend stays flat, Strategy’s leadership continues to frame STRC around a valuation target. On Friday, CEO Phong Le reiterated that management’s “corporate objective” is for STRC to trade at $99–$100 over time, without adding specifics on when that goal might be reached.
That position is important to read in context: shareholders were told the dividend rate would not increase in August, even after the company adjusted payouts earlier in the quarter. Investors looking for signals that STRC might close the gap toward par have therefore had to balance two competing inputs—management’s longer-term pricing objective and the near-term decision to keep the dividend at the same level.
Cash reserve and buybacks aimed at supporting payouts
While the dividend rate message was unchanged, Saylor’s social-media activity pointed to continued capital management efforts tied to Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury strategy. On Sunday, he posted “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” accompanied by a familiar chart of Strategy’s BTC buying activity as tracked by Saylortracker.com.
The emphasis on liquidity and coverage aligns with what Strategy disclosed in its latest reporting. The company recently reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven primarily by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings as the cryptocurrency’s price declined during the quarter.
Against that backdrop, Strategy said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve intended to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program. In the same vein, the company described a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve sufficient to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and related interest obligations.
Strategy also disclosed that it repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and said it intends to keep buying the securities while they trade below $100. For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: management is pairing a coverage plan with an active buyback strategy, presumably to reduce pressure on valuation while the preferred shares trade under par.
However, the gap between par value and the prevailing market price remains the key issue. Management’s stated intent to buy more when the shares trade below $100 suggests the company believes the market offers an entry point—but without a near-term dividend increase, investors will likely focus on whether buybacks and reserve policy can translate into sustained movement toward the $99–$100 trading range.
What to watch next for STRC holders
With the August dividend rate confirmed at 12% and STRC still trading below $100 par, the next signal for holders will likely come from any further updates on Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury actions and whether cash-reserve coverage and buybacks continue at a pace that supports improving market pricing. Investors should also watch whether management provides clearer timing around its $99–$100 objective, since it currently remains framed as a long-term goal rather than a defined schedule.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par Price on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par Price
Strategy’s preferred stock tracker, STRC, ended July trading well below its $100 par value, but management signaled that the company’s next preferred dividend rate will not rise. Executive chairman Michael Saylor said the August dividend will remain at 12%, continuing a payout level that was set after a June performance dip.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor confirmed the dividend will hold at 12% for August. He also noted the company will keep its semi-monthly payment cadence for the second straight month after shareholders approved that change in June, following the earlier decision to increase the dividend by 50 basis points to 12%.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s executive chairman said the August STRC dividend will remain at a 12% rate, not increase.
STRC has continued to trade below its $100 par value throughout July, despite a monthly price rebound that began after the June dividend hike.
Management reiterated a longer-term objective for STRC to trade near $99–$100, without specifying a timeline.
Strategy reported building a large cash reserve—cited as $3.75 billion—to support preferred stock payouts and related obligations.
Dividend holds at 12% as preferred shares stay below par
Although STRC shares did not reach par in July, the stock did gain momentum over the month. The shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, up 5.42% for the month that started with the dividend adjustment.
Earlier, management had lifted the dividend rate in response to weak performance in June—raising it by 50 basis points to 12%. After that change, Strategy’s preferred payout strategy moved toward semi-monthly distributions, a structure that takes effect for the second month in August after the June shareholder vote.
Trading activity on Friday was also notably lighter than typical: volume was about two-thirds of the Nasdaq-listed shares’ daily average, according to the figures referenced in the report. That detail matters because it suggests the month’s rebound did not coincide with a surge in participation, even as investors processed the dividend update.
Management’s $99–$100 target meets a lower-than-par reality
Even as the next dividend stays flat, Strategy’s leadership continues to frame STRC around a valuation target. On Friday, CEO Phong Le reiterated that management’s “corporate objective” is for STRC to trade at $99–$100 over time, without adding specifics on when that goal might be reached.
That position is important to read in context: shareholders were told the dividend rate would not increase in August, even after the company adjusted payouts earlier in the quarter. Investors looking for signals that STRC might close the gap toward par have therefore had to balance two competing inputs—management’s longer-term pricing objective and the near-term decision to keep the dividend at the same level.
Cash reserve and buybacks aimed at supporting payouts
While the dividend rate message was unchanged, Saylor’s social-media activity pointed to continued capital management efforts tied to Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury strategy. On Sunday, he posted “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” accompanied by a familiar chart of Strategy’s BTC buying activity as tracked by Saylortracker.com.
The emphasis on liquidity and coverage aligns with what Strategy disclosed in its latest reporting. The company recently reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven primarily by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings as the cryptocurrency’s price declined during the quarter.
Against that backdrop, Strategy said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve intended to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program. In the same vein, the company described a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve sufficient to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and related interest obligations.
Strategy also disclosed that it repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and said it intends to keep buying the securities while they trade below $100. For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: management is pairing a coverage plan with an active buyback strategy, presumably to reduce pressure on valuation while the preferred shares trade under par.
However, the gap between par value and the prevailing market price remains the key issue. Management’s stated intent to buy more when the shares trade below $100 suggests the company believes the market offers an entry point—but without a near-term dividend increase, investors will likely focus on whether buybacks and reserve policy can translate into sustained movement toward the $99–$100 trading range.
What to watch next for STRC holders
With the August dividend rate confirmed at 12% and STRC still trading below $100 par, the next signal for holders will likely come from any further updates on Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury actions and whether cash-reserve coverage and buybacks continue at a pace that supports improving market pricing. Investors should also watch whether management provides clearer timing around its $99–$100 objective, since it currently remains framed as a long-term goal rather than a defined schedule.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par Price on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor confirmed the dividend will hold at 12% for August. He also noted the company will keep its semi-monthly payment cadence for the second straight month after shareholders approved that change in June, following the earlier decision to increase the dividend by 50 basis points to 12%.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s executive chairman said the August STRC dividend will remain at a 12% rate, not increase.
STRC has continued to trade below its $100 par value throughout July, despite a monthly price rebound that began after the June dividend hike.
Management reiterated a longer-term objective for STRC to trade near $99–$100, without specifying a timeline.
Strategy reported building a large cash reserve—cited as $3.75 billion—to support preferred stock payouts and related obligations.
Dividend holds at 12% as preferred shares stay below par
Although STRC shares did not reach par in July, the stock did gain momentum over the month. The shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, up 5.42% for the month that started with the dividend adjustment.
Earlier, management had lifted the dividend rate in response to weak performance in June—raising it by 50 basis points to 12%. After that change, Strategy’s preferred payout strategy moved toward semi-monthly distributions, a structure that takes effect for the second month in August after the June shareholder vote.
Trading activity on Friday was also notably lighter than typical: volume was about two-thirds of the Nasdaq-listed shares’ daily average, according to the figures referenced in the report. That detail matters because it suggests the month’s rebound did not coincide with a surge in participation, even as investors processed the dividend update.
Management’s $99–$100 target meets a lower-than-par reality
Even as the next dividend stays flat, Strategy’s leadership continues to frame STRC around a valuation target. On Friday, CEO Phong Le reiterated that management’s “corporate objective” is for STRC to trade at $99–$100 over time, without adding specifics on when that goal might be reached.
That position is important to read in context: shareholders were told the dividend rate would not increase in August, even after the company adjusted payouts earlier in the quarter. Investors looking for signals that STRC might close the gap toward par have therefore had to balance two competing inputs—management’s longer-term pricing objective and the near-term decision to keep the dividend at the same level.
Cash reserve and buybacks aimed at supporting payouts
While the dividend rate message was unchanged, Saylor’s social-media activity pointed to continued capital management efforts tied to Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury strategy. On Sunday, he posted “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” accompanied by a familiar chart of Strategy’s BTC buying activity as tracked by Saylortracker.com.
The emphasis on liquidity and coverage aligns with what Strategy disclosed in its latest reporting. The company recently reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven primarily by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings as the cryptocurrency’s price declined during the quarter.
Against that backdrop, Strategy said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve intended to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program. In the same vein, the company described a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve sufficient to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and related interest obligations.
Strategy also disclosed that it repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and said it intends to keep buying the securities while they trade below $100. For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: management is pairing a coverage plan with an active buyback strategy, presumably to reduce pressure on valuation while the preferred shares trade under par.
However, the gap between par value and the prevailing market price remains the key issue. Management’s stated intent to buy more when the shares trade below $100 suggests the company believes the market offers an entry point—but without a near-term dividend increase, investors will likely focus on whether buybacks and reserve policy can translate into sustained movement toward the $99–$100 trading range.
What to watch next for STRC holders
With the August dividend rate confirmed at 12% and STRC still trading below $100 par, the next signal for holders will likely come from any further updates on Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury actions and whether cash-reserve coverage and buybacks continue at a pace that supports improving market pricing. Investors should also watch whether management provides clearer timing around its $99–$100 objective, since it currently remains framed as a long-term goal rather than a defined schedule.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par Price on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
48
Article
Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite DiscountStrategy CEO Michael Saylor told investors that the preferred dividend tied to Strategy’s STRC shares will stay at 12% for August, despite STRC trading well below its $100 par value through July.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor framed STRC as an income-oriented vehicle that he says can help investors “stretch your income,” while indicating that the semi-monthly dividend schedule approved earlier this year will continue. Strategy’s chief then reiterated a longer-term target price range for the preferred shares, even as market pricing suggests investors are still demanding a discount.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s STRC preferred dividend will remain at 12% for August, according to Michael Saylor.
August will mark the second month in a row that STRC dividends are paid semi-monthly, following a June shareholder vote.
STRC shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, trading below $100 par value throughout July.
Management has continued to state a corporate objective for STRC to reach and hold around $99–$100 over time.
Strategy says it has built a sizable cash reserve to fund preferred payouts as it monetizes Bitcoin.
Dividend guidance holds steady even as STRC trades at a discount
While Strategy’s STRC preferred shares ended July below their stated $100 par value, shareholders were told that the August dividend will not increase. Michael Saylor made that point in a Saturday X post, continuing the company’s pitch that STRC is designed to provide a steady income stream for investors.
The 12% dividend rate is not a one-off adjustment: it follows a dividend change earlier in the cycle. In June, Strategy shareholders approved changes that moved STRC to a semi-monthly payment cadence. As a result, August will be the second month that the dividend is paid on that more frequent schedule.
On the market side, STRC ended Friday at $89.46, up 5.42% for the month that began with a dividend increase. According to the article, the daily trading volume on Friday was about two-thirds of STRC’s usual daily average—suggesting participation was fairly active, but not at peak levels.
Management’s messaging has also stayed consistent with its longer-term plan. On Friday, Strategy CEO Phong Le reiterated that the company’s “corporate objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time,” without offering a specific timeline for when that target could be met.
Cash reserve strategy tied to Bitcoin treasury and preferred obligations
Beyond dividend arithmetic, the company’s stability message appears to be supported by its Bitcoin treasury and liquidity planning. Saylor posted on Sunday that “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” a phrase he used alongside a chart of Strategy’s BTC purchases from Saylortracker.com, signaling the company’s ongoing buying activity.
That matters because Strategy’s preferred dividend economics are linked to how it finances obligations while its Bitcoin holdings remain exposed to market volatility. Last week, Strategy reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, which the report attributed largely to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss tied to movements in the price of its Bitcoin holdings during the quarter.
Even with that drawdown, Strategy said it has built a cash reserve intended to help cover preferred stock payouts after the launch of its BTC monetization program. The figures cited in the article include a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve. Strategy also stated that the reserve is enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest obligations.
In practical terms, that guidance is meant to reduce concerns that near-term Bitcoin price fluctuations could immediately disrupt the dividend. Traders may still price STRC based on expected returns and relative risk, but a defined liquidity buffer can influence how investors interpret the sustainability of the payout.
Discount-to-par repurchases and the $99–$100 over-time goal
Another point investors are watching is how Strategy manages the preferred share discount. The article says Strategy recently repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and intends to continue buying the securities while they trade below $100.
This approach aligns with management’s public objective for STRC to trade closer to par over time. However, the market continues to price the shares significantly lower: with Friday’s close at $89.46, the gap to $100 remains substantial. That spread reflects uncertainty about timing—how quickly any pathway to par could play out, and whether dividends alone are enough to close the valuation gap.
Le’s repeated comment that the objective is $99–$100 over time, without specifying when, highlights the central tension: Strategy is emphasizing financial buffers and ongoing BTC-driven support, while the preferred market is still setting prices around a discount that persists through July.
Investors therefore have two parallel items to track. First is the dividend rate itself—now confirmed to stay at 12% for August. Second is whether Strategy’s buybacks and any treasury policy changes translate into steady demand for STRC preferred shares that could narrow the discount.
What to watch next for STRC holders
Going forward, STRC investors should monitor the next dividend payment cycle for August and pay close attention to whether Strategy follows through on continued preferred repurchases while the shares remain below par. At the same time, any updates related to “BTC monetization” and treasury allocation could influence how markets assess the company’s ability to fund preferred obligations during periods of Bitcoin volatility.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite Discount on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite Discount
Strategy CEO Michael Saylor told investors that the preferred dividend tied to Strategy’s STRC shares will stay at 12% for August, despite STRC trading well below its $100 par value through July.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor framed STRC as an income-oriented vehicle that he says can help investors “stretch your income,” while indicating that the semi-monthly dividend schedule approved earlier this year will continue. Strategy’s chief then reiterated a longer-term target price range for the preferred shares, even as market pricing suggests investors are still demanding a discount.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s STRC preferred dividend will remain at 12% for August, according to Michael Saylor.
August will mark the second month in a row that STRC dividends are paid semi-monthly, following a June shareholder vote.
STRC shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, trading below $100 par value throughout July.
Management has continued to state a corporate objective for STRC to reach and hold around $99–$100 over time.
Strategy says it has built a sizable cash reserve to fund preferred payouts as it monetizes Bitcoin.
Dividend guidance holds steady even as STRC trades at a discount
While Strategy’s STRC preferred shares ended July below their stated $100 par value, shareholders were told that the August dividend will not increase. Michael Saylor made that point in a Saturday X post, continuing the company’s pitch that STRC is designed to provide a steady income stream for investors.
The 12% dividend rate is not a one-off adjustment: it follows a dividend change earlier in the cycle. In June, Strategy shareholders approved changes that moved STRC to a semi-monthly payment cadence. As a result, August will be the second month that the dividend is paid on that more frequent schedule.
On the market side, STRC ended Friday at $89.46, up 5.42% for the month that began with a dividend increase. According to the article, the daily trading volume on Friday was about two-thirds of STRC’s usual daily average—suggesting participation was fairly active, but not at peak levels.
Management’s messaging has also stayed consistent with its longer-term plan. On Friday, Strategy CEO Phong Le reiterated that the company’s “corporate objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time,” without offering a specific timeline for when that target could be met.
Cash reserve strategy tied to Bitcoin treasury and preferred obligations
Beyond dividend arithmetic, the company’s stability message appears to be supported by its Bitcoin treasury and liquidity planning. Saylor posted on Sunday that “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” a phrase he used alongside a chart of Strategy’s BTC purchases from Saylortracker.com, signaling the company’s ongoing buying activity.
That matters because Strategy’s preferred dividend economics are linked to how it finances obligations while its Bitcoin holdings remain exposed to market volatility. Last week, Strategy reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, which the report attributed largely to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss tied to movements in the price of its Bitcoin holdings during the quarter.
Even with that drawdown, Strategy said it has built a cash reserve intended to help cover preferred stock payouts after the launch of its BTC monetization program. The figures cited in the article include a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve. Strategy also stated that the reserve is enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest obligations.
In practical terms, that guidance is meant to reduce concerns that near-term Bitcoin price fluctuations could immediately disrupt the dividend. Traders may still price STRC based on expected returns and relative risk, but a defined liquidity buffer can influence how investors interpret the sustainability of the payout.
Discount-to-par repurchases and the $99–$100 over-time goal
Another point investors are watching is how Strategy manages the preferred share discount. The article says Strategy recently repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and intends to continue buying the securities while they trade below $100.
This approach aligns with management’s public objective for STRC to trade closer to par over time. However, the market continues to price the shares significantly lower: with Friday’s close at $89.46, the gap to $100 remains substantial. That spread reflects uncertainty about timing—how quickly any pathway to par could play out, and whether dividends alone are enough to close the valuation gap.
Le’s repeated comment that the objective is $99–$100 over time, without specifying when, highlights the central tension: Strategy is emphasizing financial buffers and ongoing BTC-driven support, while the preferred market is still setting prices around a discount that persists through July.
Investors therefore have two parallel items to track. First is the dividend rate itself—now confirmed to stay at 12% for August. Second is whether Strategy’s buybacks and any treasury policy changes translate into steady demand for STRC preferred shares that could narrow the discount.
What to watch next for STRC holders
Going forward, STRC investors should monitor the next dividend payment cycle for August and pay close attention to whether Strategy follows through on continued preferred repurchases while the shares remain below par. At the same time, any updates related to “BTC monetization” and treasury allocation could influence how markets assess the company’s ability to fund preferred obligations during periods of Bitcoin volatility.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite Discount on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor framed STRC as an income-oriented vehicle that he says can help investors “stretch your income,” while indicating that the semi-monthly dividend schedule approved earlier this year will continue. Strategy’s chief then reiterated a longer-term target price range for the preferred shares, even as market pricing suggests investors are still demanding a discount.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s STRC preferred dividend will remain at 12% for August, according to Michael Saylor.
August will mark the second month in a row that STRC dividends are paid semi-monthly, following a June shareholder vote.
STRC shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, trading below $100 par value throughout July.
Management has continued to state a corporate objective for STRC to reach and hold around $99–$100 over time.
Strategy says it has built a sizable cash reserve to fund preferred payouts as it monetizes Bitcoin.
Dividend guidance holds steady even as STRC trades at a discount
While Strategy’s STRC preferred shares ended July below their stated $100 par value, shareholders were told that the August dividend will not increase. Michael Saylor made that point in a Saturday X post, continuing the company’s pitch that STRC is designed to provide a steady income stream for investors.
The 12% dividend rate is not a one-off adjustment: it follows a dividend change earlier in the cycle. In June, Strategy shareholders approved changes that moved STRC to a semi-monthly payment cadence. As a result, August will be the second month that the dividend is paid on that more frequent schedule.
On the market side, STRC ended Friday at $89.46, up 5.42% for the month that began with a dividend increase. According to the article, the daily trading volume on Friday was about two-thirds of STRC’s usual daily average—suggesting participation was fairly active, but not at peak levels.
Management’s messaging has also stayed consistent with its longer-term plan. On Friday, Strategy CEO Phong Le reiterated that the company’s “corporate objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time,” without offering a specific timeline for when that target could be met.
Cash reserve strategy tied to Bitcoin treasury and preferred obligations
Beyond dividend arithmetic, the company’s stability message appears to be supported by its Bitcoin treasury and liquidity planning. Saylor posted on Sunday that “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” a phrase he used alongside a chart of Strategy’s BTC purchases from Saylortracker.com, signaling the company’s ongoing buying activity.
That matters because Strategy’s preferred dividend economics are linked to how it finances obligations while its Bitcoin holdings remain exposed to market volatility. Last week, Strategy reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, which the report attributed largely to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss tied to movements in the price of its Bitcoin holdings during the quarter.
Even with that drawdown, Strategy said it has built a cash reserve intended to help cover preferred stock payouts after the launch of its BTC monetization program. The figures cited in the article include a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve. Strategy also stated that the reserve is enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest obligations.
In practical terms, that guidance is meant to reduce concerns that near-term Bitcoin price fluctuations could immediately disrupt the dividend. Traders may still price STRC based on expected returns and relative risk, but a defined liquidity buffer can influence how investors interpret the sustainability of the payout.
Discount-to-par repurchases and the $99–$100 over-time goal
Another point investors are watching is how Strategy manages the preferred share discount. The article says Strategy recently repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and intends to continue buying the securities while they trade below $100.
This approach aligns with management’s public objective for STRC to trade closer to par over time. However, the market continues to price the shares significantly lower: with Friday’s close at $89.46, the gap to $100 remains substantial. That spread reflects uncertainty about timing—how quickly any pathway to par could play out, and whether dividends alone are enough to close the valuation gap.
Le’s repeated comment that the objective is $99–$100 over time, without specifying when, highlights the central tension: Strategy is emphasizing financial buffers and ongoing BTC-driven support, while the preferred market is still setting prices around a discount that persists through July.
Investors therefore have two parallel items to track. First is the dividend rate itself—now confirmed to stay at 12% for August. Second is whether Strategy’s buybacks and any treasury policy changes translate into steady demand for STRC preferred shares that could narrow the discount.
What to watch next for STRC holders
Going forward, STRC investors should monitor the next dividend payment cycle for August and pay close attention to whether Strategy follows through on continued preferred repurchases while the shares remain below par. At the same time, any updates related to “BTC monetization” and treasury allocation could influence how markets assess the company’s ability to fund preferred obligations during periods of Bitcoin volatility.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite Discount on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
61
Article
Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6MBitcoin has seen a spike in very small transfers—moves of less than 1 BTC—that match the intensity last observed around the collapse of FTX. The renewed activity comes as researchers continue to track a suspected Coldcard wallet-related hack, underscoring how quickly users are reacting when self-custody tools appear compromised.
According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”
Key takeaways
Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.
Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era
While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.
The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.
Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.
Galaxy Research details additional theft wave
Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.
Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.
Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.
“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.
The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.
Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”
The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.
Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.
In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.
What to watch next
With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M
Bitcoin has seen a spike in very small transfers—moves of less than 1 BTC—that match the intensity last observed around the collapse of FTX. The renewed activity comes as researchers continue to track a suspected Coldcard wallet-related hack, underscoring how quickly users are reacting when self-custody tools appear compromised.
According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”
Key takeaways
Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.
Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era
While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.
The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.
Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.
Galaxy Research details additional theft wave
Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.
Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.
Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.
“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.
The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.
Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”
The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.
Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.
In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.
What to watch next
With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”
Key takeaways
Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.
Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era
While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.
The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.
Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.
Galaxy Research details additional theft wave
Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.
Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.
Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.
“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.
The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.
Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”
The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.
Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.
In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.
What to watch next
With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
174
Article
Trump Media Moves 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com, Wallet Drops to 4,261Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company behind the Truth Social platform, has continued trimming its Bitcoin exposure, according to on-chain tracking shared by Lookonchain. The latest activity adds to a months-long pattern of sales that have significantly reduced the company’s reported BTC balance.
In transfers identified by Lookonchain using Arkham data, Trump Media-linked wallets sent 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com. The move is reported to be worth roughly $165 million, extending a selling cycle that began about seven months ago.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets reportedly transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165M) to Crypto.com, per Lookonchain’s analysis of Arkham data.
Lookonchain estimates Trump Media has sold a total of 7,281 BTC over the past seven months, worth roughly $545M.
Arkham wallet data cited by Lookonchain shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC, worth about $269.8M at the time of reporting.
Current scrutiny is taking place alongside broader legislative debate over the CLARITY Act, which has drawn attention for its ethics provisions around digital asset activity.
New Crypto.com transfers cut into remaining Bitcoin
Lookonchain reported that Trump Media has executed another batch of Bitcoin sales via transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis attributes the transactions to Trump Media-linked wallets and cites Arkham’s wallet and transaction information.
In this most recent set of moves, Arkham data referenced by Lookonchain points to two transfers: one for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC.
Taken together, Lookonchain said these transfers total 2,628 BTC, valued at about $165 million based on the prevailing price assumptions used in its reporting. This latest reduction follows earlier transfers to Crypto.com reported on May 22, when the company-linked wallets moved a combined 2,650 BTC, worth roughly $205 million.
Seven-month selling spree shrinks reported holdings
Lookonchain frames the most recent transfer as the continuation of a broader liquidation strategy. The tracker said Trump Media purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before beginning to sell portions of its holdings around seven months ago.
Based on the same dataset, Lookonchain estimates cumulative sales of 7,281 BTC over that period, worth approximately $545 million. The analysis also calculates an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC for those transactions.
After the latest outflows, Arkham data referenced in the report indicates Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings stand at 4,261 BTC, valued at about $269.8 million at the time of publication. That implies the company’s reported BTC balance has fallen by roughly 63% compared with the initial purchase total cited by Lookonchain.
Why the timing matters amid ethics and ownership debates
Beyond the on-chain mechanics, the sales arrive as lawmakers debate the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal that has attracted scrutiny for its approach to ethics rules and the question of whether officials’ digital asset activity could create conflicts of interest.
Critics have pointed to a range of Trump-linked crypto initiatives discussed in the broader public policy debate, including memecoins such as Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA), as well as World Liberty Financial’s governance token WLFI and a USD1 stablecoin. The controversy centers on the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings or products.
Recent CLARITY Act discussions, as described in coverage referenced by Cointelegraph, have focused on tightening ethics provisions—particularly rules governing when officials could issue or sponsor digital assets. However, as the source notes, the legislation remains under consideration and does not mandate that companies sell existing holdings.
That distinction is important for investors and compliance watchers: even if a law ultimately changes future behavior for officials or connected entities, it may not retroactively affect the ability of companies to keep, liquidate, or otherwise manage already-held crypto.
What to watch next for Trump Media-linked wallets
For market participants, the key signal in this story is not simply that Bitcoin is being sold, but how steadily it is being done and through which counterparties—here, Crypto.com—based on wallet and transaction clustering reported through Arkham data by Lookonchain.
Readers should watch for whether additional transfers continue to appear from the same Trump Media-linked wallet set, and whether the remaining 4,261 BTC balance changes further. At the same time, political and regulatory attention around the CLARITY Act suggests that disclosure, governance, and ethics standards for digital asset participation may remain a live topic even if near-term changes do not compel immediate sales.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Moves 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com, Wallet Drops to 4,261 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Trump Media Moves 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com, Wallet Drops to 4,261
Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company behind the Truth Social platform, has continued trimming its Bitcoin exposure, according to on-chain tracking shared by Lookonchain. The latest activity adds to a months-long pattern of sales that have significantly reduced the company’s reported BTC balance.
In transfers identified by Lookonchain using Arkham data, Trump Media-linked wallets sent 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com. The move is reported to be worth roughly $165 million, extending a selling cycle that began about seven months ago.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets reportedly transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165M) to Crypto.com, per Lookonchain’s analysis of Arkham data.
Lookonchain estimates Trump Media has sold a total of 7,281 BTC over the past seven months, worth roughly $545M.
Arkham wallet data cited by Lookonchain shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC, worth about $269.8M at the time of reporting.
Current scrutiny is taking place alongside broader legislative debate over the CLARITY Act, which has drawn attention for its ethics provisions around digital asset activity.
New Crypto.com transfers cut into remaining Bitcoin
Lookonchain reported that Trump Media has executed another batch of Bitcoin sales via transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis attributes the transactions to Trump Media-linked wallets and cites Arkham’s wallet and transaction information.
In this most recent set of moves, Arkham data referenced by Lookonchain points to two transfers: one for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC.
Taken together, Lookonchain said these transfers total 2,628 BTC, valued at about $165 million based on the prevailing price assumptions used in its reporting. This latest reduction follows earlier transfers to Crypto.com reported on May 22, when the company-linked wallets moved a combined 2,650 BTC, worth roughly $205 million.
Seven-month selling spree shrinks reported holdings
Lookonchain frames the most recent transfer as the continuation of a broader liquidation strategy. The tracker said Trump Media purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before beginning to sell portions of its holdings around seven months ago.
Based on the same dataset, Lookonchain estimates cumulative sales of 7,281 BTC over that period, worth approximately $545 million. The analysis also calculates an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC for those transactions.
After the latest outflows, Arkham data referenced in the report indicates Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings stand at 4,261 BTC, valued at about $269.8 million at the time of publication. That implies the company’s reported BTC balance has fallen by roughly 63% compared with the initial purchase total cited by Lookonchain.
Why the timing matters amid ethics and ownership debates
Beyond the on-chain mechanics, the sales arrive as lawmakers debate the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal that has attracted scrutiny for its approach to ethics rules and the question of whether officials’ digital asset activity could create conflicts of interest.
Critics have pointed to a range of Trump-linked crypto initiatives discussed in the broader public policy debate, including memecoins such as Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA), as well as World Liberty Financial’s governance token WLFI and a USD1 stablecoin. The controversy centers on the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings or products.
Recent CLARITY Act discussions, as described in coverage referenced by Cointelegraph, have focused on tightening ethics provisions—particularly rules governing when officials could issue or sponsor digital assets. However, as the source notes, the legislation remains under consideration and does not mandate that companies sell existing holdings.
That distinction is important for investors and compliance watchers: even if a law ultimately changes future behavior for officials or connected entities, it may not retroactively affect the ability of companies to keep, liquidate, or otherwise manage already-held crypto.
What to watch next for Trump Media-linked wallets
For market participants, the key signal in this story is not simply that Bitcoin is being sold, but how steadily it is being done and through which counterparties—here, Crypto.com—based on wallet and transaction clustering reported through Arkham data by Lookonchain.
Readers should watch for whether additional transfers continue to appear from the same Trump Media-linked wallet set, and whether the remaining 4,261 BTC balance changes further. At the same time, political and regulatory attention around the CLARITY Act suggests that disclosure, governance, and ethics standards for digital asset participation may remain a live topic even if near-term changes do not compel immediate sales.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Moves 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com, Wallet Drops to 4,261 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In transfers identified by Lookonchain using Arkham data, Trump Media-linked wallets sent 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com. The move is reported to be worth roughly $165 million, extending a selling cycle that began about seven months ago.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets reportedly transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165M) to Crypto.com, per Lookonchain’s analysis of Arkham data.
Lookonchain estimates Trump Media has sold a total of 7,281 BTC over the past seven months, worth roughly $545M.
Arkham wallet data cited by Lookonchain shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC, worth about $269.8M at the time of reporting.
Current scrutiny is taking place alongside broader legislative debate over the CLARITY Act, which has drawn attention for its ethics provisions around digital asset activity.
New Crypto.com transfers cut into remaining Bitcoin
Lookonchain reported that Trump Media has executed another batch of Bitcoin sales via transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis attributes the transactions to Trump Media-linked wallets and cites Arkham’s wallet and transaction information.
In this most recent set of moves, Arkham data referenced by Lookonchain points to two transfers: one for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC.
Taken together, Lookonchain said these transfers total 2,628 BTC, valued at about $165 million based on the prevailing price assumptions used in its reporting. This latest reduction follows earlier transfers to Crypto.com reported on May 22, when the company-linked wallets moved a combined 2,650 BTC, worth roughly $205 million.
Seven-month selling spree shrinks reported holdings
Lookonchain frames the most recent transfer as the continuation of a broader liquidation strategy. The tracker said Trump Media purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before beginning to sell portions of its holdings around seven months ago.
Based on the same dataset, Lookonchain estimates cumulative sales of 7,281 BTC over that period, worth approximately $545 million. The analysis also calculates an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC for those transactions.
After the latest outflows, Arkham data referenced in the report indicates Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings stand at 4,261 BTC, valued at about $269.8 million at the time of publication. That implies the company’s reported BTC balance has fallen by roughly 63% compared with the initial purchase total cited by Lookonchain.
Why the timing matters amid ethics and ownership debates
Beyond the on-chain mechanics, the sales arrive as lawmakers debate the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal that has attracted scrutiny for its approach to ethics rules and the question of whether officials’ digital asset activity could create conflicts of interest.
Critics have pointed to a range of Trump-linked crypto initiatives discussed in the broader public policy debate, including memecoins such as Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA), as well as World Liberty Financial’s governance token WLFI and a USD1 stablecoin. The controversy centers on the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings or products.
Recent CLARITY Act discussions, as described in coverage referenced by Cointelegraph, have focused on tightening ethics provisions—particularly rules governing when officials could issue or sponsor digital assets. However, as the source notes, the legislation remains under consideration and does not mandate that companies sell existing holdings.
That distinction is important for investors and compliance watchers: even if a law ultimately changes future behavior for officials or connected entities, it may not retroactively affect the ability of companies to keep, liquidate, or otherwise manage already-held crypto.
What to watch next for Trump Media-linked wallets
For market participants, the key signal in this story is not simply that Bitcoin is being sold, but how steadily it is being done and through which counterparties—here, Crypto.com—based on wallet and transaction clustering reported through Arkham data by Lookonchain.
Readers should watch for whether additional transfers continue to appear from the same Trump Media-linked wallet set, and whether the remaining 4,261 BTC balance changes further. At the same time, political and regulatory attention around the CLARITY Act suggests that disclosure, governance, and ethics standards for digital asset participation may remain a live topic even if near-term changes do not compel immediate sales.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Moves 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com, Wallet Drops to 4,261 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
112
Article
Trump Media Cuts Another 2,628 BTC; Wallet Drops to 4,261 BTCTrump Media & Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, has continued to reduce its reported Bitcoin exposure with another batch of transfers to exchange infrastructure. According to Lookonchain, the company sold 2,628 BTC—valued at roughly $165 million at the time of the transfers—via movements to Crypto.com, based on blockchain data compiled from Arkham.
The latest activity adds to a broader pattern of selling observed over the past seven months, shrinking the company’s reported holdings and feeding into ongoing political scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto projects and the ethics questions surrounding digital asset ownership.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165 million) to Crypto.com, according to Lookonchain’s analysis using Arkham data.
Over the past seven months, reported Bitcoin sales total 7,281 BTC (about $545 million), per Lookonchain.
Arkham wallet data shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC (worth about $269.8 million at the time of reporting).
Recent transfers include an Arkham-documented transaction for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC moving to Crypto.com.
The selling comes amid congressional discussion of the CLARITY Act, which targets ethics and digital asset rules but does not compel companies to liquidate existing holdings.
Another Crypto.com-linked transfer reduces reported BTC
In a Sunday post on X, Lookonchain said Trump Media sold 2,628 BTC through transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis was based on on-chain visibility attributed to Trump Media-linked entities, with Arkham used as the data layer for identifying the wallet activity.
Lookonchain further reported that Trump Media had purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before starting to sell portions of its holdings about seven months prior to the latest transactions.
How much Bitcoin has been sold—and what remains
Lookonchain’s tally places total reported sales over the same seven-month window at 7,281 BTC, valued around $545 million, with an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC based on its methodology.
Arkham’s wallet figures cited by the analysis indicate that Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings were 4,261 BTC at the time of publication, worth approximately $269.8 million.
The most recent movements to Crypto.com, according to Arkham wallet data referenced in the report, included two notable transfers: one transaction of 2,429 BTC and another of 198.9 BTC. These transfers follow earlier activity that Lookonchain linked to the same selling program, including two movements recorded on May 22 totaling 2,650 BTC (worth about $205 million at the time).
Why repeated selling matters for investors watching disclosures
For market participants, the practical significance of these transactions is less about the immediate price impact of any single sale and more about consistency, transparency, and how quickly a large holder can reduce exposure. When a corporate-linked balance sheet shows continued liquidation of a major volatile asset like Bitcoin, investors often interpret it as a shift in treasury strategy, liquidity planning, or a risk-management decision.
Just as importantly, the reported activity draws attention to how on-chain transfers by identifiable entities can affect expectations around future flows. If more transfers to exchange-linked addresses continue, traders may look for repeated liquidity events that can complicate execution for both spot and derivatives participants—particularly if the market perceives the sales as part of a longer unwinding rather than one-off diversification.
CLARITY Act debate keeps ethics questions in focus
Beyond the on-chain movements, the latest Bitcoin sales land at a time when lawmakers are weighing the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. In the broader debate, attention has turned to ethics provisions, conflicts of interest, and how public officials should handle relationships with digital asset issuers and related ventures.
Critics have pointed to a cluster of Trump-linked crypto interests discussed in policy circles, including the Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA) memecoins, as well as World Liberty Financial’s WLFI governance token and USD1 stablecoin. The issue raised by opponents is the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings—particularly where governance or issuance incentives could be perceived as benefiting affiliated interests.
While current CLARITY Act discussions have focused on tightening ethics rules—such as restrictions on officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets—the legislation remains under consideration and, according to the report’s framing, does not require companies to sell existing crypto holdings.
That distinction is likely to matter in how the market interprets these developments. Even if policymakers move toward stricter disclosure or conflict-of-interest standards, treasury actions already in motion—like the sell-through described by Lookonchain and supported by Arkham wallet data—may continue on a timetable driven by corporate liquidity decisions rather than by immediate regulatory requirements.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for whether additional exchange-linked transfers continue from the same Trump Media-linked wallets and whether lawmakers’ CLARITY Act deliberations progress in a way that clarifies disclosure and ethics obligations for officials and affiliated entities. Until then, the main signal remains the on-chain pattern: reported Bitcoin balances appear to be shrinking in measured batches, supported by repeated wallet movements documented through Arkham and aggregated by Lookonchain.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Cuts Another 2,628 BTC; Wallet Drops to 4,261 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Trump Media Cuts Another 2,628 BTC; Wallet Drops to 4,261 BTC
Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, has continued to reduce its reported Bitcoin exposure with another batch of transfers to exchange infrastructure. According to Lookonchain, the company sold 2,628 BTC—valued at roughly $165 million at the time of the transfers—via movements to Crypto.com, based on blockchain data compiled from Arkham.
The latest activity adds to a broader pattern of selling observed over the past seven months, shrinking the company’s reported holdings and feeding into ongoing political scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto projects and the ethics questions surrounding digital asset ownership.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165 million) to Crypto.com, according to Lookonchain’s analysis using Arkham data.
Over the past seven months, reported Bitcoin sales total 7,281 BTC (about $545 million), per Lookonchain.
Arkham wallet data shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC (worth about $269.8 million at the time of reporting).
Recent transfers include an Arkham-documented transaction for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC moving to Crypto.com.
The selling comes amid congressional discussion of the CLARITY Act, which targets ethics and digital asset rules but does not compel companies to liquidate existing holdings.
Another Crypto.com-linked transfer reduces reported BTC
In a Sunday post on X, Lookonchain said Trump Media sold 2,628 BTC through transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis was based on on-chain visibility attributed to Trump Media-linked entities, with Arkham used as the data layer for identifying the wallet activity.
Lookonchain further reported that Trump Media had purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before starting to sell portions of its holdings about seven months prior to the latest transactions.
How much Bitcoin has been sold—and what remains
Lookonchain’s tally places total reported sales over the same seven-month window at 7,281 BTC, valued around $545 million, with an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC based on its methodology.
Arkham’s wallet figures cited by the analysis indicate that Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings were 4,261 BTC at the time of publication, worth approximately $269.8 million.
The most recent movements to Crypto.com, according to Arkham wallet data referenced in the report, included two notable transfers: one transaction of 2,429 BTC and another of 198.9 BTC. These transfers follow earlier activity that Lookonchain linked to the same selling program, including two movements recorded on May 22 totaling 2,650 BTC (worth about $205 million at the time).
Why repeated selling matters for investors watching disclosures
For market participants, the practical significance of these transactions is less about the immediate price impact of any single sale and more about consistency, transparency, and how quickly a large holder can reduce exposure. When a corporate-linked balance sheet shows continued liquidation of a major volatile asset like Bitcoin, investors often interpret it as a shift in treasury strategy, liquidity planning, or a risk-management decision.
Just as importantly, the reported activity draws attention to how on-chain transfers by identifiable entities can affect expectations around future flows. If more transfers to exchange-linked addresses continue, traders may look for repeated liquidity events that can complicate execution for both spot and derivatives participants—particularly if the market perceives the sales as part of a longer unwinding rather than one-off diversification.
CLARITY Act debate keeps ethics questions in focus
Beyond the on-chain movements, the latest Bitcoin sales land at a time when lawmakers are weighing the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. In the broader debate, attention has turned to ethics provisions, conflicts of interest, and how public officials should handle relationships with digital asset issuers and related ventures.
Critics have pointed to a cluster of Trump-linked crypto interests discussed in policy circles, including the Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA) memecoins, as well as World Liberty Financial’s WLFI governance token and USD1 stablecoin. The issue raised by opponents is the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings—particularly where governance or issuance incentives could be perceived as benefiting affiliated interests.
While current CLARITY Act discussions have focused on tightening ethics rules—such as restrictions on officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets—the legislation remains under consideration and, according to the report’s framing, does not require companies to sell existing crypto holdings.
That distinction is likely to matter in how the market interprets these developments. Even if policymakers move toward stricter disclosure or conflict-of-interest standards, treasury actions already in motion—like the sell-through described by Lookonchain and supported by Arkham wallet data—may continue on a timetable driven by corporate liquidity decisions rather than by immediate regulatory requirements.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for whether additional exchange-linked transfers continue from the same Trump Media-linked wallets and whether lawmakers’ CLARITY Act deliberations progress in a way that clarifies disclosure and ethics obligations for officials and affiliated entities. Until then, the main signal remains the on-chain pattern: reported Bitcoin balances appear to be shrinking in measured batches, supported by repeated wallet movements documented through Arkham and aggregated by Lookonchain.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Cuts Another 2,628 BTC; Wallet Drops to 4,261 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The latest activity adds to a broader pattern of selling observed over the past seven months, shrinking the company’s reported holdings and feeding into ongoing political scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto projects and the ethics questions surrounding digital asset ownership.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165 million) to Crypto.com, according to Lookonchain’s analysis using Arkham data.
Over the past seven months, reported Bitcoin sales total 7,281 BTC (about $545 million), per Lookonchain.
Arkham wallet data shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC (worth about $269.8 million at the time of reporting).
Recent transfers include an Arkham-documented transaction for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC moving to Crypto.com.
The selling comes amid congressional discussion of the CLARITY Act, which targets ethics and digital asset rules but does not compel companies to liquidate existing holdings.
Another Crypto.com-linked transfer reduces reported BTC
In a Sunday post on X, Lookonchain said Trump Media sold 2,628 BTC through transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis was based on on-chain visibility attributed to Trump Media-linked entities, with Arkham used as the data layer for identifying the wallet activity.
Lookonchain further reported that Trump Media had purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before starting to sell portions of its holdings about seven months prior to the latest transactions.
How much Bitcoin has been sold—and what remains
Lookonchain’s tally places total reported sales over the same seven-month window at 7,281 BTC, valued around $545 million, with an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC based on its methodology.
Arkham’s wallet figures cited by the analysis indicate that Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings were 4,261 BTC at the time of publication, worth approximately $269.8 million.
The most recent movements to Crypto.com, according to Arkham wallet data referenced in the report, included two notable transfers: one transaction of 2,429 BTC and another of 198.9 BTC. These transfers follow earlier activity that Lookonchain linked to the same selling program, including two movements recorded on May 22 totaling 2,650 BTC (worth about $205 million at the time).
Why repeated selling matters for investors watching disclosures
For market participants, the practical significance of these transactions is less about the immediate price impact of any single sale and more about consistency, transparency, and how quickly a large holder can reduce exposure. When a corporate-linked balance sheet shows continued liquidation of a major volatile asset like Bitcoin, investors often interpret it as a shift in treasury strategy, liquidity planning, or a risk-management decision.
Just as importantly, the reported activity draws attention to how on-chain transfers by identifiable entities can affect expectations around future flows. If more transfers to exchange-linked addresses continue, traders may look for repeated liquidity events that can complicate execution for both spot and derivatives participants—particularly if the market perceives the sales as part of a longer unwinding rather than one-off diversification.
CLARITY Act debate keeps ethics questions in focus
Beyond the on-chain movements, the latest Bitcoin sales land at a time when lawmakers are weighing the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. In the broader debate, attention has turned to ethics provisions, conflicts of interest, and how public officials should handle relationships with digital asset issuers and related ventures.
Critics have pointed to a cluster of Trump-linked crypto interests discussed in policy circles, including the Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA) memecoins, as well as World Liberty Financial’s WLFI governance token and USD1 stablecoin. The issue raised by opponents is the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings—particularly where governance or issuance incentives could be perceived as benefiting affiliated interests.
While current CLARITY Act discussions have focused on tightening ethics rules—such as restrictions on officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets—the legislation remains under consideration and, according to the report’s framing, does not require companies to sell existing crypto holdings.
That distinction is likely to matter in how the market interprets these developments. Even if policymakers move toward stricter disclosure or conflict-of-interest standards, treasury actions already in motion—like the sell-through described by Lookonchain and supported by Arkham wallet data—may continue on a timetable driven by corporate liquidity decisions rather than by immediate regulatory requirements.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for whether additional exchange-linked transfers continue from the same Trump Media-linked wallets and whether lawmakers’ CLARITY Act deliberations progress in a way that clarifies disclosure and ethics obligations for officials and affiliated entities. Until then, the main signal remains the on-chain pattern: reported Bitcoin balances appear to be shrinking in measured batches, supported by repeated wallet movements documented through Arkham and aggregated by Lookonchain.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Cuts Another 2,628 BTC; Wallet Drops to 4,261 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
191
Article
Coldcard Hack Triggers Largest Sub-1 BTC Shift Since FTX, CryptoQuantBitcoin appears to be seeing a renewed pattern of rapid, smaller transfers—an on-chain behavior not observed at similar levels since the immediate aftermath of the FTX collapse. On Friday, transfers below 1 BTC surged to the highest daily level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, according to research shared by CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno on Saturday.
Moreno’s comparison is stark: the figure sat just 300 BTC under the 39,900 BTC moved on Nov. 16, 2022, days after FTX filed for bankruptcy. “The Bitcoin plebs had not moved this amount of BTC in a day since the FTX collapse,” Moreno said, adding that he viewed the uptick as encouraging activity rather than passive exposure.
Key takeaways
Daily transfers under 1 BTC reached 39,600 BTC, the highest since November 2022, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard hack added a further 207.7 BTC drained from victim addresses, pushing estimated losses higher.
Galaxy reports cumulative figures of 1,367 BTC estimated losses across 4,585 addresses tied to the incident.
Executives and researchers are using the event to renew debate over whether self-custody is safer than third-party custody.
Smaller transfers spike as users react
Moreno’s data focuses on movement of less than 1 BTC at a time—a slice of network activity often associated with people reallocating funds quickly rather than executing large, institutional transactions. Reaching levels last seen in late 2022 suggests heightened urgency across segments of the market.
The timing aligns with an ongoing suspected Coldcard hack, which first came into view in late July. As new victims were reportedly identified, the incident has increasingly framed itself as a stress test for how quickly users can respond when self-custody systems are believed to generate compromised receiving addresses.
Galaxy Research tracks additional drained funds
While on-chain movement is one signal, Galaxy Research says the theft itself has continued in identifiable stages. In a report posted Saturday, Galaxy Research said it observed an additional attack wave that drained 207.7 BTC—worth about $13.2 million at the time of reporting.
With that update, Galaxy Research estimated total losses at 1,367 BTC (about $88.6 million), across 4,585 addresses. The firm’s tracking also indicates the attackers’ activity is not a one-off event, but an evolving process with multiple waves that continue to surface as investigators connect addresses to victims.
Galaxy Research’s post also referenced the continuing discovery of new addresses tied to the suspected scheme, reinforcing the idea that the full scope may still be expanding as researchers refine their identification methods.
Attack still ongoing, warning to move funds
Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Digital, warned in an X post on Sunday that the attack was still ongoing. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn said his team continued to identify both victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also added that reports from users were helping investigators and authorities track the stolen funds—highlighting the role of community reporting alongside on-chain analysis.
The repeated “ongoing” language matters for users because it suggests the situation is dynamic: even if some victims have already moved funds, more affected addresses may still be discovered. That is also consistent with the broader pattern reflected in the day’s spike in small transfers.
Self-custody debate resurfaces
The suspected Coldcard hack has renewed debate over the safety and practicality of Bitcoin self-custody—one of the sector’s foundational principles that allows users to control funds without depending on centralized intermediaries.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that self-custody is “over.” Neuman argued that self-custody’s distributed nature provides users with time to react once suspicious activity becomes apparent. He also said he “estimated” that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
The exchange also drew responses from people more aligned with traditional finance. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued on X that Bitcoin ETFs may offer a safer and more convenient route for many investors, citing the longer operating history of the ETF industry.
Not everyone agreed with that framing. Other observers suggested the incident should be viewed as a failure attributable to a wallet provider rather than as evidence that self-custody as a concept is fundamentally broken—an important distinction for readers assessing risk.
In practical terms, the disagreement reflects two realities that can coexist: individual wallet implementations can fail, while self-custody still reduces reliance on centralized exchanges. The Coldcard case, as described through public tracking, becomes a test of how resilient users are when compromised address generation is detected and when timely migration is possible.
What investors should watch next
Watch for two signals in the coming days: whether the number of newly identified victim addresses continues to grow (which would imply the blast radius is still being uncovered), and whether the elevated level of small transfers under 1 BTC sustains or fades as affected users complete migration. The more those patterns stabilize, the clearer it will become whether the incident is trending toward containment or still expanding.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Triggers Largest Sub-1 BTC Shift Since FTX, CryptoQuant on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Coldcard Hack Triggers Largest Sub-1 BTC Shift Since FTX, CryptoQuant
Bitcoin appears to be seeing a renewed pattern of rapid, smaller transfers—an on-chain behavior not observed at similar levels since the immediate aftermath of the FTX collapse. On Friday, transfers below 1 BTC surged to the highest daily level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, according to research shared by CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno on Saturday.
Moreno’s comparison is stark: the figure sat just 300 BTC under the 39,900 BTC moved on Nov. 16, 2022, days after FTX filed for bankruptcy. “The Bitcoin plebs had not moved this amount of BTC in a day since the FTX collapse,” Moreno said, adding that he viewed the uptick as encouraging activity rather than passive exposure.
Key takeaways
Daily transfers under 1 BTC reached 39,600 BTC, the highest since November 2022, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard hack added a further 207.7 BTC drained from victim addresses, pushing estimated losses higher.
Galaxy reports cumulative figures of 1,367 BTC estimated losses across 4,585 addresses tied to the incident.
Executives and researchers are using the event to renew debate over whether self-custody is safer than third-party custody.
Smaller transfers spike as users react
Moreno’s data focuses on movement of less than 1 BTC at a time—a slice of network activity often associated with people reallocating funds quickly rather than executing large, institutional transactions. Reaching levels last seen in late 2022 suggests heightened urgency across segments of the market.
The timing aligns with an ongoing suspected Coldcard hack, which first came into view in late July. As new victims were reportedly identified, the incident has increasingly framed itself as a stress test for how quickly users can respond when self-custody systems are believed to generate compromised receiving addresses.
Galaxy Research tracks additional drained funds
While on-chain movement is one signal, Galaxy Research says the theft itself has continued in identifiable stages. In a report posted Saturday, Galaxy Research said it observed an additional attack wave that drained 207.7 BTC—worth about $13.2 million at the time of reporting.
With that update, Galaxy Research estimated total losses at 1,367 BTC (about $88.6 million), across 4,585 addresses. The firm’s tracking also indicates the attackers’ activity is not a one-off event, but an evolving process with multiple waves that continue to surface as investigators connect addresses to victims.
Galaxy Research’s post also referenced the continuing discovery of new addresses tied to the suspected scheme, reinforcing the idea that the full scope may still be expanding as researchers refine their identification methods.
Attack still ongoing, warning to move funds
Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Digital, warned in an X post on Sunday that the attack was still ongoing. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn said his team continued to identify both victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also added that reports from users were helping investigators and authorities track the stolen funds—highlighting the role of community reporting alongside on-chain analysis.
The repeated “ongoing” language matters for users because it suggests the situation is dynamic: even if some victims have already moved funds, more affected addresses may still be discovered. That is also consistent with the broader pattern reflected in the day’s spike in small transfers.
Self-custody debate resurfaces
The suspected Coldcard hack has renewed debate over the safety and practicality of Bitcoin self-custody—one of the sector’s foundational principles that allows users to control funds without depending on centralized intermediaries.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that self-custody is “over.” Neuman argued that self-custody’s distributed nature provides users with time to react once suspicious activity becomes apparent. He also said he “estimated” that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
The exchange also drew responses from people more aligned with traditional finance. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued on X that Bitcoin ETFs may offer a safer and more convenient route for many investors, citing the longer operating history of the ETF industry.
Not everyone agreed with that framing. Other observers suggested the incident should be viewed as a failure attributable to a wallet provider rather than as evidence that self-custody as a concept is fundamentally broken—an important distinction for readers assessing risk.
In practical terms, the disagreement reflects two realities that can coexist: individual wallet implementations can fail, while self-custody still reduces reliance on centralized exchanges. The Coldcard case, as described through public tracking, becomes a test of how resilient users are when compromised address generation is detected and when timely migration is possible.
What investors should watch next
Watch for two signals in the coming days: whether the number of newly identified victim addresses continues to grow (which would imply the blast radius is still being uncovered), and whether the elevated level of small transfers under 1 BTC sustains or fades as affected users complete migration. The more those patterns stabilize, the clearer it will become whether the incident is trending toward containment or still expanding.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Triggers Largest Sub-1 BTC Shift Since FTX, CryptoQuant on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Moreno’s comparison is stark: the figure sat just 300 BTC under the 39,900 BTC moved on Nov. 16, 2022, days after FTX filed for bankruptcy. “The Bitcoin plebs had not moved this amount of BTC in a day since the FTX collapse,” Moreno said, adding that he viewed the uptick as encouraging activity rather than passive exposure.
Key takeaways
Daily transfers under 1 BTC reached 39,600 BTC, the highest since November 2022, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard hack added a further 207.7 BTC drained from victim addresses, pushing estimated losses higher.
Galaxy reports cumulative figures of 1,367 BTC estimated losses across 4,585 addresses tied to the incident.
Executives and researchers are using the event to renew debate over whether self-custody is safer than third-party custody.
Smaller transfers spike as users react
Moreno’s data focuses on movement of less than 1 BTC at a time—a slice of network activity often associated with people reallocating funds quickly rather than executing large, institutional transactions. Reaching levels last seen in late 2022 suggests heightened urgency across segments of the market.
The timing aligns with an ongoing suspected Coldcard hack, which first came into view in late July. As new victims were reportedly identified, the incident has increasingly framed itself as a stress test for how quickly users can respond when self-custody systems are believed to generate compromised receiving addresses.
Galaxy Research tracks additional drained funds
While on-chain movement is one signal, Galaxy Research says the theft itself has continued in identifiable stages. In a report posted Saturday, Galaxy Research said it observed an additional attack wave that drained 207.7 BTC—worth about $13.2 million at the time of reporting.
With that update, Galaxy Research estimated total losses at 1,367 BTC (about $88.6 million), across 4,585 addresses. The firm’s tracking also indicates the attackers’ activity is not a one-off event, but an evolving process with multiple waves that continue to surface as investigators connect addresses to victims.
Galaxy Research’s post also referenced the continuing discovery of new addresses tied to the suspected scheme, reinforcing the idea that the full scope may still be expanding as researchers refine their identification methods.
Attack still ongoing, warning to move funds
Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Digital, warned in an X post on Sunday that the attack was still ongoing. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn said his team continued to identify both victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also added that reports from users were helping investigators and authorities track the stolen funds—highlighting the role of community reporting alongside on-chain analysis.
The repeated “ongoing” language matters for users because it suggests the situation is dynamic: even if some victims have already moved funds, more affected addresses may still be discovered. That is also consistent with the broader pattern reflected in the day’s spike in small transfers.
Self-custody debate resurfaces
The suspected Coldcard hack has renewed debate over the safety and practicality of Bitcoin self-custody—one of the sector’s foundational principles that allows users to control funds without depending on centralized intermediaries.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that self-custody is “over.” Neuman argued that self-custody’s distributed nature provides users with time to react once suspicious activity becomes apparent. He also said he “estimated” that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
The exchange also drew responses from people more aligned with traditional finance. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued on X that Bitcoin ETFs may offer a safer and more convenient route for many investors, citing the longer operating history of the ETF industry.
Not everyone agreed with that framing. Other observers suggested the incident should be viewed as a failure attributable to a wallet provider rather than as evidence that self-custody as a concept is fundamentally broken—an important distinction for readers assessing risk.
In practical terms, the disagreement reflects two realities that can coexist: individual wallet implementations can fail, while self-custody still reduces reliance on centralized exchanges. The Coldcard case, as described through public tracking, becomes a test of how resilient users are when compromised address generation is detected and when timely migration is possible.
What investors should watch next
Watch for two signals in the coming days: whether the number of newly identified victim addresses continues to grow (which would imply the blast radius is still being uncovered), and whether the elevated level of small transfers under 1 BTC sustains or fades as affected users complete migration. The more those patterns stabilize, the clearer it will become whether the incident is trending toward containment or still expanding.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Triggers Largest Sub-1 BTC Shift Since FTX, CryptoQuant on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
92
Article
Crypto Legal Roundup: FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty EmergeFederal prosecutors are continuing to litigate the fallout from the collapse of FTX, as defense teams push back on what juries can hear and how certain market activities are regulated. In the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Michelle Bond—whose husband, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, is serving a 90-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2023—has asked the court to block references to that guilty plea in a campaign finance case.
At the same time, other SDNY-related crypto-adjacent legal fights are highlighting how prediction markets and event contracts can collide with insider-trading and commodity regulation arguments. Separate actions involving a former congressman’s Kalshi trades and a US soldier accused of making a large Polymarket bet underscore that courts may soon be forced to clarify both evidentiary rules and the legal classification of event contracts.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond’s legal team asked SDNY to exclude evidence tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing it has little relevance to Bond’s alleged intent or knowledge.
In a separate CFTC case, former New York Rep. George Santos was ordered to pay $35,000 over trades on Kalshi’s event contracts, with the regulator citing misleading posts about his planned attendance at the 2026 State of the Union.
A US soldier accused of earning more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts is seeking dismissal, challenging whether the Commodity Exchange Act can clearly apply to event contracts as “swaps.”
Across these matters, the central pressure points are evidentiary fairness for defendants and regulatory clarity for prediction-market participants.
Bond seeks to bar Salame’s guilty plea in campaign finance fight
According to a Friday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michelle Bond’s attorneys asked the court to preclude the government from introducing evidence about Ryan Salame’s guilty plea or any “related plea materials” in her campaign finance case.
Bond faces charges over alleged unlawful campaign funding tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. The prosecution’s theory, as described in the filing, is that contributions supporting Bond’s campaign were partially funded through FTX arrangements facilitated by Salame.
Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 and is currently serving a 90-month sentence connected to conduct arising from FTX’s 2022 collapse. In Bond’s motion, her lawyers argued that Salame’s plea—where he admitted to making political contributions in Bond’s name funded by transfers from accounts associated with an FTX-linked entity—should not be treated as evidence against Bond herself.
“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” the filing states.
Bond’s team further said that the plea materials do not meaningfully bear on Bond’s state of mind. They characterized the plea as an admission of Salame’s own guilt, not proof of Bond’s knowledge or participation in the charged conduct, quoting from the motion: “[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”
How personal litigation could become part of the argument
Bond’s motion also requested that the court allow information connected to her “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.” Her lawyers appear to be positioning that personal context to rebut the government’s characterization of Bond as an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor,” despite her and Salame having divorced before the alleged criminal conduct.
While the filing’s request reflects a broader strategy often used in criminal litigation—attempting to shape how jurors interpret the campaign contributions and the parties’ relationship—the court’s decision will determine what personal-history evidence, if any, is ultimately presented.
CFTC penalizes George Santos for Kalshi event-contract trading
Separate from the FTX-linked litigation, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued an order involving George Santos, a former member of the US House of Representatives who was expelled from Congress in 2023. The CFTC ordered Santos to pay $17,500 in a civil monetary penalty plus $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned through prediction market trading on Kalshi.
According to the CFTC, the relevant trades were tied to event contracts betting on whether Santos would appear at the 2026 State of the Union in Washington, DC. The regulator said Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the event, and that these posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
The CFTC added that after the posts, contract prices moved in a direction favorable to Santos’ positions, enabling him to earn over $17,500.
As part of the CFTC order, Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years.
The case also sits in the shadow of Santos’ criminal proceedings. Earlier coverage notes Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison in 2025 for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, though he served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump, as reflected in the article’s background.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations tested under “swap” debate
A more direct challenge to prediction-market regulation is underway in another SDNY matter. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of making more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts, is attempting to dismiss the indictment.
As outlined in the background of the case, prosecutors allege that Van Dyke traded using nonpublic information connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The US Department of Justice alleges he used that alleged insider information to wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges filed in April.
In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s attorneys submitted a 51-page memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. Among other arguments, they contend that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is ambiguous in how it treats event contracts as “swaps,” which is relevant to three of the charges.
Van Dyke’s lawyers argue that the ambiguity affects basic fairness: if the “swap” definition is not clear across Congress, agencies, and courts, ordinary citizens may lack “fair notice” that their prediction-market wagers fall under the CEA.
“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” the filing asks.
The defense also contrasts with the position taken by the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig, which has argued it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps.” The dismissal motion suggests that—at least for some counts—those jurisdictional assumptions may not survive if the law is too unclear.
Why these cases matter beyond one courtroom
Taken together, the filings point to two urgent fault lines for the crypto-adjacent prediction market space: what evidence courts allow juries to consider when guilt and intent are contested, and whether the regulatory framework—especially the CEA’s treatment of event contracts—offers enough clarity for enforcement.
As courts weigh motions like Bond’s request to exclude plea materials and Van Dyke’s bid to dismiss based on legal ambiguity, traders, builders, and public officials using event-contract platforms may want to watch how judges define relevance, prejudice, and “fair notice.” The next procedural rulings could signal how far prosecutors can stretch existing statutes—and how tightly defendants can force regulators to justify their classification theories.
This article was originally published as Crypto Legal Roundup: FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty Emerge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Crypto Legal Roundup: FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty Emerge
Federal prosecutors are continuing to litigate the fallout from the collapse of FTX, as defense teams push back on what juries can hear and how certain market activities are regulated. In the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Michelle Bond—whose husband, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, is serving a 90-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2023—has asked the court to block references to that guilty plea in a campaign finance case.
At the same time, other SDNY-related crypto-adjacent legal fights are highlighting how prediction markets and event contracts can collide with insider-trading and commodity regulation arguments. Separate actions involving a former congressman’s Kalshi trades and a US soldier accused of making a large Polymarket bet underscore that courts may soon be forced to clarify both evidentiary rules and the legal classification of event contracts.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond’s legal team asked SDNY to exclude evidence tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing it has little relevance to Bond’s alleged intent or knowledge.
In a separate CFTC case, former New York Rep. George Santos was ordered to pay $35,000 over trades on Kalshi’s event contracts, with the regulator citing misleading posts about his planned attendance at the 2026 State of the Union.
A US soldier accused of earning more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts is seeking dismissal, challenging whether the Commodity Exchange Act can clearly apply to event contracts as “swaps.”
Across these matters, the central pressure points are evidentiary fairness for defendants and regulatory clarity for prediction-market participants.
Bond seeks to bar Salame’s guilty plea in campaign finance fight
According to a Friday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michelle Bond’s attorneys asked the court to preclude the government from introducing evidence about Ryan Salame’s guilty plea or any “related plea materials” in her campaign finance case.
Bond faces charges over alleged unlawful campaign funding tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. The prosecution’s theory, as described in the filing, is that contributions supporting Bond’s campaign were partially funded through FTX arrangements facilitated by Salame.
Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 and is currently serving a 90-month sentence connected to conduct arising from FTX’s 2022 collapse. In Bond’s motion, her lawyers argued that Salame’s plea—where he admitted to making political contributions in Bond’s name funded by transfers from accounts associated with an FTX-linked entity—should not be treated as evidence against Bond herself.
“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” the filing states.
Bond’s team further said that the plea materials do not meaningfully bear on Bond’s state of mind. They characterized the plea as an admission of Salame’s own guilt, not proof of Bond’s knowledge or participation in the charged conduct, quoting from the motion: “[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”
How personal litigation could become part of the argument
Bond’s motion also requested that the court allow information connected to her “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.” Her lawyers appear to be positioning that personal context to rebut the government’s characterization of Bond as an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor,” despite her and Salame having divorced before the alleged criminal conduct.
While the filing’s request reflects a broader strategy often used in criminal litigation—attempting to shape how jurors interpret the campaign contributions and the parties’ relationship—the court’s decision will determine what personal-history evidence, if any, is ultimately presented.
CFTC penalizes George Santos for Kalshi event-contract trading
Separate from the FTX-linked litigation, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued an order involving George Santos, a former member of the US House of Representatives who was expelled from Congress in 2023. The CFTC ordered Santos to pay $17,500 in a civil monetary penalty plus $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned through prediction market trading on Kalshi.
According to the CFTC, the relevant trades were tied to event contracts betting on whether Santos would appear at the 2026 State of the Union in Washington, DC. The regulator said Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the event, and that these posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
The CFTC added that after the posts, contract prices moved in a direction favorable to Santos’ positions, enabling him to earn over $17,500.
As part of the CFTC order, Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years.
The case also sits in the shadow of Santos’ criminal proceedings. Earlier coverage notes Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison in 2025 for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, though he served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump, as reflected in the article’s background.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations tested under “swap” debate
A more direct challenge to prediction-market regulation is underway in another SDNY matter. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of making more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts, is attempting to dismiss the indictment.
As outlined in the background of the case, prosecutors allege that Van Dyke traded using nonpublic information connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The US Department of Justice alleges he used that alleged insider information to wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges filed in April.
In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s attorneys submitted a 51-page memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. Among other arguments, they contend that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is ambiguous in how it treats event contracts as “swaps,” which is relevant to three of the charges.
Van Dyke’s lawyers argue that the ambiguity affects basic fairness: if the “swap” definition is not clear across Congress, agencies, and courts, ordinary citizens may lack “fair notice” that their prediction-market wagers fall under the CEA.
“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” the filing asks.
The defense also contrasts with the position taken by the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig, which has argued it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps.” The dismissal motion suggests that—at least for some counts—those jurisdictional assumptions may not survive if the law is too unclear.
Why these cases matter beyond one courtroom
Taken together, the filings point to two urgent fault lines for the crypto-adjacent prediction market space: what evidence courts allow juries to consider when guilt and intent are contested, and whether the regulatory framework—especially the CEA’s treatment of event contracts—offers enough clarity for enforcement.
As courts weigh motions like Bond’s request to exclude plea materials and Van Dyke’s bid to dismiss based on legal ambiguity, traders, builders, and public officials using event-contract platforms may want to watch how judges define relevance, prejudice, and “fair notice.” The next procedural rulings could signal how far prosecutors can stretch existing statutes—and how tightly defendants can force regulators to justify their classification theories.
This article was originally published as Crypto Legal Roundup: FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty Emerge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
At the same time, other SDNY-related crypto-adjacent legal fights are highlighting how prediction markets and event contracts can collide with insider-trading and commodity regulation arguments. Separate actions involving a former congressman’s Kalshi trades and a US soldier accused of making a large Polymarket bet underscore that courts may soon be forced to clarify both evidentiary rules and the legal classification of event contracts.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond’s legal team asked SDNY to exclude evidence tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing it has little relevance to Bond’s alleged intent or knowledge.
In a separate CFTC case, former New York Rep. George Santos was ordered to pay $35,000 over trades on Kalshi’s event contracts, with the regulator citing misleading posts about his planned attendance at the 2026 State of the Union.
A US soldier accused of earning more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts is seeking dismissal, challenging whether the Commodity Exchange Act can clearly apply to event contracts as “swaps.”
Across these matters, the central pressure points are evidentiary fairness for defendants and regulatory clarity for prediction-market participants.
Bond seeks to bar Salame’s guilty plea in campaign finance fight
According to a Friday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michelle Bond’s attorneys asked the court to preclude the government from introducing evidence about Ryan Salame’s guilty plea or any “related plea materials” in her campaign finance case.
Bond faces charges over alleged unlawful campaign funding tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. The prosecution’s theory, as described in the filing, is that contributions supporting Bond’s campaign were partially funded through FTX arrangements facilitated by Salame.
Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 and is currently serving a 90-month sentence connected to conduct arising from FTX’s 2022 collapse. In Bond’s motion, her lawyers argued that Salame’s plea—where he admitted to making political contributions in Bond’s name funded by transfers from accounts associated with an FTX-linked entity—should not be treated as evidence against Bond herself.
“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” the filing states.
Bond’s team further said that the plea materials do not meaningfully bear on Bond’s state of mind. They characterized the plea as an admission of Salame’s own guilt, not proof of Bond’s knowledge or participation in the charged conduct, quoting from the motion: “[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”
How personal litigation could become part of the argument
Bond’s motion also requested that the court allow information connected to her “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.” Her lawyers appear to be positioning that personal context to rebut the government’s characterization of Bond as an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor,” despite her and Salame having divorced before the alleged criminal conduct.
While the filing’s request reflects a broader strategy often used in criminal litigation—attempting to shape how jurors interpret the campaign contributions and the parties’ relationship—the court’s decision will determine what personal-history evidence, if any, is ultimately presented.
CFTC penalizes George Santos for Kalshi event-contract trading
Separate from the FTX-linked litigation, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued an order involving George Santos, a former member of the US House of Representatives who was expelled from Congress in 2023. The CFTC ordered Santos to pay $17,500 in a civil monetary penalty plus $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned through prediction market trading on Kalshi.
According to the CFTC, the relevant trades were tied to event contracts betting on whether Santos would appear at the 2026 State of the Union in Washington, DC. The regulator said Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the event, and that these posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
The CFTC added that after the posts, contract prices moved in a direction favorable to Santos’ positions, enabling him to earn over $17,500.
As part of the CFTC order, Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years.
The case also sits in the shadow of Santos’ criminal proceedings. Earlier coverage notes Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison in 2025 for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, though he served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump, as reflected in the article’s background.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations tested under “swap” debate
A more direct challenge to prediction-market regulation is underway in another SDNY matter. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of making more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts, is attempting to dismiss the indictment.
As outlined in the background of the case, prosecutors allege that Van Dyke traded using nonpublic information connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The US Department of Justice alleges he used that alleged insider information to wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges filed in April.
In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s attorneys submitted a 51-page memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. Among other arguments, they contend that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is ambiguous in how it treats event contracts as “swaps,” which is relevant to three of the charges.
Van Dyke’s lawyers argue that the ambiguity affects basic fairness: if the “swap” definition is not clear across Congress, agencies, and courts, ordinary citizens may lack “fair notice” that their prediction-market wagers fall under the CEA.
“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” the filing asks.
The defense also contrasts with the position taken by the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig, which has argued it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps.” The dismissal motion suggests that—at least for some counts—those jurisdictional assumptions may not survive if the law is too unclear.
Why these cases matter beyond one courtroom
Taken together, the filings point to two urgent fault lines for the crypto-adjacent prediction market space: what evidence courts allow juries to consider when guilt and intent are contested, and whether the regulatory framework—especially the CEA’s treatment of event contracts—offers enough clarity for enforcement.
As courts weigh motions like Bond’s request to exclude plea materials and Van Dyke’s bid to dismiss based on legal ambiguity, traders, builders, and public officials using event-contract platforms may want to watch how judges define relevance, prejudice, and “fair notice.” The next procedural rulings could signal how far prosecutors can stretch existing statutes—and how tightly defendants can force regulators to justify their classification theories.
This article was originally published as Crypto Legal Roundup: FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty Emerge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
106
Article
Crypto Court Battle Highlights: Key On-Chain Legal Updates This WeekA Friday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeks to limit what prosecutors can use in the campaign-finance case involving Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame.
Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case
Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.
In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.
Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.
Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.
Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings
Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.
Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.
Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.
George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading
In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.
The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.
As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments
Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.
The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.
Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.
While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.
The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.
Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.
This article was originally published as Crypto Court Battle Highlights: Key On-Chain Legal Updates This Week on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Crypto Court Battle Highlights: Key On-Chain Legal Updates This Week
A Friday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeks to limit what prosecutors can use in the campaign-finance case involving Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame.
Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case
Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.
In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.
Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.
Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.
Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings
Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.
Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.
Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.
George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading
In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.
The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.
As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments
Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.
The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.
Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.
While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.
The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.
Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.
This article was originally published as Crypto Court Battle Highlights: Key On-Chain Legal Updates This Week on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case
Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.
In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.
Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.
Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.
Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings
Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.
Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.
Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.
George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading
In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.
The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.
As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments
Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.
The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.
Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.
While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.
The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.
Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.
This article was originally published as Crypto Court Battle Highlights: Key On-Chain Legal Updates This Week on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
337
Article
Crypto-aligned PAC adds $1M to Michigan House race ad pushA crypto-industry-backed political action committee affiliate has intensified its advertising push ahead of next week’s Michigan Republican primary, according to the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Protect Progress PAC, which the filings indicate is funded largely by contributions from cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase, has spent more than $2 million on media to influence the contest in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District.
The most recent updates, filed as of Thursday, show the committee ramping up spending in support of U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar while also funding opposition to his Democratic challenger, Donavan McKinney. The renewed disclosures come shortly after earlier reporting showed the PAC had already ramped up its buy—effectively doubling its reported ad spending from the prior week.
Key takeaways
FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC has spent over $2 million on media for Michigan’s 13th district primary race.
New disclosures add $884,240 to advertisements supporting Shri Thanedar and more than $150,000 to ads opposing Donavan McKinney.
The PAC’s funding is described in the filings as being largely backed by cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase.
Thanedar’s legislative record includes support for crypto-related bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
Protect Progress is an affiliate of Fairshake, a major outside spender in U.S. elections tied to crypto industry policy goals.
Michigan’s 13th district: Protect Progress increases ad buys
According to FEC disclosures accessed via the commission’s docquery system, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than a combined $2 million on media in connection with Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar and his Democratic primary contest against Donavan McKinney.
As of Thursday, the filings reflect a further escalation: compared with what the PAC had already reported spending a week earlier, the committee’s latest report effectively doubled its media spending. The additional outlay includes $884,240 dedicated to ads supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for Tuesday, but the filings underscore that the committee and its network have been willing to deploy substantial resources well before Election Day. Similar patterns have been visible across multiple congressional races during the 2026 cycle, according to the article’s referenced coverage and FEC-based reporting.
Why the race is drawing crypto-linked political money
Thanedar’s congressional record is at the center of the narrative around why outside groups see his candidacy as important for crypto policy. During his time in the House, he voted in favor of the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act and supported the legislative push for clearer digital asset market structure—the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which has been discussed in the Senate.
He also cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting developers. Supporters of crypto policy reform often point to such measures as steps toward a more predictable regulatory environment, while critics argue the industry has too much influence over the political process.
For voters watching the contest, the spending escalation suggests the primary is being treated as more than a local political test—it is being framed by donors and advocacy networks as part of a broader strategy to influence which lawmakers back specific digital asset legislation.
McKinney’s response and the broader allegations over crypto influence
McKinney has publicly characterized the ad push as a payoff for political favors. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC spending, he said “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back for helping Trump make over $1 billion since taking office,” according to a video shared on his campaign’s Facebook page.
That comment appears to reference the U.S. President’s disclosures about crypto-related earnings, including a figure cited in earlier reporting referenced by the article—more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025—along with concerns raised by Democrats that Trump could be using his role to profit through policies such as GENIUS.
While those claims are rooted in political argument rather than direct proof of intent tied to the specific Michigan ads, they highlight a recurring tension in U.S. crypto politics: outside spending may be framed by industry-aligned PACs as policy support, while opponents often describe it as evidence of undue influence.
Cointelegraph reports that it reached out to both Thanedar’s and McKinney’s campaigns for comment on the PAC expenditures but did not receive an immediate response.
Fairshake’s affiliates: national momentum in multiple primaries
Protect Progress PAC is an affiliate of Fairshake, a political network that has become one of the most prominent outside spenders linked to crypto industry policy goals. Fairshake was responsible for spending more than $170 million across the 2024 election cycle through media buys supporting candidates it viewed as aligned with crypto-friendly regulation, as summarized in the article.
The article also notes that affiliates have already deployed millions of dollars in 2026 races beyond Michigan, pointing to activity in states including Texas and Illinois. In addition, it cites Public Citizen reporting from June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million deployed by crypto companies during the 2026 election cycle.
Fairshake itself reportedly listed holding a $193 million “war chest” as of January, according to figures referenced in the piece. Taken together with the Michigan disclosures, the pattern suggests a sustained approach: deploy substantial resources early enough to shape narrative and voter attention around specific legislative priorities.
The article further describes similar affiliate activity in other congressional primaries. It says Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media in Washington’s 4th congressional district to support a Republican candidate, with Washington holding primaries on the same day as Michigan.
In Alabama, scheduled primaries on Aug. 11 are also described as a focus for Fairshake-linked spending. FEC filings cited in the article indicate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who represented Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
For readers tracking the cycle, these parallel contests illustrate how crypto-aligned PAC affiliates appear to treat primary elections as strategic targets—places where candidate positioning on digital asset policy could be determined before general election dynamics begin.
What to watch as Michigan’s primary approaches
With Michigan’s 13th district primary scheduled for Tuesday, the key question is whether Protect Progress’s latest ad surge will further alter voter perceptions or turnout in the remaining days. More broadly, the filings reinforce that crypto-linked political spending is not limited to high-profile general election races—affiliates are actively contesting primaries with resources intended to influence policy direction well after election season announcements fade.
This article was originally published as Crypto-aligned PAC adds $1M to Michigan House race ad push on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Crypto-aligned PAC adds $1M to Michigan House race ad push
A crypto-industry-backed political action committee affiliate has intensified its advertising push ahead of next week’s Michigan Republican primary, according to the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Protect Progress PAC, which the filings indicate is funded largely by contributions from cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase, has spent more than $2 million on media to influence the contest in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District.
The most recent updates, filed as of Thursday, show the committee ramping up spending in support of U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar while also funding opposition to his Democratic challenger, Donavan McKinney. The renewed disclosures come shortly after earlier reporting showed the PAC had already ramped up its buy—effectively doubling its reported ad spending from the prior week.
Key takeaways
FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC has spent over $2 million on media for Michigan’s 13th district primary race.
New disclosures add $884,240 to advertisements supporting Shri Thanedar and more than $150,000 to ads opposing Donavan McKinney.
The PAC’s funding is described in the filings as being largely backed by cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase.
Thanedar’s legislative record includes support for crypto-related bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
Protect Progress is an affiliate of Fairshake, a major outside spender in U.S. elections tied to crypto industry policy goals.
Michigan’s 13th district: Protect Progress increases ad buys
According to FEC disclosures accessed via the commission’s docquery system, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than a combined $2 million on media in connection with Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar and his Democratic primary contest against Donavan McKinney.
As of Thursday, the filings reflect a further escalation: compared with what the PAC had already reported spending a week earlier, the committee’s latest report effectively doubled its media spending. The additional outlay includes $884,240 dedicated to ads supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for Tuesday, but the filings underscore that the committee and its network have been willing to deploy substantial resources well before Election Day. Similar patterns have been visible across multiple congressional races during the 2026 cycle, according to the article’s referenced coverage and FEC-based reporting.
Why the race is drawing crypto-linked political money
Thanedar’s congressional record is at the center of the narrative around why outside groups see his candidacy as important for crypto policy. During his time in the House, he voted in favor of the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act and supported the legislative push for clearer digital asset market structure—the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which has been discussed in the Senate.
He also cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting developers. Supporters of crypto policy reform often point to such measures as steps toward a more predictable regulatory environment, while critics argue the industry has too much influence over the political process.
For voters watching the contest, the spending escalation suggests the primary is being treated as more than a local political test—it is being framed by donors and advocacy networks as part of a broader strategy to influence which lawmakers back specific digital asset legislation.
McKinney’s response and the broader allegations over crypto influence
McKinney has publicly characterized the ad push as a payoff for political favors. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC spending, he said “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back for helping Trump make over $1 billion since taking office,” according to a video shared on his campaign’s Facebook page.
That comment appears to reference the U.S. President’s disclosures about crypto-related earnings, including a figure cited in earlier reporting referenced by the article—more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025—along with concerns raised by Democrats that Trump could be using his role to profit through policies such as GENIUS.
While those claims are rooted in political argument rather than direct proof of intent tied to the specific Michigan ads, they highlight a recurring tension in U.S. crypto politics: outside spending may be framed by industry-aligned PACs as policy support, while opponents often describe it as evidence of undue influence.
Cointelegraph reports that it reached out to both Thanedar’s and McKinney’s campaigns for comment on the PAC expenditures but did not receive an immediate response.
Fairshake’s affiliates: national momentum in multiple primaries
Protect Progress PAC is an affiliate of Fairshake, a political network that has become one of the most prominent outside spenders linked to crypto industry policy goals. Fairshake was responsible for spending more than $170 million across the 2024 election cycle through media buys supporting candidates it viewed as aligned with crypto-friendly regulation, as summarized in the article.
The article also notes that affiliates have already deployed millions of dollars in 2026 races beyond Michigan, pointing to activity in states including Texas and Illinois. In addition, it cites Public Citizen reporting from June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million deployed by crypto companies during the 2026 election cycle.
Fairshake itself reportedly listed holding a $193 million “war chest” as of January, according to figures referenced in the piece. Taken together with the Michigan disclosures, the pattern suggests a sustained approach: deploy substantial resources early enough to shape narrative and voter attention around specific legislative priorities.
The article further describes similar affiliate activity in other congressional primaries. It says Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media in Washington’s 4th congressional district to support a Republican candidate, with Washington holding primaries on the same day as Michigan.
In Alabama, scheduled primaries on Aug. 11 are also described as a focus for Fairshake-linked spending. FEC filings cited in the article indicate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who represented Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
For readers tracking the cycle, these parallel contests illustrate how crypto-aligned PAC affiliates appear to treat primary elections as strategic targets—places where candidate positioning on digital asset policy could be determined before general election dynamics begin.
What to watch as Michigan’s primary approaches
With Michigan’s 13th district primary scheduled for Tuesday, the key question is whether Protect Progress’s latest ad surge will further alter voter perceptions or turnout in the remaining days. More broadly, the filings reinforce that crypto-linked political spending is not limited to high-profile general election races—affiliates are actively contesting primaries with resources intended to influence policy direction well after election season announcements fade.
This article was originally published as Crypto-aligned PAC adds $1M to Michigan House race ad push on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The most recent updates, filed as of Thursday, show the committee ramping up spending in support of U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar while also funding opposition to his Democratic challenger, Donavan McKinney. The renewed disclosures come shortly after earlier reporting showed the PAC had already ramped up its buy—effectively doubling its reported ad spending from the prior week.
Key takeaways
FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC has spent over $2 million on media for Michigan’s 13th district primary race.
New disclosures add $884,240 to advertisements supporting Shri Thanedar and more than $150,000 to ads opposing Donavan McKinney.
The PAC’s funding is described in the filings as being largely backed by cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase.
Thanedar’s legislative record includes support for crypto-related bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
Protect Progress is an affiliate of Fairshake, a major outside spender in U.S. elections tied to crypto industry policy goals.
Michigan’s 13th district: Protect Progress increases ad buys
According to FEC disclosures accessed via the commission’s docquery system, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than a combined $2 million on media in connection with Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar and his Democratic primary contest against Donavan McKinney.
As of Thursday, the filings reflect a further escalation: compared with what the PAC had already reported spending a week earlier, the committee’s latest report effectively doubled its media spending. The additional outlay includes $884,240 dedicated to ads supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for Tuesday, but the filings underscore that the committee and its network have been willing to deploy substantial resources well before Election Day. Similar patterns have been visible across multiple congressional races during the 2026 cycle, according to the article’s referenced coverage and FEC-based reporting.
Why the race is drawing crypto-linked political money
Thanedar’s congressional record is at the center of the narrative around why outside groups see his candidacy as important for crypto policy. During his time in the House, he voted in favor of the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act and supported the legislative push for clearer digital asset market structure—the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which has been discussed in the Senate.
He also cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting developers. Supporters of crypto policy reform often point to such measures as steps toward a more predictable regulatory environment, while critics argue the industry has too much influence over the political process.
For voters watching the contest, the spending escalation suggests the primary is being treated as more than a local political test—it is being framed by donors and advocacy networks as part of a broader strategy to influence which lawmakers back specific digital asset legislation.
McKinney’s response and the broader allegations over crypto influence
McKinney has publicly characterized the ad push as a payoff for political favors. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC spending, he said “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back for helping Trump make over $1 billion since taking office,” according to a video shared on his campaign’s Facebook page.
That comment appears to reference the U.S. President’s disclosures about crypto-related earnings, including a figure cited in earlier reporting referenced by the article—more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025—along with concerns raised by Democrats that Trump could be using his role to profit through policies such as GENIUS.
While those claims are rooted in political argument rather than direct proof of intent tied to the specific Michigan ads, they highlight a recurring tension in U.S. crypto politics: outside spending may be framed by industry-aligned PACs as policy support, while opponents often describe it as evidence of undue influence.
Cointelegraph reports that it reached out to both Thanedar’s and McKinney’s campaigns for comment on the PAC expenditures but did not receive an immediate response.
Fairshake’s affiliates: national momentum in multiple primaries
Protect Progress PAC is an affiliate of Fairshake, a political network that has become one of the most prominent outside spenders linked to crypto industry policy goals. Fairshake was responsible for spending more than $170 million across the 2024 election cycle through media buys supporting candidates it viewed as aligned with crypto-friendly regulation, as summarized in the article.
The article also notes that affiliates have already deployed millions of dollars in 2026 races beyond Michigan, pointing to activity in states including Texas and Illinois. In addition, it cites Public Citizen reporting from June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million deployed by crypto companies during the 2026 election cycle.
Fairshake itself reportedly listed holding a $193 million “war chest” as of January, according to figures referenced in the piece. Taken together with the Michigan disclosures, the pattern suggests a sustained approach: deploy substantial resources early enough to shape narrative and voter attention around specific legislative priorities.
The article further describes similar affiliate activity in other congressional primaries. It says Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media in Washington’s 4th congressional district to support a Republican candidate, with Washington holding primaries on the same day as Michigan.
In Alabama, scheduled primaries on Aug. 11 are also described as a focus for Fairshake-linked spending. FEC filings cited in the article indicate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who represented Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
For readers tracking the cycle, these parallel contests illustrate how crypto-aligned PAC affiliates appear to treat primary elections as strategic targets—places where candidate positioning on digital asset policy could be determined before general election dynamics begin.
What to watch as Michigan’s primary approaches
With Michigan’s 13th district primary scheduled for Tuesday, the key question is whether Protect Progress’s latest ad surge will further alter voter perceptions or turnout in the remaining days. More broadly, the filings reinforce that crypto-linked political spending is not limited to high-profile general election races—affiliates are actively contesting primaries with resources intended to influence policy direction well after election season announcements fade.
This article was originally published as Crypto-aligned PAC adds $1M to Michigan House race ad push on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
53
Article
Crypto PAC Adds $1M More to Michigan House Race CampaignAn affiliate committee of the crypto-focused Fairshake political operation has increased its ad spending ahead of next week’s primary election in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The spending highlights how cryptocurrency companies continue to shape campaign activity through super PAC and affiliate structures as lawmakers consider major digital-asset policy.
As of Thursday, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than $2 million on broadcast and digital media related to the Michigan Democratic primary between Rep. Shri Thanedar and challenger Donavan McKinney. The latest filing reflected a rapid acceleration from the amount the PAC reported just a week earlier, including nearly $884,240 in additional ad buys supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
Key takeaways
Protect Progress PAC reported over $2 million in media spending tied to Michigan’s 13th District Democratic primary, based on FEC filings as of Thursday.
New filings nearly doubled prior reported spend, adding $884,240 for Thanedar and more than $150,000 to oppose McKinney.
The spending is connected to crypto-aligned political groups, with Protect Progress described as an affiliate of Fairshake.
Thanedar’s record includes crypto-related legislative actions, including support for stablecoin and digital asset market structure proposals.
Fairshake affiliates are active in multiple primaries, including races in Washington and Alabama ahead of their own election dates.
Michigan primary: Protect Progress ramps up ad buys
FEC documents show Protect Progress PAC has concentrated its spending on one of the most closely watched parts of this election cycle for crypto industry-aligned political efforts: candidate positioning around digital-asset legislation. In Michigan’s 13th district, the committee’s ad spending is designed to back incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar while targeting his Democratic primary opponent, Donavan McKinney.
The latest filing effectively widened the committee’s footprint compared with what it had reported in an earlier submission. It added $884,240 in media expenditures supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 opposing McKinney, bringing total reported media spend to over $2 million.
FEC filings are available through the committee’s FEC record: FEC document inquiry.
Why Thanedar’s crypto record mattered to the PAC
Protect Progress’s focus on Thanedar aligns with the incumbent’s legislative record on digital-asset issues. During his time in the U.S. House, Thanedar voted in favor of stablecoin-focused legislation known as the GENIUS Act. He also voted in favor of a crypto market structure proposal currently under consideration in the Senate, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
In addition, Thanedar cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting blockchain developers. For PAC-affiliated political spending, these votes and sponsorships are often treated as concrete signals of candidate alignment—especially as CLARITY work advances through Congress.
McKinney’s campaign challenged the premise that the race is driven solely by local issues. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC’s spending, McKinney argued that “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back” for his support of policy decisions tied to the Trump administration.
McKinney also referenced President Donald Trump’s disclosures that he earned more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025, including through his memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP), and via his family’s business, World Liberty Financial. Democrats have frequently accused the Trump administration of profiting from its position through laws affecting the crypto sector, including proposals like GENIUS. (Those claims are linked in the original reporting to Trump’s disclosed earnings and related coverage.)
Fairshake affiliates keep spending across the election map
Protect Progress is described as an affiliate of the Fairshake PAC. Fairshake and related committees have been a major force in U.S. federal elections in recent cycles, channeling large sums toward candidates seen as supportive of crypto-industry aligned policy.
Earlier reporting cited that Fairshake was responsible for more than $170 million in spending during the 2024 election cycle through media supporting candidates it viewed as favorable to crypto policy. The same reporting framework also noted that Protect Progress and other affiliates had already directed millions of dollars into 2026 races in multiple states.
More broadly, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen reported in June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for spending of more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million that crypto companies used across the 2026 election cycle. Public Citizen also reported Fairshake’s claimed war chest of $193 million as of January, underscoring the scale of activity behind affiliate PAC machinery.
More primaries: Washington and Alabama spotlight additional spending
While Michigan remains a focal point, other Fairshake affiliates have also targeted races as primaries approach. In Washington’s 4th congressional district, the Fairshake affiliate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media to support a Republican candidate. Washington’s primary is scheduled for the same day as Michigan’s.
Alabama’s primary, set for Aug. 11, has similarly attracted attention from Fairshake affiliates. FEC filings indicate Defend American Jobs spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who served in Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
One additional datapoint in the reporting around the Alabama race is the scale of the candidate’s personal wealth. The original article referenced a reported net worth figure of up to $15 million in 2023, citing a separate local report.
What to watch next in crypto-linked elections
As PAC affiliate spending continues to surge in primary contests, voters and market participants will likely watch whether crypto-aligned policy commitments translate into measurable legislative momentum—particularly on stablecoin and market-structure proposals such as GENIUS and CLARITY. The next FEC disclosures may clarify how much more media time these committees add as voting dates approach.
This article was originally published as Crypto PAC Adds $1M More to Michigan House Race Campaign on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Crypto PAC Adds $1M More to Michigan House Race Campaign
An affiliate committee of the crypto-focused Fairshake political operation has increased its ad spending ahead of next week’s primary election in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District, according to Federal Election Commission filings. The spending highlights how cryptocurrency companies continue to shape campaign activity through super PAC and affiliate structures as lawmakers consider major digital-asset policy.
As of Thursday, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than $2 million on broadcast and digital media related to the Michigan Democratic primary between Rep. Shri Thanedar and challenger Donavan McKinney. The latest filing reflected a rapid acceleration from the amount the PAC reported just a week earlier, including nearly $884,240 in additional ad buys supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
Key takeaways
Protect Progress PAC reported over $2 million in media spending tied to Michigan’s 13th District Democratic primary, based on FEC filings as of Thursday.
New filings nearly doubled prior reported spend, adding $884,240 for Thanedar and more than $150,000 to oppose McKinney.
The spending is connected to crypto-aligned political groups, with Protect Progress described as an affiliate of Fairshake.
Thanedar’s record includes crypto-related legislative actions, including support for stablecoin and digital asset market structure proposals.
Fairshake affiliates are active in multiple primaries, including races in Washington and Alabama ahead of their own election dates.
Michigan primary: Protect Progress ramps up ad buys
FEC documents show Protect Progress PAC has concentrated its spending on one of the most closely watched parts of this election cycle for crypto industry-aligned political efforts: candidate positioning around digital-asset legislation. In Michigan’s 13th district, the committee’s ad spending is designed to back incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar while targeting his Democratic primary opponent, Donavan McKinney.
The latest filing effectively widened the committee’s footprint compared with what it had reported in an earlier submission. It added $884,240 in media expenditures supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 opposing McKinney, bringing total reported media spend to over $2 million.
FEC filings are available through the committee’s FEC record: FEC document inquiry.
Why Thanedar’s crypto record mattered to the PAC
Protect Progress’s focus on Thanedar aligns with the incumbent’s legislative record on digital-asset issues. During his time in the U.S. House, Thanedar voted in favor of stablecoin-focused legislation known as the GENIUS Act. He also voted in favor of a crypto market structure proposal currently under consideration in the Senate, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
In addition, Thanedar cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting blockchain developers. For PAC-affiliated political spending, these votes and sponsorships are often treated as concrete signals of candidate alignment—especially as CLARITY work advances through Congress.
McKinney’s campaign challenged the premise that the race is driven solely by local issues. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC’s spending, McKinney argued that “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back” for his support of policy decisions tied to the Trump administration.
McKinney also referenced President Donald Trump’s disclosures that he earned more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025, including through his memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP), and via his family’s business, World Liberty Financial. Democrats have frequently accused the Trump administration of profiting from its position through laws affecting the crypto sector, including proposals like GENIUS. (Those claims are linked in the original reporting to Trump’s disclosed earnings and related coverage.)
Fairshake affiliates keep spending across the election map
Protect Progress is described as an affiliate of the Fairshake PAC. Fairshake and related committees have been a major force in U.S. federal elections in recent cycles, channeling large sums toward candidates seen as supportive of crypto-industry aligned policy.
Earlier reporting cited that Fairshake was responsible for more than $170 million in spending during the 2024 election cycle through media supporting candidates it viewed as favorable to crypto policy. The same reporting framework also noted that Protect Progress and other affiliates had already directed millions of dollars into 2026 races in multiple states.
More broadly, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen reported in June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for spending of more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million that crypto companies used across the 2026 election cycle. Public Citizen also reported Fairshake’s claimed war chest of $193 million as of January, underscoring the scale of activity behind affiliate PAC machinery.
More primaries: Washington and Alabama spotlight additional spending
While Michigan remains a focal point, other Fairshake affiliates have also targeted races as primaries approach. In Washington’s 4th congressional district, the Fairshake affiliate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media to support a Republican candidate. Washington’s primary is scheduled for the same day as Michigan’s.
Alabama’s primary, set for Aug. 11, has similarly attracted attention from Fairshake affiliates. FEC filings indicate Defend American Jobs spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who served in Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
One additional datapoint in the reporting around the Alabama race is the scale of the candidate’s personal wealth. The original article referenced a reported net worth figure of up to $15 million in 2023, citing a separate local report.
What to watch next in crypto-linked elections
As PAC affiliate spending continues to surge in primary contests, voters and market participants will likely watch whether crypto-aligned policy commitments translate into measurable legislative momentum—particularly on stablecoin and market-structure proposals such as GENIUS and CLARITY. The next FEC disclosures may clarify how much more media time these committees add as voting dates approach.
This article was originally published as Crypto PAC Adds $1M More to Michigan House Race Campaign on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
As of Thursday, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than $2 million on broadcast and digital media related to the Michigan Democratic primary between Rep. Shri Thanedar and challenger Donavan McKinney. The latest filing reflected a rapid acceleration from the amount the PAC reported just a week earlier, including nearly $884,240 in additional ad buys supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
Key takeaways
Protect Progress PAC reported over $2 million in media spending tied to Michigan’s 13th District Democratic primary, based on FEC filings as of Thursday.
New filings nearly doubled prior reported spend, adding $884,240 for Thanedar and more than $150,000 to oppose McKinney.
The spending is connected to crypto-aligned political groups, with Protect Progress described as an affiliate of Fairshake.
Thanedar’s record includes crypto-related legislative actions, including support for stablecoin and digital asset market structure proposals.
Fairshake affiliates are active in multiple primaries, including races in Washington and Alabama ahead of their own election dates.
Michigan primary: Protect Progress ramps up ad buys
FEC documents show Protect Progress PAC has concentrated its spending on one of the most closely watched parts of this election cycle for crypto industry-aligned political efforts: candidate positioning around digital-asset legislation. In Michigan’s 13th district, the committee’s ad spending is designed to back incumbent Rep. Shri Thanedar while targeting his Democratic primary opponent, Donavan McKinney.
The latest filing effectively widened the committee’s footprint compared with what it had reported in an earlier submission. It added $884,240 in media expenditures supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 opposing McKinney, bringing total reported media spend to over $2 million.
FEC filings are available through the committee’s FEC record: FEC document inquiry.
Why Thanedar’s crypto record mattered to the PAC
Protect Progress’s focus on Thanedar aligns with the incumbent’s legislative record on digital-asset issues. During his time in the U.S. House, Thanedar voted in favor of stablecoin-focused legislation known as the GENIUS Act. He also voted in favor of a crypto market structure proposal currently under consideration in the Senate, the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
In addition, Thanedar cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting blockchain developers. For PAC-affiliated political spending, these votes and sponsorships are often treated as concrete signals of candidate alignment—especially as CLARITY work advances through Congress.
McKinney’s campaign challenged the premise that the race is driven solely by local issues. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC’s spending, McKinney argued that “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back” for his support of policy decisions tied to the Trump administration.
McKinney also referenced President Donald Trump’s disclosures that he earned more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025, including through his memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP), and via his family’s business, World Liberty Financial. Democrats have frequently accused the Trump administration of profiting from its position through laws affecting the crypto sector, including proposals like GENIUS. (Those claims are linked in the original reporting to Trump’s disclosed earnings and related coverage.)
Fairshake affiliates keep spending across the election map
Protect Progress is described as an affiliate of the Fairshake PAC. Fairshake and related committees have been a major force in U.S. federal elections in recent cycles, channeling large sums toward candidates seen as supportive of crypto-industry aligned policy.
Earlier reporting cited that Fairshake was responsible for more than $170 million in spending during the 2024 election cycle through media supporting candidates it viewed as favorable to crypto policy. The same reporting framework also noted that Protect Progress and other affiliates had already directed millions of dollars into 2026 races in multiple states.
More broadly, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen reported in June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for spending of more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million that crypto companies used across the 2026 election cycle. Public Citizen also reported Fairshake’s claimed war chest of $193 million as of January, underscoring the scale of activity behind affiliate PAC machinery.
More primaries: Washington and Alabama spotlight additional spending
While Michigan remains a focal point, other Fairshake affiliates have also targeted races as primaries approach. In Washington’s 4th congressional district, the Fairshake affiliate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media to support a Republican candidate. Washington’s primary is scheduled for the same day as Michigan’s.
Alabama’s primary, set for Aug. 11, has similarly attracted attention from Fairshake affiliates. FEC filings indicate Defend American Jobs spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who served in Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
One additional datapoint in the reporting around the Alabama race is the scale of the candidate’s personal wealth. The original article referenced a reported net worth figure of up to $15 million in 2023, citing a separate local report.
What to watch next in crypto-linked elections
As PAC affiliate spending continues to surge in primary contests, voters and market participants will likely watch whether crypto-aligned policy commitments translate into measurable legislative momentum—particularly on stablecoin and market-structure proposals such as GENIUS and CLARITY. The next FEC disclosures may clarify how much more media time these committees add as voting dates approach.
This article was originally published as Crypto PAC Adds $1M More to Michigan House Race Campaign on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
526
Article
Galaxy Maps Warns Coldcard Bitcoin Losses After Wallet IncidentGalaxy Research, the research arm of Galaxy Digital, has expanded the on-chain footprint linked to the Coldcard wallet incident that reportedly resulted in the loss of 1,082.65 bitcoin. In a new analysis, the firm identified 1,196 addresses that were involved in transactions tied to that event, widening the estimated scale beyond earlier preliminary figures.
The activity Galaxy Research points to took place between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, spanning blocks 960,183 to 960,191—roughly 30 hours before Coldcard published its first security advisory, as referenced in Galaxy Research’s post on X.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Research traced a cluster of 1,196 addresses tied to the Coldcard incident, connected to losses of 1,082.65 BTC.
The movements were observed across blocks 960,183–960,191 between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30.
Galaxy Research says the transactions share a recognizable on-chain pattern (including identical fees and no change outputs), though later attacks may not reuse the same fingerprint.
Earlier estimates from Rob Hamilton and related analysis suggested a smaller, tighter window of activity that has since been superseded by the larger Galaxy Research mapping.
Coinkite has said it released a hotfix for a firmware bug, but users who created seeds using the vulnerable firmware may still need to move funds to a new seed.
Galaxy Research widens the address set
According to Galaxy Research, the incident’s impact is visible on-chain in a larger set of wallets than first documented publicly. The firm said it identified 1,196 addresses linked to the Coldcard wallet incident that ultimately resulted in 1,082.65 BTC being moved in the span it analyzed.
Galaxy Research’s tracing work focused on how those funds moved through the network during a specific period. It reported that the key transaction activity occurred between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, crossing blocks 960,183 to 960,191.
That timing is also notable in terms of disclosure. Galaxy Research indicated this took place about 30 hours before Coldcard’s first security advisory was published.
From a smaller estimate to a larger on-chain pattern
Prior to Galaxy Research’s broader mapping, a preliminary view of the incident suggested a more limited sweep. Earlier analysis by AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton estimated that 594.48 BTC—worth around $38 million at the time—moved across roughly 500 transactions within a narrow three-block window.
Galaxy Research’s later work does not necessarily contradict the existence of that tight burst; instead, it expands the scope of what can be linked to the event by pointing to a repeatable transaction fingerprint.
In posts on X, Galaxy Research said the identified transactions share specific characteristics, including identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and the absence of change outputs. Galaxy Research described these features as part of the method that allows the initial attack activity to be identified on-chain.
Importantly for users trying to assess exposure, Galaxy Research also cautioned that future attacks targeting Coldcard-generated addresses may not always follow the same on-chain “fingerprint.” That means wallet owners should not assume that the first set of identifiable traits will be reused in later attempts.
What Coinkite says about the firmware bug and the limits of updates
Coinkite co-founder Rodolfo Novak publicly addressed the issue via an X post on Friday, saying the company takes responsibility for the firmware bug and is working to determine the full scope of the problem.
Novak also said Coinkite released a hotfix intended to remove the software fallback path. However, he warned that installing the fix does not retroactively protect seeds that were generated using vulnerable firmware.
In practical terms, Novak advised users who created seeds on the vulnerable firmware to move their funds to a new seed. That distinction—between fixing a flaw going forward and securing already-generated keys—appears to be central to how users should interpret the incident response.
This is also a reminder that “device firmware updates” and “seed security” are not always interchangeable. If the vulnerability affected how seeds were generated or handled, a patch may stop new risk but cannot undo the exposure that may have occurred when the vulnerable firmware produced the original seed material.
Why the expanded tracing matters for incident assessment
The difference between Hamilton’s earlier estimate of 594.48 BTC and Galaxy Research’s later identification of 1,082.65 BTC underscores how incident accounting can evolve as analysts refine clustering techniques and expand time windows. Early on-chain forensics often focus on the clearest bursts; later work may connect additional wallets and transactions using shared traits like consistent fee patterns and transaction structure.
For traders and users, this matters because it changes how incident exposure can be understood. Wallet owners who are evaluating whether they need to move funds may face a moving target: a larger set of addresses suggests that more wallets could have been impacted than initially thought, while Galaxy Research’s warning about fingerprint variability implies that on-chain searches may not capture everything using a single pattern.
For developers and auditors, the episode also highlights the importance of both preventive controls and disclosure timing. Galaxy Research’s observation about the 30-hour gap between the analyzed activity and Coldcard’s first advisory publication frames the timeline in which users may have been acting on incomplete information.
As more details are verified, the key question for the broader ecosystem will be whether subsequent investigations confirm additional waves of activity beyond the identifiable on-chain pattern described by Galaxy Research—and whether Coinkite’s technical findings fully explain how the firmware behavior led to the reported losses.
Readers should watch for further updates from Coinkite on what the bug impacted at the seed level and for additional on-chain analysis that tests whether other clusters of transactions match or diverge from the fee and “no change output” fingerprint outlined by Galaxy Research.
This article was originally published as Galaxy Maps Warns Coldcard Bitcoin Losses After Wallet Incident on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Galaxy Maps Warns Coldcard Bitcoin Losses After Wallet Incident
Galaxy Research, the research arm of Galaxy Digital, has expanded the on-chain footprint linked to the Coldcard wallet incident that reportedly resulted in the loss of 1,082.65 bitcoin. In a new analysis, the firm identified 1,196 addresses that were involved in transactions tied to that event, widening the estimated scale beyond earlier preliminary figures.
The activity Galaxy Research points to took place between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, spanning blocks 960,183 to 960,191—roughly 30 hours before Coldcard published its first security advisory, as referenced in Galaxy Research’s post on X.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Research traced a cluster of 1,196 addresses tied to the Coldcard incident, connected to losses of 1,082.65 BTC.
The movements were observed across blocks 960,183–960,191 between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30.
Galaxy Research says the transactions share a recognizable on-chain pattern (including identical fees and no change outputs), though later attacks may not reuse the same fingerprint.
Earlier estimates from Rob Hamilton and related analysis suggested a smaller, tighter window of activity that has since been superseded by the larger Galaxy Research mapping.
Coinkite has said it released a hotfix for a firmware bug, but users who created seeds using the vulnerable firmware may still need to move funds to a new seed.
Galaxy Research widens the address set
According to Galaxy Research, the incident’s impact is visible on-chain in a larger set of wallets than first documented publicly. The firm said it identified 1,196 addresses linked to the Coldcard wallet incident that ultimately resulted in 1,082.65 BTC being moved in the span it analyzed.
Galaxy Research’s tracing work focused on how those funds moved through the network during a specific period. It reported that the key transaction activity occurred between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, crossing blocks 960,183 to 960,191.
That timing is also notable in terms of disclosure. Galaxy Research indicated this took place about 30 hours before Coldcard’s first security advisory was published.
From a smaller estimate to a larger on-chain pattern
Prior to Galaxy Research’s broader mapping, a preliminary view of the incident suggested a more limited sweep. Earlier analysis by AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton estimated that 594.48 BTC—worth around $38 million at the time—moved across roughly 500 transactions within a narrow three-block window.
Galaxy Research’s later work does not necessarily contradict the existence of that tight burst; instead, it expands the scope of what can be linked to the event by pointing to a repeatable transaction fingerprint.
In posts on X, Galaxy Research said the identified transactions share specific characteristics, including identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and the absence of change outputs. Galaxy Research described these features as part of the method that allows the initial attack activity to be identified on-chain.
Importantly for users trying to assess exposure, Galaxy Research also cautioned that future attacks targeting Coldcard-generated addresses may not always follow the same on-chain “fingerprint.” That means wallet owners should not assume that the first set of identifiable traits will be reused in later attempts.
What Coinkite says about the firmware bug and the limits of updates
Coinkite co-founder Rodolfo Novak publicly addressed the issue via an X post on Friday, saying the company takes responsibility for the firmware bug and is working to determine the full scope of the problem.
Novak also said Coinkite released a hotfix intended to remove the software fallback path. However, he warned that installing the fix does not retroactively protect seeds that were generated using vulnerable firmware.
In practical terms, Novak advised users who created seeds on the vulnerable firmware to move their funds to a new seed. That distinction—between fixing a flaw going forward and securing already-generated keys—appears to be central to how users should interpret the incident response.
This is also a reminder that “device firmware updates” and “seed security” are not always interchangeable. If the vulnerability affected how seeds were generated or handled, a patch may stop new risk but cannot undo the exposure that may have occurred when the vulnerable firmware produced the original seed material.
Why the expanded tracing matters for incident assessment
The difference between Hamilton’s earlier estimate of 594.48 BTC and Galaxy Research’s later identification of 1,082.65 BTC underscores how incident accounting can evolve as analysts refine clustering techniques and expand time windows. Early on-chain forensics often focus on the clearest bursts; later work may connect additional wallets and transactions using shared traits like consistent fee patterns and transaction structure.
For traders and users, this matters because it changes how incident exposure can be understood. Wallet owners who are evaluating whether they need to move funds may face a moving target: a larger set of addresses suggests that more wallets could have been impacted than initially thought, while Galaxy Research’s warning about fingerprint variability implies that on-chain searches may not capture everything using a single pattern.
For developers and auditors, the episode also highlights the importance of both preventive controls and disclosure timing. Galaxy Research’s observation about the 30-hour gap between the analyzed activity and Coldcard’s first advisory publication frames the timeline in which users may have been acting on incomplete information.
As more details are verified, the key question for the broader ecosystem will be whether subsequent investigations confirm additional waves of activity beyond the identifiable on-chain pattern described by Galaxy Research—and whether Coinkite’s technical findings fully explain how the firmware behavior led to the reported losses.
Readers should watch for further updates from Coinkite on what the bug impacted at the seed level and for additional on-chain analysis that tests whether other clusters of transactions match or diverge from the fee and “no change output” fingerprint outlined by Galaxy Research.
This article was originally published as Galaxy Maps Warns Coldcard Bitcoin Losses After Wallet Incident on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The activity Galaxy Research points to took place between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, spanning blocks 960,183 to 960,191—roughly 30 hours before Coldcard published its first security advisory, as referenced in Galaxy Research’s post on X.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Research traced a cluster of 1,196 addresses tied to the Coldcard incident, connected to losses of 1,082.65 BTC.
The movements were observed across blocks 960,183–960,191 between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30.
Galaxy Research says the transactions share a recognizable on-chain pattern (including identical fees and no change outputs), though later attacks may not reuse the same fingerprint.
Earlier estimates from Rob Hamilton and related analysis suggested a smaller, tighter window of activity that has since been superseded by the larger Galaxy Research mapping.
Coinkite has said it released a hotfix for a firmware bug, but users who created seeds using the vulnerable firmware may still need to move funds to a new seed.
Galaxy Research widens the address set
According to Galaxy Research, the incident’s impact is visible on-chain in a larger set of wallets than first documented publicly. The firm said it identified 1,196 addresses linked to the Coldcard wallet incident that ultimately resulted in 1,082.65 BTC being moved in the span it analyzed.
Galaxy Research’s tracing work focused on how those funds moved through the network during a specific period. It reported that the key transaction activity occurred between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, crossing blocks 960,183 to 960,191.
That timing is also notable in terms of disclosure. Galaxy Research indicated this took place about 30 hours before Coldcard’s first security advisory was published.
From a smaller estimate to a larger on-chain pattern
Prior to Galaxy Research’s broader mapping, a preliminary view of the incident suggested a more limited sweep. Earlier analysis by AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton estimated that 594.48 BTC—worth around $38 million at the time—moved across roughly 500 transactions within a narrow three-block window.
Galaxy Research’s later work does not necessarily contradict the existence of that tight burst; instead, it expands the scope of what can be linked to the event by pointing to a repeatable transaction fingerprint.
In posts on X, Galaxy Research said the identified transactions share specific characteristics, including identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and the absence of change outputs. Galaxy Research described these features as part of the method that allows the initial attack activity to be identified on-chain.
Importantly for users trying to assess exposure, Galaxy Research also cautioned that future attacks targeting Coldcard-generated addresses may not always follow the same on-chain “fingerprint.” That means wallet owners should not assume that the first set of identifiable traits will be reused in later attempts.
What Coinkite says about the firmware bug and the limits of updates
Coinkite co-founder Rodolfo Novak publicly addressed the issue via an X post on Friday, saying the company takes responsibility for the firmware bug and is working to determine the full scope of the problem.
Novak also said Coinkite released a hotfix intended to remove the software fallback path. However, he warned that installing the fix does not retroactively protect seeds that were generated using vulnerable firmware.
In practical terms, Novak advised users who created seeds on the vulnerable firmware to move their funds to a new seed. That distinction—between fixing a flaw going forward and securing already-generated keys—appears to be central to how users should interpret the incident response.
This is also a reminder that “device firmware updates” and “seed security” are not always interchangeable. If the vulnerability affected how seeds were generated or handled, a patch may stop new risk but cannot undo the exposure that may have occurred when the vulnerable firmware produced the original seed material.
Why the expanded tracing matters for incident assessment
The difference between Hamilton’s earlier estimate of 594.48 BTC and Galaxy Research’s later identification of 1,082.65 BTC underscores how incident accounting can evolve as analysts refine clustering techniques and expand time windows. Early on-chain forensics often focus on the clearest bursts; later work may connect additional wallets and transactions using shared traits like consistent fee patterns and transaction structure.
For traders and users, this matters because it changes how incident exposure can be understood. Wallet owners who are evaluating whether they need to move funds may face a moving target: a larger set of addresses suggests that more wallets could have been impacted than initially thought, while Galaxy Research’s warning about fingerprint variability implies that on-chain searches may not capture everything using a single pattern.
For developers and auditors, the episode also highlights the importance of both preventive controls and disclosure timing. Galaxy Research’s observation about the 30-hour gap between the analyzed activity and Coldcard’s first advisory publication frames the timeline in which users may have been acting on incomplete information.
As more details are verified, the key question for the broader ecosystem will be whether subsequent investigations confirm additional waves of activity beyond the identifiable on-chain pattern described by Galaxy Research—and whether Coinkite’s technical findings fully explain how the firmware behavior led to the reported losses.
Readers should watch for further updates from Coinkite on what the bug impacted at the seed level and for additional on-chain analysis that tests whether other clusters of transactions match or diverge from the fee and “no change output” fingerprint outlined by Galaxy Research.
This article was originally published as Galaxy Maps Warns Coldcard Bitcoin Losses After Wallet Incident on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
57
Article
Crypto Industry Was Hit By 30 Hacks In July, Losing $210.3 Million: PeckshieldThe crypto industry suffered 30 major hacking incidents in July, leading to losses totaling $210.3 million, a significant increase from the $75.87 million reported in June.
The industry has lost $1 billion during the first half of the year, and recorded a record number of hacks within six months, with Ethereum and Solana leading the losses.
Crypto Industry Reports A Surge In Hacking Incidents
PeckShield has reported that the cryptocurrency industry suffered a loss of $210.3 million from 30 major exploits in July, a 177.2% increase from the $75.87 million reported in June. The exploits highlight the persistent security challenges faced by the industry. The losses were driven by a handful of high-profile incidents. The Coldcard Wallet exploit was the largest incident this month, and the third-largest this year, resulting in $70 million in losses.
Other notable security incidents in July include the AFX Trade exploit ($24 million), Ostium ($24 million), BONK ($21.2 million), Wanchain ($13 million), Triple-A ($10 million), Bonzo Lend ($9.05 million), Verus ($7.5 million), WEMIX ($6.25 million), and Summer.fi ($6 million).
Crypto Hacks Cross $1 Billion For 2026
According to Blockaid, an on-chain security platform, the cryptocurrency industry recorded a record number of exploits in the first half of 2026, with losses from these hacks exceeding $1 billion. The attacks were primarily concentrated on Ethereum and Solana, which lost $332 million and $326 million, respectively, to various exploits. Hackers used code exploits to target Ethereum-based protocols, and key and infrastructure breaches on Solana-based protocols.
Hackers Target Ethereum And Solana-Based Applications
Hackers targeted vulnerabilities in Ethereum-based applications. BlockAid stated in its Q2 2026 report that code exploits were the most common tactic used by hackers. However, Ethereum-based protocols such as Humanity Protocol and StablR were targeted through private-key exploits. BlockAid also highlighted other attack vectors on Ethereum, including privilege account exploits, market manipulation, smart contract, and bridge vulnerabilities.
Meanwhile, Drift Protocol, a Solana-based protocol, was targeted through social engineering, with hackers spending months building a relationship with the protocol team before using Solana’s “durable nonces” feature to get members to sign transactions giving them admin control. This allowed the hackers to drain $285 million, over half its TVL, from the protocol. On-chain indicators suggest North Korean hackers were behind the heist. The Step Finance exploit was also attributed to North Korean hackers. The hackers siphoned off $40 million after gaining access to devices belonging to the project’s team. The team then unstaked 261,854 SOL and moved them, causing the value of the STEP token to plummet 80%. However, Solana also saw code-based exploits involving Volo and Raydium.
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 Crypto Industry Was Hit By 30 Hacks In July, Losing $210.3 Million: Peckshield on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Crypto Industry Was Hit By 30 Hacks In July, Losing $210.3 Million: Peckshield
The crypto industry suffered 30 major hacking incidents in July, leading to losses totaling $210.3 million, a significant increase from the $75.87 million reported in June.
The industry has lost $1 billion during the first half of the year, and recorded a record number of hacks within six months, with Ethereum and Solana leading the losses.
Crypto Industry Reports A Surge In Hacking Incidents
PeckShield has reported that the cryptocurrency industry suffered a loss of $210.3 million from 30 major exploits in July, a 177.2% increase from the $75.87 million reported in June. The exploits highlight the persistent security challenges faced by the industry. The losses were driven by a handful of high-profile incidents. The Coldcard Wallet exploit was the largest incident this month, and the third-largest this year, resulting in $70 million in losses.
Other notable security incidents in July include the AFX Trade exploit ($24 million), Ostium ($24 million), BONK ($21.2 million), Wanchain ($13 million), Triple-A ($10 million), Bonzo Lend ($9.05 million), Verus ($7.5 million), WEMIX ($6.25 million), and Summer.fi ($6 million).
Crypto Hacks Cross $1 Billion For 2026
According to Blockaid, an on-chain security platform, the cryptocurrency industry recorded a record number of exploits in the first half of 2026, with losses from these hacks exceeding $1 billion. The attacks were primarily concentrated on Ethereum and Solana, which lost $332 million and $326 million, respectively, to various exploits. Hackers used code exploits to target Ethereum-based protocols, and key and infrastructure breaches on Solana-based protocols.
Hackers Target Ethereum And Solana-Based Applications
Hackers targeted vulnerabilities in Ethereum-based applications. BlockAid stated in its Q2 2026 report that code exploits were the most common tactic used by hackers. However, Ethereum-based protocols such as Humanity Protocol and StablR were targeted through private-key exploits. BlockAid also highlighted other attack vectors on Ethereum, including privilege account exploits, market manipulation, smart contract, and bridge vulnerabilities.
Meanwhile, Drift Protocol, a Solana-based protocol, was targeted through social engineering, with hackers spending months building a relationship with the protocol team before using Solana’s “durable nonces” feature to get members to sign transactions giving them admin control. This allowed the hackers to drain $285 million, over half its TVL, from the protocol. On-chain indicators suggest North Korean hackers were behind the heist. The Step Finance exploit was also attributed to North Korean hackers. The hackers siphoned off $40 million after gaining access to devices belonging to the project’s team. The team then unstaked 261,854 SOL and moved them, causing the value of the STEP token to plummet 80%. However, Solana also saw code-based exploits involving Volo and Raydium.
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 Crypto Industry Was Hit By 30 Hacks In July, Losing $210.3 Million: Peckshield on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The industry has lost $1 billion during the first half of the year, and recorded a record number of hacks within six months, with Ethereum and Solana leading the losses.
Crypto Industry Reports A Surge In Hacking Incidents
PeckShield has reported that the cryptocurrency industry suffered a loss of $210.3 million from 30 major exploits in July, a 177.2% increase from the $75.87 million reported in June. The exploits highlight the persistent security challenges faced by the industry. The losses were driven by a handful of high-profile incidents. The Coldcard Wallet exploit was the largest incident this month, and the third-largest this year, resulting in $70 million in losses.
Other notable security incidents in July include the AFX Trade exploit ($24 million), Ostium ($24 million), BONK ($21.2 million), Wanchain ($13 million), Triple-A ($10 million), Bonzo Lend ($9.05 million), Verus ($7.5 million), WEMIX ($6.25 million), and Summer.fi ($6 million).
Crypto Hacks Cross $1 Billion For 2026
According to Blockaid, an on-chain security platform, the cryptocurrency industry recorded a record number of exploits in the first half of 2026, with losses from these hacks exceeding $1 billion. The attacks were primarily concentrated on Ethereum and Solana, which lost $332 million and $326 million, respectively, to various exploits. Hackers used code exploits to target Ethereum-based protocols, and key and infrastructure breaches on Solana-based protocols.
Hackers Target Ethereum And Solana-Based Applications
Hackers targeted vulnerabilities in Ethereum-based applications. BlockAid stated in its Q2 2026 report that code exploits were the most common tactic used by hackers. However, Ethereum-based protocols such as Humanity Protocol and StablR were targeted through private-key exploits. BlockAid also highlighted other attack vectors on Ethereum, including privilege account exploits, market manipulation, smart contract, and bridge vulnerabilities.
Meanwhile, Drift Protocol, a Solana-based protocol, was targeted through social engineering, with hackers spending months building a relationship with the protocol team before using Solana’s “durable nonces” feature to get members to sign transactions giving them admin control. This allowed the hackers to drain $285 million, over half its TVL, from the protocol. On-chain indicators suggest North Korean hackers were behind the heist. The Step Finance exploit was also attributed to North Korean hackers. The hackers siphoned off $40 million after gaining access to devices belonging to the project’s team. The team then unstaked 261,854 SOL and moved them, causing the value of the STEP token to plummet 80%. However, Solana also saw code-based exploits involving Volo and Raydium.
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 Crypto Industry Was Hit By 30 Hacks In July, Losing $210.3 Million: Peckshield on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
33
Article
Coldcard Bitcoin Loss Estimate Up to $70M After Galaxy ReviewGalaxy Research, the research arm of Galaxy Digital, has expanded the on-chain scope of the Coldcard wallet incident after identifying 1,196 affected Bitcoin addresses. In a 41-minute window, those addresses lost a total of 1,082.65 BTC—worth about $70.2 million at the time the transactions occurred.
The new findings push earlier estimates further, helping clarify what attackers may have executed immediately after the vulnerable wallets generated seeds. Galaxy Research’s tracing covers movements between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30 across blocks 960,183 to 960,191, roughly 30 hours before Coldcard published its first security advisory.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Research identified 1,196 addresses tied to the Coldcard incident and traced losses of 1,082.65 BTC in a 41-minute period.
The identified activity occurred between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, across blocks 960,183–960,191, about 30 hours before Coldcard’s initial advisory.
Earlier estimates by AnchorWatch CEO Rob Hamilton were lower, pointing to 594.48 BTC moving through a tighter three-block window.
Galaxy Research says the transactions share a distinctive pattern on-chain—identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and no change outputs—but future sweeps may differ.
Galaxy Research broadens the attack map
Galaxy Research says it traced the Bitcoin movements tied to the incident to a specific burst of activity on July 30. The research effort focuses on addresses linked to the Coldcard wallet compromise that were swept between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC.
According to Galaxy Research, the losses accumulated across a short span of blocks—960,183 through 960,191—indicating that the attack likely operated with automation and repeated transaction structure rather than sporadic manual movement. At the time of the outgoing transfers, the 1,082.65 BTC figure was valued at approximately $70.2 million.
The timing is also notable: Galaxy Research’s tracing window began about a day before Coldcard’s first publicly issued security advisory, suggesting that the compromised funds were moved early and that the response cycle lagged behind the initial sweep.
Pattern matching helps confirm related transactions—within limits
In follow-up analysis, Galaxy Research said the identified transactions share a common signature. The company reported that the sweeps used identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and that the transactions contained no change outputs.
Those characteristics are useful for investigators because they provide an on-chain fingerprint for clustering wallet-related activity, which can reduce the chances of misattributing unrelated transfers. Galaxy Research also cautioned that while the initial attack activity is identifiable through this pattern, later attacks against Coldcard-generated addresses may not preserve the same fingerprint.
For users and analysts, this distinction matters: it implies that incident totals based solely on one recognizable transaction structure could undercount additional rounds of activity if those later sweeps differed in fee settings or output behavior.
Earlier estimates were smaller, but based on a narrower window
Before Galaxy Research’s broader mapping, earlier preliminary analysis by AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton estimated that 594.48 BTC—about $38 million at the time—moved across 500 transactions within a three-block window.
Hamilton’s figures were drawn from a tighter segment of on-chain activity, reflecting how fast-moving wallet incidents often outpace early investigations. Galaxy Research’s expanded set effectively updates the picture by widening both the address set and the traced timeframe around the July 30 burst, nearly doubling the total BTC attributed to the sweep activity.
The divergence between estimates underscores a common challenge in incident response for self-custody systems: determining full scope can require days of tracing, clustering, and validation—particularly when attackers reuse similar logic across multiple transactions and destinations.
Coinkite acknowledges a firmware bug and advises seed migration
Coldcard’s manufacturer, Coinkite, has taken responsibility for the underlying issue. In an X post on Friday, Coinkite co-founder Rodolfo Novak said the company is working to determine the full scope of the problem and confirmed that it released a hotfix designed to remove a software fallback path.
Novak also emphasized a limitation of the mitigation: the update does not protect seeds generated on the vulnerable firmware. In practical terms, users who created seed phrases during the affected period were advised to move funds to a new seed.
This guidance aligns with the core risk in seed-based compromises—if a vulnerability affects how seed material or related execution paths behave, merely updating firmware may not retroactively secure already-generated keys. The immediate operational implication for affected holders is that recovery requires a transfer to safer key material, not just a device update.
What to watch next for affected users
Galaxy Research’s identification of a common on-chain sweep pattern offers a more structured basis for tracking related activity, but the company’s warning that future attacks may not match the same fingerprint suggests the incident may still evolve in how it appears on-chain. Users concerned about whether they generated seeds with vulnerable firmware should focus on migrating remaining balances to newly generated seeds and continue monitoring for any residual movement tied to addresses linked to the sweep logic.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Bitcoin Loss Estimate Up to $70M After Galaxy Review on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Coldcard Bitcoin Loss Estimate Up to $70M After Galaxy Review
Galaxy Research, the research arm of Galaxy Digital, has expanded the on-chain scope of the Coldcard wallet incident after identifying 1,196 affected Bitcoin addresses. In a 41-minute window, those addresses lost a total of 1,082.65 BTC—worth about $70.2 million at the time the transactions occurred.
The new findings push earlier estimates further, helping clarify what attackers may have executed immediately after the vulnerable wallets generated seeds. Galaxy Research’s tracing covers movements between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30 across blocks 960,183 to 960,191, roughly 30 hours before Coldcard published its first security advisory.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Research identified 1,196 addresses tied to the Coldcard incident and traced losses of 1,082.65 BTC in a 41-minute period.
The identified activity occurred between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, across blocks 960,183–960,191, about 30 hours before Coldcard’s initial advisory.
Earlier estimates by AnchorWatch CEO Rob Hamilton were lower, pointing to 594.48 BTC moving through a tighter three-block window.
Galaxy Research says the transactions share a distinctive pattern on-chain—identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and no change outputs—but future sweeps may differ.
Galaxy Research broadens the attack map
Galaxy Research says it traced the Bitcoin movements tied to the incident to a specific burst of activity on July 30. The research effort focuses on addresses linked to the Coldcard wallet compromise that were swept between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC.
According to Galaxy Research, the losses accumulated across a short span of blocks—960,183 through 960,191—indicating that the attack likely operated with automation and repeated transaction structure rather than sporadic manual movement. At the time of the outgoing transfers, the 1,082.65 BTC figure was valued at approximately $70.2 million.
The timing is also notable: Galaxy Research’s tracing window began about a day before Coldcard’s first publicly issued security advisory, suggesting that the compromised funds were moved early and that the response cycle lagged behind the initial sweep.
Pattern matching helps confirm related transactions—within limits
In follow-up analysis, Galaxy Research said the identified transactions share a common signature. The company reported that the sweeps used identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and that the transactions contained no change outputs.
Those characteristics are useful for investigators because they provide an on-chain fingerprint for clustering wallet-related activity, which can reduce the chances of misattributing unrelated transfers. Galaxy Research also cautioned that while the initial attack activity is identifiable through this pattern, later attacks against Coldcard-generated addresses may not preserve the same fingerprint.
For users and analysts, this distinction matters: it implies that incident totals based solely on one recognizable transaction structure could undercount additional rounds of activity if those later sweeps differed in fee settings or output behavior.
Earlier estimates were smaller, but based on a narrower window
Before Galaxy Research’s broader mapping, earlier preliminary analysis by AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton estimated that 594.48 BTC—about $38 million at the time—moved across 500 transactions within a three-block window.
Hamilton’s figures were drawn from a tighter segment of on-chain activity, reflecting how fast-moving wallet incidents often outpace early investigations. Galaxy Research’s expanded set effectively updates the picture by widening both the address set and the traced timeframe around the July 30 burst, nearly doubling the total BTC attributed to the sweep activity.
The divergence between estimates underscores a common challenge in incident response for self-custody systems: determining full scope can require days of tracing, clustering, and validation—particularly when attackers reuse similar logic across multiple transactions and destinations.
Coinkite acknowledges a firmware bug and advises seed migration
Coldcard’s manufacturer, Coinkite, has taken responsibility for the underlying issue. In an X post on Friday, Coinkite co-founder Rodolfo Novak said the company is working to determine the full scope of the problem and confirmed that it released a hotfix designed to remove a software fallback path.
Novak also emphasized a limitation of the mitigation: the update does not protect seeds generated on the vulnerable firmware. In practical terms, users who created seed phrases during the affected period were advised to move funds to a new seed.
This guidance aligns with the core risk in seed-based compromises—if a vulnerability affects how seed material or related execution paths behave, merely updating firmware may not retroactively secure already-generated keys. The immediate operational implication for affected holders is that recovery requires a transfer to safer key material, not just a device update.
What to watch next for affected users
Galaxy Research’s identification of a common on-chain sweep pattern offers a more structured basis for tracking related activity, but the company’s warning that future attacks may not match the same fingerprint suggests the incident may still evolve in how it appears on-chain. Users concerned about whether they generated seeds with vulnerable firmware should focus on migrating remaining balances to newly generated seeds and continue monitoring for any residual movement tied to addresses linked to the sweep logic.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Bitcoin Loss Estimate Up to $70M After Galaxy Review on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The new findings push earlier estimates further, helping clarify what attackers may have executed immediately after the vulnerable wallets generated seeds. Galaxy Research’s tracing covers movements between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30 across blocks 960,183 to 960,191, roughly 30 hours before Coldcard published its first security advisory.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Research identified 1,196 addresses tied to the Coldcard incident and traced losses of 1,082.65 BTC in a 41-minute period.
The identified activity occurred between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC on July 30, across blocks 960,183–960,191, about 30 hours before Coldcard’s initial advisory.
Earlier estimates by AnchorWatch CEO Rob Hamilton were lower, pointing to 594.48 BTC moving through a tighter three-block window.
Galaxy Research says the transactions share a distinctive pattern on-chain—identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and no change outputs—but future sweeps may differ.
Galaxy Research broadens the attack map
Galaxy Research says it traced the Bitcoin movements tied to the incident to a specific burst of activity on July 30. The research effort focuses on addresses linked to the Coldcard wallet compromise that were swept between 1:10 AM and 1:51 AM UTC.
According to Galaxy Research, the losses accumulated across a short span of blocks—960,183 through 960,191—indicating that the attack likely operated with automation and repeated transaction structure rather than sporadic manual movement. At the time of the outgoing transfers, the 1,082.65 BTC figure was valued at approximately $70.2 million.
The timing is also notable: Galaxy Research’s tracing window began about a day before Coldcard’s first publicly issued security advisory, suggesting that the compromised funds were moved early and that the response cycle lagged behind the initial sweep.
Pattern matching helps confirm related transactions—within limits
In follow-up analysis, Galaxy Research said the identified transactions share a common signature. The company reported that the sweeps used identical 30 satoshis per virtual byte fees and that the transactions contained no change outputs.
Those characteristics are useful for investigators because they provide an on-chain fingerprint for clustering wallet-related activity, which can reduce the chances of misattributing unrelated transfers. Galaxy Research also cautioned that while the initial attack activity is identifiable through this pattern, later attacks against Coldcard-generated addresses may not preserve the same fingerprint.
For users and analysts, this distinction matters: it implies that incident totals based solely on one recognizable transaction structure could undercount additional rounds of activity if those later sweeps differed in fee settings or output behavior.
Earlier estimates were smaller, but based on a narrower window
Before Galaxy Research’s broader mapping, earlier preliminary analysis by AnchorWatch CEO and co-founder Rob Hamilton estimated that 594.48 BTC—about $38 million at the time—moved across 500 transactions within a three-block window.
Hamilton’s figures were drawn from a tighter segment of on-chain activity, reflecting how fast-moving wallet incidents often outpace early investigations. Galaxy Research’s expanded set effectively updates the picture by widening both the address set and the traced timeframe around the July 30 burst, nearly doubling the total BTC attributed to the sweep activity.
The divergence between estimates underscores a common challenge in incident response for self-custody systems: determining full scope can require days of tracing, clustering, and validation—particularly when attackers reuse similar logic across multiple transactions and destinations.
Coinkite acknowledges a firmware bug and advises seed migration
Coldcard’s manufacturer, Coinkite, has taken responsibility for the underlying issue. In an X post on Friday, Coinkite co-founder Rodolfo Novak said the company is working to determine the full scope of the problem and confirmed that it released a hotfix designed to remove a software fallback path.
Novak also emphasized a limitation of the mitigation: the update does not protect seeds generated on the vulnerable firmware. In practical terms, users who created seed phrases during the affected period were advised to move funds to a new seed.
This guidance aligns with the core risk in seed-based compromises—if a vulnerability affects how seed material or related execution paths behave, merely updating firmware may not retroactively secure already-generated keys. The immediate operational implication for affected holders is that recovery requires a transfer to safer key material, not just a device update.
What to watch next for affected users
Galaxy Research’s identification of a common on-chain sweep pattern offers a more structured basis for tracking related activity, but the company’s warning that future attacks may not match the same fingerprint suggests the incident may still evolve in how it appears on-chain. Users concerned about whether they generated seeds with vulnerable firmware should focus on migrating remaining balances to newly generated seeds and continue monitoring for any residual movement tied to addresses linked to the sweep logic.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Bitcoin Loss Estimate Up to $70M After Galaxy Review on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
130
Article
Bitcoin ETFs Stay Positive Into July as Late-Sell Pressure FadesUS-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) finished July with net inflows, even after a late-month pullback that underscored how cautious investors remained going into August. According to SoSoValue, the funds brought in $172.4 million in net inflows during July—enough to reverse two straight months of outflows.
The month’s positive result was tempered by volatility in the final stretch. On the final Friday of July, spot Bitcoin ETFs logged a $265.4 million net outflow, the largest single-day withdrawal since July 13, suggesting the rebound in demand was not fully sustained.
Key takeaways
Spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $172.4 million in net inflows in July, reversing two consecutive months of outflows, according to SoSoValue.
Despite the monthly gain, the last Friday of July saw a $265.4 million net outflow—Bitcoin ETFs’ biggest daily withdrawal since July 13.
Year-to-date flows remain negative: US spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded about $5.29 billion in net outflows in 2026.
Ether ETFs were steadier, ending July with $365.2 million in net inflows and a four-week inflow run, per SoSoValue.
XRP ETFs also posted continued demand, adding $27.3 million in net inflows in July while recording their fifth positive month of 2026.
Bitcoin ETFs return to inflows—weak finish signals caution
SoSoValue data indicates July’s net inflow improved the outlook for spot Bitcoin ETF investors after a difficult stretch. The article notes that investors pulled nearly $7 billion in aggregate outflows over the previous two months, including what earlier reporting described as the largest monthly outflow of 2026 in June, totaling $4.5 billion (coverage referenced in the original piece: Cointelegraph).
Still, the late-month selling pressure matters for how traders may read positioning. The $265.4 million outflow on the final Friday of July not only flipped daily flows negative, but also marked the largest daily withdrawal since mid-July. In practical terms, that pattern suggests July’s inflows were vulnerable to sudden risk-off behavior—important for anyone tracking ETF flow-driven momentum.
On a broader time frame, weekly flows also turned negative at the end of the month. For the week ending July 31, Bitcoin ETFs recorded a $61.53 million outflow after three consecutive weeks of inflows. That shift reinforces the message that demand improved during parts of July, but participation thinned as the month closed.
Where 2026 stands: cumulative outflows stay elevated
Even with a positive July, the year-to-date picture for US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs remains firmly in the red. Based on the figures cited from SoSoValue, Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated roughly $5.29 billion in net outflows in 2026.
The monthly distribution shows a market that has not found consistent footing. March, April, and July are the only months reported as positive so far this year, bringing total inflows of $3.46 billion. Meanwhile, the remaining months—January, February, May, and June—accounted for outflows totaling about $8.75 billion.
Despite that imbalance, the products have still attracted meaningful long-term net capital since launch. The article states that US spot Bitcoin ETFs have drawn $51.32 billion in cumulative net inflows, and that total net assets reached $76.29 billion at the end of July.
Ether ETFs keep the momentum going
While Bitcoin ETFs faced renewed selling pressure at the end of July, Ether-related products showed comparatively steadier demand. According to SoSoValue, US spot Ether ETFs ended July with $365.2 million in net inflows and maintained four consecutive weeks of inflows.
That marks a second month of positive flows for Ether ETFs in 2026 after April’s $356 million inflow. Yet, the recovery is not enough to fully erase earlier weakness: despite this improvement, the article notes Ether ETFs are still around $1.1 billion in net outflows year to date.
For investors, the contrast between Bitcoin and Ether flows can be informative. It suggests that even if market-wide sentiment is cautious, some capital has been willing to rotate into Ether exposure—at least at the ETF level—rather than staying entirely risk-off.
XRP ETFs post another positive month
Other altcoin ETF categories also appear to have avoided the same late-month stress seen in Bitcoin. XRP ETFs, in particular, maintained steadier activity. The article reports that XRP ETFs recorded $27.3 million in inflows during July and marked their fifth positive month of 2026.
Year-to-date, XRP ETFs have generated about $343 million in net inflows, positioning them as one of the stronger-performing crypto ETF segments in the market this year, at least based on the net flow figures cited.
In a market where ETF flows can swing quickly with broader macro conditions and crypto price action, continued positive monthly demand for XRP products can serve as a signal that some investors are still finding specific altcoin exposure compelling—even when Bitcoin faces repeated episodes of volatility.
Going forward, traders and long-term holders will likely watch whether Bitcoin ETF demand can withstand similar end-of-month selling pressure, especially since weekly flows flipped negative as July closed. At the same time, the relative stability in Ether and XRP inflows may keep comparing as a useful read on whether the next wave of capital concentrates in Bitcoin or broadens across the rest of the crypto ETF complex.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs Stay Positive Into July as Late-Sell Pressure Fades on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bitcoin ETFs Stay Positive Into July as Late-Sell Pressure Fades
US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) finished July with net inflows, even after a late-month pullback that underscored how cautious investors remained going into August. According to SoSoValue, the funds brought in $172.4 million in net inflows during July—enough to reverse two straight months of outflows.
The month’s positive result was tempered by volatility in the final stretch. On the final Friday of July, spot Bitcoin ETFs logged a $265.4 million net outflow, the largest single-day withdrawal since July 13, suggesting the rebound in demand was not fully sustained.
Key takeaways
Spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $172.4 million in net inflows in July, reversing two consecutive months of outflows, according to SoSoValue.
Despite the monthly gain, the last Friday of July saw a $265.4 million net outflow—Bitcoin ETFs’ biggest daily withdrawal since July 13.
Year-to-date flows remain negative: US spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded about $5.29 billion in net outflows in 2026.
Ether ETFs were steadier, ending July with $365.2 million in net inflows and a four-week inflow run, per SoSoValue.
XRP ETFs also posted continued demand, adding $27.3 million in net inflows in July while recording their fifth positive month of 2026.
Bitcoin ETFs return to inflows—weak finish signals caution
SoSoValue data indicates July’s net inflow improved the outlook for spot Bitcoin ETF investors after a difficult stretch. The article notes that investors pulled nearly $7 billion in aggregate outflows over the previous two months, including what earlier reporting described as the largest monthly outflow of 2026 in June, totaling $4.5 billion (coverage referenced in the original piece: Cointelegraph).
Still, the late-month selling pressure matters for how traders may read positioning. The $265.4 million outflow on the final Friday of July not only flipped daily flows negative, but also marked the largest daily withdrawal since mid-July. In practical terms, that pattern suggests July’s inflows were vulnerable to sudden risk-off behavior—important for anyone tracking ETF flow-driven momentum.
On a broader time frame, weekly flows also turned negative at the end of the month. For the week ending July 31, Bitcoin ETFs recorded a $61.53 million outflow after three consecutive weeks of inflows. That shift reinforces the message that demand improved during parts of July, but participation thinned as the month closed.
Where 2026 stands: cumulative outflows stay elevated
Even with a positive July, the year-to-date picture for US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs remains firmly in the red. Based on the figures cited from SoSoValue, Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated roughly $5.29 billion in net outflows in 2026.
The monthly distribution shows a market that has not found consistent footing. March, April, and July are the only months reported as positive so far this year, bringing total inflows of $3.46 billion. Meanwhile, the remaining months—January, February, May, and June—accounted for outflows totaling about $8.75 billion.
Despite that imbalance, the products have still attracted meaningful long-term net capital since launch. The article states that US spot Bitcoin ETFs have drawn $51.32 billion in cumulative net inflows, and that total net assets reached $76.29 billion at the end of July.
Ether ETFs keep the momentum going
While Bitcoin ETFs faced renewed selling pressure at the end of July, Ether-related products showed comparatively steadier demand. According to SoSoValue, US spot Ether ETFs ended July with $365.2 million in net inflows and maintained four consecutive weeks of inflows.
That marks a second month of positive flows for Ether ETFs in 2026 after April’s $356 million inflow. Yet, the recovery is not enough to fully erase earlier weakness: despite this improvement, the article notes Ether ETFs are still around $1.1 billion in net outflows year to date.
For investors, the contrast between Bitcoin and Ether flows can be informative. It suggests that even if market-wide sentiment is cautious, some capital has been willing to rotate into Ether exposure—at least at the ETF level—rather than staying entirely risk-off.
XRP ETFs post another positive month
Other altcoin ETF categories also appear to have avoided the same late-month stress seen in Bitcoin. XRP ETFs, in particular, maintained steadier activity. The article reports that XRP ETFs recorded $27.3 million in inflows during July and marked their fifth positive month of 2026.
Year-to-date, XRP ETFs have generated about $343 million in net inflows, positioning them as one of the stronger-performing crypto ETF segments in the market this year, at least based on the net flow figures cited.
In a market where ETF flows can swing quickly with broader macro conditions and crypto price action, continued positive monthly demand for XRP products can serve as a signal that some investors are still finding specific altcoin exposure compelling—even when Bitcoin faces repeated episodes of volatility.
Going forward, traders and long-term holders will likely watch whether Bitcoin ETF demand can withstand similar end-of-month selling pressure, especially since weekly flows flipped negative as July closed. At the same time, the relative stability in Ether and XRP inflows may keep comparing as a useful read on whether the next wave of capital concentrates in Bitcoin or broadens across the rest of the crypto ETF complex.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs Stay Positive Into July as Late-Sell Pressure Fades on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The month’s positive result was tempered by volatility in the final stretch. On the final Friday of July, spot Bitcoin ETFs logged a $265.4 million net outflow, the largest single-day withdrawal since July 13, suggesting the rebound in demand was not fully sustained.
Key takeaways
Spot Bitcoin ETFs took in $172.4 million in net inflows in July, reversing two consecutive months of outflows, according to SoSoValue.
Despite the monthly gain, the last Friday of July saw a $265.4 million net outflow—Bitcoin ETFs’ biggest daily withdrawal since July 13.
Year-to-date flows remain negative: US spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded about $5.29 billion in net outflows in 2026.
Ether ETFs were steadier, ending July with $365.2 million in net inflows and a four-week inflow run, per SoSoValue.
XRP ETFs also posted continued demand, adding $27.3 million in net inflows in July while recording their fifth positive month of 2026.
Bitcoin ETFs return to inflows—weak finish signals caution
SoSoValue data indicates July’s net inflow improved the outlook for spot Bitcoin ETF investors after a difficult stretch. The article notes that investors pulled nearly $7 billion in aggregate outflows over the previous two months, including what earlier reporting described as the largest monthly outflow of 2026 in June, totaling $4.5 billion (coverage referenced in the original piece: Cointelegraph).
Still, the late-month selling pressure matters for how traders may read positioning. The $265.4 million outflow on the final Friday of July not only flipped daily flows negative, but also marked the largest daily withdrawal since mid-July. In practical terms, that pattern suggests July’s inflows were vulnerable to sudden risk-off behavior—important for anyone tracking ETF flow-driven momentum.
On a broader time frame, weekly flows also turned negative at the end of the month. For the week ending July 31, Bitcoin ETFs recorded a $61.53 million outflow after three consecutive weeks of inflows. That shift reinforces the message that demand improved during parts of July, but participation thinned as the month closed.
Where 2026 stands: cumulative outflows stay elevated
Even with a positive July, the year-to-date picture for US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs remains firmly in the red. Based on the figures cited from SoSoValue, Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated roughly $5.29 billion in net outflows in 2026.
The monthly distribution shows a market that has not found consistent footing. March, April, and July are the only months reported as positive so far this year, bringing total inflows of $3.46 billion. Meanwhile, the remaining months—January, February, May, and June—accounted for outflows totaling about $8.75 billion.
Despite that imbalance, the products have still attracted meaningful long-term net capital since launch. The article states that US spot Bitcoin ETFs have drawn $51.32 billion in cumulative net inflows, and that total net assets reached $76.29 billion at the end of July.
Ether ETFs keep the momentum going
While Bitcoin ETFs faced renewed selling pressure at the end of July, Ether-related products showed comparatively steadier demand. According to SoSoValue, US spot Ether ETFs ended July with $365.2 million in net inflows and maintained four consecutive weeks of inflows.
That marks a second month of positive flows for Ether ETFs in 2026 after April’s $356 million inflow. Yet, the recovery is not enough to fully erase earlier weakness: despite this improvement, the article notes Ether ETFs are still around $1.1 billion in net outflows year to date.
For investors, the contrast between Bitcoin and Ether flows can be informative. It suggests that even if market-wide sentiment is cautious, some capital has been willing to rotate into Ether exposure—at least at the ETF level—rather than staying entirely risk-off.
XRP ETFs post another positive month
Other altcoin ETF categories also appear to have avoided the same late-month stress seen in Bitcoin. XRP ETFs, in particular, maintained steadier activity. The article reports that XRP ETFs recorded $27.3 million in inflows during July and marked their fifth positive month of 2026.
Year-to-date, XRP ETFs have generated about $343 million in net inflows, positioning them as one of the stronger-performing crypto ETF segments in the market this year, at least based on the net flow figures cited.
In a market where ETF flows can swing quickly with broader macro conditions and crypto price action, continued positive monthly demand for XRP products can serve as a signal that some investors are still finding specific altcoin exposure compelling—even when Bitcoin faces repeated episodes of volatility.
Going forward, traders and long-term holders will likely watch whether Bitcoin ETF demand can withstand similar end-of-month selling pressure, especially since weekly flows flipped negative as July closed. At the same time, the relative stability in Ether and XRP inflows may keep comparing as a useful read on whether the next wave of capital concentrates in Bitcoin or broadens across the rest of the crypto ETF complex.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs Stay Positive Into July as Late-Sell Pressure Fades on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
231
Article
Bank of Italy: Stablecoin Remittances Don’t Cut Costs ReliablyA new study from the Bank of Italy challenges a common assumption about stablecoins in cross-border payments: using stablecoin transfers for remittances may not automatically deliver better economics or faster delivery than established payment rails once the full cost chain is considered.
Researchers evaluated 200 remittances denominated in USDC across 10 bidirectional payment corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa. They compared end-to-end fees and settlement times against traditional remittance services, concluding that most expenses and delays were driven by fiat on- and off-ramp frictions rather than by blockchain execution itself.
Key takeaways
In the tested corridors, exchange and currency-conversion charges made up the majority of total remittance cost, while blockchain transaction fees were only a small portion.
Total stablecoin remittance costs ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor, while settlement time was typically under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available.
Compared with the World Bank’s global average remittance cost benchmark of 6.65%, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors—but were cheaper than Wise in only three out of seven comparable corridors.
The study argues that improvements to domestic instant payment infrastructure and reduced reliance on reconversion into fiat are likely to matter more than blockchain technology alone.
Regulatory design strongly influences where stablecoin users transact, with overly restrictive regimes potentially pushing activity toward offshore or unregulated channels.
Stablecoin remittances: where the cost really comes from
The Bank of Italy study tested 200 USDC remittance flows across 10 corridors, designed to capture realistic friction across payment paths between Italy and several major regions. The researchers focused on the full journey—from conversion and routing through the on- and off-ramps used to turn fiat into stablecoins and back again—then compared results to traditional remittance offerings.
According to the report, the largest share of costs came from exchange fees and currency conversion. Blockchain fees represented only a small fraction of the total remittance cost, undermining the idea that “using a blockchain” by itself will guarantee cheaper transfers. In other words, even if the stablecoin transfer settles quickly on-chain, the conversion steps required to deliver value in the recipient’s usable currency can dominate the bill.
On the cost range observed in the experiment, total stablecoin remittance costs varied sharply by corridor—from as low as 0.3% to nearly 9%. That variability matters for investors and payment operators because it suggests that stablecoin remittance performance is not uniform; it depends heavily on the local availability and pricing of payment infrastructure and conversion services.
Speed depends on local payment rails, not just settlement time
The study also measured settlement times end-to-end. For stablecoin remittances, transfer settlement was reported as less than 20 minutes in corridors where instant payment systems were available. In corridors without those systems, settlement took one to two business days.
This finding is consistent with the broader logic of cross-border payments: on-chain settlement can be quick, but delivery is constrained by the speed of off-chain steps—such as how quickly funds can be credited to accounts after the stablecoin leg is completed. For users, that means stablecoins may improve speed only when the surrounding payment ecosystem can match the speed of the blockchain component.
How stablecoins compare to global benchmarks and mainstream providers
To contextualize the results, the Bank of Italy report used the World Bank’s global average remittance cost of 6.65% as a reference point. Against that benchmark, the stablecoin corridors examined were cheaper in most cases. However, the study’s comparison to major providers was more nuanced.
The report found that stablecoin transfers were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven comparable corridors. That asymmetry is important: it indicates that stablecoin-based remittances may undercut some traditional options in certain routes, but they do not consistently outperform competitive incumbents across the board.
For traders and builders watching stablecoin adoption, the implication is clear: performance will likely be route-specific until the conversion and settlement ecosystem improves. Stablecoin rails can reduce certain types of friction, but in practice they must be integrated into efficient on- and off-ramp systems to translate into sustained advantage.
Infrastructure investment and spending stablecoins directly
While the study found that blockchain transaction fees were not the primary cost driver, it argued that strategic investment in domestic instant payment infrastructure could improve the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments. The authors emphasized that settlement speed depended heavily on the quality of local payment rails—so improving the “last mile” (and the corresponding conversion processes) is likely to yield the biggest gains.
The report also highlighted a structural bottleneck: stablecoins currently often require reconversion into local fiat to be usable by recipients. It suggested that meaningful economic advantages would increase if stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy.
If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.
Regulation: efficiency can improve or unravel depending on design
Beyond infrastructure and market mechanics, the study argued that regulatory design shapes remittance efficiency. In the Bank of Italy’s framing, prohibitionist regimes have not eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can redirect usage toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users, potentially offsetting any intended consumer protections.
The study arrives as major jurisdictions tighten or implement frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins. The European Union has implemented its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, and the United States enacted the GENIUS Act, which is intended to govern payment stablecoins. As these regimes take effect, the balance between compliance, accessibility, and the availability of regulated fiat on- and off-ramps may directly affect real-world remittance outcomes.
The broader stablecoin market context also matters. DefiLlama data cited in the article places stablecoin supply at about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year. That growth underscores why policymakers and payment providers are focused on the operational and regulatory details—especially where remittances are concerned.
What to watch next is whether regulatory changes and domestic payment infrastructure upgrades reduce the conversion frictions that the Bank of Italy study identifies as the dominant cost and timing drivers. If stablecoin usage increasingly shifts toward corridors with strong instant payment rails and if more “spendable” pathways emerge, the potential for stablecoins to outperform traditional remittance services may become clearer—and more consistent across routes.
This article was originally published as Bank of Italy: Stablecoin Remittances Don’t Cut Costs Reliably on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bank of Italy: Stablecoin Remittances Don’t Cut Costs Reliably
A new study from the Bank of Italy challenges a common assumption about stablecoins in cross-border payments: using stablecoin transfers for remittances may not automatically deliver better economics or faster delivery than established payment rails once the full cost chain is considered.
Researchers evaluated 200 remittances denominated in USDC across 10 bidirectional payment corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa. They compared end-to-end fees and settlement times against traditional remittance services, concluding that most expenses and delays were driven by fiat on- and off-ramp frictions rather than by blockchain execution itself.
Key takeaways
In the tested corridors, exchange and currency-conversion charges made up the majority of total remittance cost, while blockchain transaction fees were only a small portion.
Total stablecoin remittance costs ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor, while settlement time was typically under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available.
Compared with the World Bank’s global average remittance cost benchmark of 6.65%, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors—but were cheaper than Wise in only three out of seven comparable corridors.
The study argues that improvements to domestic instant payment infrastructure and reduced reliance on reconversion into fiat are likely to matter more than blockchain technology alone.
Regulatory design strongly influences where stablecoin users transact, with overly restrictive regimes potentially pushing activity toward offshore or unregulated channels.
Stablecoin remittances: where the cost really comes from
The Bank of Italy study tested 200 USDC remittance flows across 10 corridors, designed to capture realistic friction across payment paths between Italy and several major regions. The researchers focused on the full journey—from conversion and routing through the on- and off-ramps used to turn fiat into stablecoins and back again—then compared results to traditional remittance offerings.
According to the report, the largest share of costs came from exchange fees and currency conversion. Blockchain fees represented only a small fraction of the total remittance cost, undermining the idea that “using a blockchain” by itself will guarantee cheaper transfers. In other words, even if the stablecoin transfer settles quickly on-chain, the conversion steps required to deliver value in the recipient’s usable currency can dominate the bill.
On the cost range observed in the experiment, total stablecoin remittance costs varied sharply by corridor—from as low as 0.3% to nearly 9%. That variability matters for investors and payment operators because it suggests that stablecoin remittance performance is not uniform; it depends heavily on the local availability and pricing of payment infrastructure and conversion services.
Speed depends on local payment rails, not just settlement time
The study also measured settlement times end-to-end. For stablecoin remittances, transfer settlement was reported as less than 20 minutes in corridors where instant payment systems were available. In corridors without those systems, settlement took one to two business days.
This finding is consistent with the broader logic of cross-border payments: on-chain settlement can be quick, but delivery is constrained by the speed of off-chain steps—such as how quickly funds can be credited to accounts after the stablecoin leg is completed. For users, that means stablecoins may improve speed only when the surrounding payment ecosystem can match the speed of the blockchain component.
How stablecoins compare to global benchmarks and mainstream providers
To contextualize the results, the Bank of Italy report used the World Bank’s global average remittance cost of 6.65% as a reference point. Against that benchmark, the stablecoin corridors examined were cheaper in most cases. However, the study’s comparison to major providers was more nuanced.
The report found that stablecoin transfers were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven comparable corridors. That asymmetry is important: it indicates that stablecoin-based remittances may undercut some traditional options in certain routes, but they do not consistently outperform competitive incumbents across the board.
For traders and builders watching stablecoin adoption, the implication is clear: performance will likely be route-specific until the conversion and settlement ecosystem improves. Stablecoin rails can reduce certain types of friction, but in practice they must be integrated into efficient on- and off-ramp systems to translate into sustained advantage.
Infrastructure investment and spending stablecoins directly
While the study found that blockchain transaction fees were not the primary cost driver, it argued that strategic investment in domestic instant payment infrastructure could improve the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments. The authors emphasized that settlement speed depended heavily on the quality of local payment rails—so improving the “last mile” (and the corresponding conversion processes) is likely to yield the biggest gains.
The report also highlighted a structural bottleneck: stablecoins currently often require reconversion into local fiat to be usable by recipients. It suggested that meaningful economic advantages would increase if stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy.
If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.
Regulation: efficiency can improve or unravel depending on design
Beyond infrastructure and market mechanics, the study argued that regulatory design shapes remittance efficiency. In the Bank of Italy’s framing, prohibitionist regimes have not eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can redirect usage toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users, potentially offsetting any intended consumer protections.
The study arrives as major jurisdictions tighten or implement frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins. The European Union has implemented its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, and the United States enacted the GENIUS Act, which is intended to govern payment stablecoins. As these regimes take effect, the balance between compliance, accessibility, and the availability of regulated fiat on- and off-ramps may directly affect real-world remittance outcomes.
The broader stablecoin market context also matters. DefiLlama data cited in the article places stablecoin supply at about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year. That growth underscores why policymakers and payment providers are focused on the operational and regulatory details—especially where remittances are concerned.
What to watch next is whether regulatory changes and domestic payment infrastructure upgrades reduce the conversion frictions that the Bank of Italy study identifies as the dominant cost and timing drivers. If stablecoin usage increasingly shifts toward corridors with strong instant payment rails and if more “spendable” pathways emerge, the potential for stablecoins to outperform traditional remittance services may become clearer—and more consistent across routes.
This article was originally published as Bank of Italy: Stablecoin Remittances Don’t Cut Costs Reliably on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Researchers evaluated 200 remittances denominated in USDC across 10 bidirectional payment corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates and South Africa. They compared end-to-end fees and settlement times against traditional remittance services, concluding that most expenses and delays were driven by fiat on- and off-ramp frictions rather than by blockchain execution itself.
Key takeaways
In the tested corridors, exchange and currency-conversion charges made up the majority of total remittance cost, while blockchain transaction fees were only a small portion.
Total stablecoin remittance costs ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor, while settlement time was typically under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available.
Compared with the World Bank’s global average remittance cost benchmark of 6.65%, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors—but were cheaper than Wise in only three out of seven comparable corridors.
The study argues that improvements to domestic instant payment infrastructure and reduced reliance on reconversion into fiat are likely to matter more than blockchain technology alone.
Regulatory design strongly influences where stablecoin users transact, with overly restrictive regimes potentially pushing activity toward offshore or unregulated channels.
Stablecoin remittances: where the cost really comes from
The Bank of Italy study tested 200 USDC remittance flows across 10 corridors, designed to capture realistic friction across payment paths between Italy and several major regions. The researchers focused on the full journey—from conversion and routing through the on- and off-ramps used to turn fiat into stablecoins and back again—then compared results to traditional remittance offerings.
According to the report, the largest share of costs came from exchange fees and currency conversion. Blockchain fees represented only a small fraction of the total remittance cost, undermining the idea that “using a blockchain” by itself will guarantee cheaper transfers. In other words, even if the stablecoin transfer settles quickly on-chain, the conversion steps required to deliver value in the recipient’s usable currency can dominate the bill.
On the cost range observed in the experiment, total stablecoin remittance costs varied sharply by corridor—from as low as 0.3% to nearly 9%. That variability matters for investors and payment operators because it suggests that stablecoin remittance performance is not uniform; it depends heavily on the local availability and pricing of payment infrastructure and conversion services.
Speed depends on local payment rails, not just settlement time
The study also measured settlement times end-to-end. For stablecoin remittances, transfer settlement was reported as less than 20 minutes in corridors where instant payment systems were available. In corridors without those systems, settlement took one to two business days.
This finding is consistent with the broader logic of cross-border payments: on-chain settlement can be quick, but delivery is constrained by the speed of off-chain steps—such as how quickly funds can be credited to accounts after the stablecoin leg is completed. For users, that means stablecoins may improve speed only when the surrounding payment ecosystem can match the speed of the blockchain component.
How stablecoins compare to global benchmarks and mainstream providers
To contextualize the results, the Bank of Italy report used the World Bank’s global average remittance cost of 6.65% as a reference point. Against that benchmark, the stablecoin corridors examined were cheaper in most cases. However, the study’s comparison to major providers was more nuanced.
The report found that stablecoin transfers were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven comparable corridors. That asymmetry is important: it indicates that stablecoin-based remittances may undercut some traditional options in certain routes, but they do not consistently outperform competitive incumbents across the board.
For traders and builders watching stablecoin adoption, the implication is clear: performance will likely be route-specific until the conversion and settlement ecosystem improves. Stablecoin rails can reduce certain types of friction, but in practice they must be integrated into efficient on- and off-ramp systems to translate into sustained advantage.
Infrastructure investment and spending stablecoins directly
While the study found that blockchain transaction fees were not the primary cost driver, it argued that strategic investment in domestic instant payment infrastructure could improve the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments. The authors emphasized that settlement speed depended heavily on the quality of local payment rails—so improving the “last mile” (and the corresponding conversion processes) is likely to yield the biggest gains.
The report also highlighted a structural bottleneck: stablecoins currently often require reconversion into local fiat to be usable by recipients. It suggested that meaningful economic advantages would increase if stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy.
If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.
Regulation: efficiency can improve or unravel depending on design
Beyond infrastructure and market mechanics, the study argued that regulatory design shapes remittance efficiency. In the Bank of Italy’s framing, prohibitionist regimes have not eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can redirect usage toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users, potentially offsetting any intended consumer protections.
The study arrives as major jurisdictions tighten or implement frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins. The European Union has implemented its Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, and the United States enacted the GENIUS Act, which is intended to govern payment stablecoins. As these regimes take effect, the balance between compliance, accessibility, and the availability of regulated fiat on- and off-ramps may directly affect real-world remittance outcomes.
The broader stablecoin market context also matters. DefiLlama data cited in the article places stablecoin supply at about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year. That growth underscores why policymakers and payment providers are focused on the operational and regulatory details—especially where remittances are concerned.
What to watch next is whether regulatory changes and domestic payment infrastructure upgrades reduce the conversion frictions that the Bank of Italy study identifies as the dominant cost and timing drivers. If stablecoin usage increasingly shifts toward corridors with strong instant payment rails and if more “spendable” pathways emerge, the potential for stablecoins to outperform traditional remittance services may become clearer—and more consistent across routes.
This article was originally published as Bank of Italy: Stablecoin Remittances Don’t Cut Costs Reliably on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
76
Article
Bank of Italy: No consistent cost edge for stablecoin remittancesA study from the Bank of Italy has challenged a common argument for crypto payments: that stablecoin-based remittances automatically deliver lower costs and faster settlement than traditional money transfer rails. After testing remittances funded and settled with USDC across multiple corridors, the researchers found that most of the expense and delay came from fiat conversion and payment-rail frictions—factors that blockchain networks alone do not control.
The findings are based on experiments moving 200 USDC across 10 bidirectional corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and South Africa. The study compared the end-to-end cost and settlement time to traditional remittance services, concluding that crypto network fees made up only a small portion of overall costs.
Key takeaways
Fiat on- and off-ramp frictions dominated remittance costs: exchange fees and currency conversion accounted for most expenses, while blockchain transaction fees were comparatively minor.
Speed depended on local payment rails: transfers settled in under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available, but took one to two business days when they weren’t.
Cost advantages were corridor-specific: total costs across stablecoin remittances ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, with savings versus some benchmarks not universal.
Regulatory design influenced user behavior and efficiency: overly restrictive rules increased operational complexity, while prohibitionist approaches pushed users toward offshore and unregulated options.
Stablecoins don’t eliminate the biggest frictions
The Bank of Italy’s experiment was designed to isolate where the money-transfer pipeline spends time and money. Researchers reported that, across the stablecoin remittances tested, exchange fees and currency conversion were the primary cost drivers. By contrast, blockchain transaction fees were only a small share of total costs—meaning the core bottlenecks for cross-border transfers largely sit outside the chain.
In practical terms, the corridor matters because stablecoin remittances often still require converting value into local currency at the sending and receiving ends. Even when the transfer occurs on-chain, users may face fees and processing delays at the interfaces where fiat enters or leaves the system.
Costs and settlement times vary by corridor
According to the study, total costs for the stablecoin remittances ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor. This wide spread underscores that stablecoin-based transfers are not a single “set it and forget it” alternative to traditional remittances; rather, they are shaped by the quality and pricing of the surrounding payment infrastructure.
Settlement times showed an even clearer relationship with local payment systems. The researchers found transfers were typically completed in less than 20 minutes when instant payment networks were available. Where those systems were not in place, settlement stretched to one to two business days.
To frame the results against a broader global benchmark, the study used the World Bank’s reported global average remittance cost of 6.65%. On that basis, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors examined. However, they were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven corridors where direct comparisons were possible—suggesting that established digital remittance providers can still outperform stablecoin routes in certain environments.
Why infrastructure investment matters more than token choice
The Bank of Italy argues that improving the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments depends heavily on payment-rail upgrades—particularly domestic instant payment infrastructure. In other words, the study’s central implication is that stablecoin settlement can be fast only if the start and end points of the transfer process are equally efficient.
The authors also emphasized an important structural point: the potential benefits expand if stablecoins can be used in the real economy without repeated reconversion into local fiat. They wrote that:
If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.
This framing highlights a key asymmetry in many cross-border use cases today. Even if blockchain rails reduce settlement friction, remittance economics can remain constrained when end users ultimately need local currency access and the process requires multiple conversions.
Regulation can either enable or complicate real-world use
The study also found that regulatory design plays a decisive role in shaping remittance efficiency. According to the authors, prohibitionist regimes have not fully eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can push users toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users.
The analysis arrives as policy frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins are taking shape in major jurisdictions. The European Union has implemented the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, while the United States has enacted the GENIUS Act, which governs crypto assets and payment stablecoins, respectively.
In terms of broader market momentum, the stablecoin market has grown to about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year, according to DefiLlama data on stablecoins.
That growth provides context for why regulators and payment operators are increasingly focused on remittance and tokenized payments. But the Bank of Italy’s results suggest that the route to efficiency is not purely about allowing stablecoin settlement—it’s also about aligning regulatory expectations with workable payment flows and infrastructure.
What readers should watch next
The study implies that the next meaningful improvements in stablecoin remittances will likely come from upgrades to instant payment rails and from reducing the need for repeated fiat conversion at either end of the transfer. Investors and builders should monitor how policy changes under MiCA in Europe and the GENIUS framework in the US translate into compliant on- and off-ramp experiences—because, according to the Bank of Italy, that’s where most of the cost and delay still lives.
This article was originally published as Bank of Italy: No consistent cost edge for stablecoin remittances on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bank of Italy: No consistent cost edge for stablecoin remittances
A study from the Bank of Italy has challenged a common argument for crypto payments: that stablecoin-based remittances automatically deliver lower costs and faster settlement than traditional money transfer rails. After testing remittances funded and settled with USDC across multiple corridors, the researchers found that most of the expense and delay came from fiat conversion and payment-rail frictions—factors that blockchain networks alone do not control.
The findings are based on experiments moving 200 USDC across 10 bidirectional corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and South Africa. The study compared the end-to-end cost and settlement time to traditional remittance services, concluding that crypto network fees made up only a small portion of overall costs.
Key takeaways
Fiat on- and off-ramp frictions dominated remittance costs: exchange fees and currency conversion accounted for most expenses, while blockchain transaction fees were comparatively minor.
Speed depended on local payment rails: transfers settled in under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available, but took one to two business days when they weren’t.
Cost advantages were corridor-specific: total costs across stablecoin remittances ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, with savings versus some benchmarks not universal.
Regulatory design influenced user behavior and efficiency: overly restrictive rules increased operational complexity, while prohibitionist approaches pushed users toward offshore and unregulated options.
Stablecoins don’t eliminate the biggest frictions
The Bank of Italy’s experiment was designed to isolate where the money-transfer pipeline spends time and money. Researchers reported that, across the stablecoin remittances tested, exchange fees and currency conversion were the primary cost drivers. By contrast, blockchain transaction fees were only a small share of total costs—meaning the core bottlenecks for cross-border transfers largely sit outside the chain.
In practical terms, the corridor matters because stablecoin remittances often still require converting value into local currency at the sending and receiving ends. Even when the transfer occurs on-chain, users may face fees and processing delays at the interfaces where fiat enters or leaves the system.
Costs and settlement times vary by corridor
According to the study, total costs for the stablecoin remittances ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor. This wide spread underscores that stablecoin-based transfers are not a single “set it and forget it” alternative to traditional remittances; rather, they are shaped by the quality and pricing of the surrounding payment infrastructure.
Settlement times showed an even clearer relationship with local payment systems. The researchers found transfers were typically completed in less than 20 minutes when instant payment networks were available. Where those systems were not in place, settlement stretched to one to two business days.
To frame the results against a broader global benchmark, the study used the World Bank’s reported global average remittance cost of 6.65%. On that basis, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors examined. However, they were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven corridors where direct comparisons were possible—suggesting that established digital remittance providers can still outperform stablecoin routes in certain environments.
Why infrastructure investment matters more than token choice
The Bank of Italy argues that improving the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments depends heavily on payment-rail upgrades—particularly domestic instant payment infrastructure. In other words, the study’s central implication is that stablecoin settlement can be fast only if the start and end points of the transfer process are equally efficient.
The authors also emphasized an important structural point: the potential benefits expand if stablecoins can be used in the real economy without repeated reconversion into local fiat. They wrote that:
If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.
This framing highlights a key asymmetry in many cross-border use cases today. Even if blockchain rails reduce settlement friction, remittance economics can remain constrained when end users ultimately need local currency access and the process requires multiple conversions.
Regulation can either enable or complicate real-world use
The study also found that regulatory design plays a decisive role in shaping remittance efficiency. According to the authors, prohibitionist regimes have not fully eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can push users toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users.
The analysis arrives as policy frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins are taking shape in major jurisdictions. The European Union has implemented the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, while the United States has enacted the GENIUS Act, which governs crypto assets and payment stablecoins, respectively.
In terms of broader market momentum, the stablecoin market has grown to about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year, according to DefiLlama data on stablecoins.
That growth provides context for why regulators and payment operators are increasingly focused on remittance and tokenized payments. But the Bank of Italy’s results suggest that the route to efficiency is not purely about allowing stablecoin settlement—it’s also about aligning regulatory expectations with workable payment flows and infrastructure.
What readers should watch next
The study implies that the next meaningful improvements in stablecoin remittances will likely come from upgrades to instant payment rails and from reducing the need for repeated fiat conversion at either end of the transfer. Investors and builders should monitor how policy changes under MiCA in Europe and the GENIUS framework in the US translate into compliant on- and off-ramp experiences—because, according to the Bank of Italy, that’s where most of the cost and delay still lives.
This article was originally published as Bank of Italy: No consistent cost edge for stablecoin remittances on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The findings are based on experiments moving 200 USDC across 10 bidirectional corridors connecting Italy with Brazil, Argentina, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and South Africa. The study compared the end-to-end cost and settlement time to traditional remittance services, concluding that crypto network fees made up only a small portion of overall costs.
Key takeaways
Fiat on- and off-ramp frictions dominated remittance costs: exchange fees and currency conversion accounted for most expenses, while blockchain transaction fees were comparatively minor.
Speed depended on local payment rails: transfers settled in under 20 minutes where instant payment systems were available, but took one to two business days when they weren’t.
Cost advantages were corridor-specific: total costs across stablecoin remittances ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, with savings versus some benchmarks not universal.
Regulatory design influenced user behavior and efficiency: overly restrictive rules increased operational complexity, while prohibitionist approaches pushed users toward offshore and unregulated options.
Stablecoins don’t eliminate the biggest frictions
The Bank of Italy’s experiment was designed to isolate where the money-transfer pipeline spends time and money. Researchers reported that, across the stablecoin remittances tested, exchange fees and currency conversion were the primary cost drivers. By contrast, blockchain transaction fees were only a small share of total costs—meaning the core bottlenecks for cross-border transfers largely sit outside the chain.
In practical terms, the corridor matters because stablecoin remittances often still require converting value into local currency at the sending and receiving ends. Even when the transfer occurs on-chain, users may face fees and processing delays at the interfaces where fiat enters or leaves the system.
Costs and settlement times vary by corridor
According to the study, total costs for the stablecoin remittances ranged from 0.3% to nearly 9%, depending on the corridor. This wide spread underscores that stablecoin-based transfers are not a single “set it and forget it” alternative to traditional remittances; rather, they are shaped by the quality and pricing of the surrounding payment infrastructure.
Settlement times showed an even clearer relationship with local payment systems. The researchers found transfers were typically completed in less than 20 minutes when instant payment networks were available. Where those systems were not in place, settlement stretched to one to two business days.
To frame the results against a broader global benchmark, the study used the World Bank’s reported global average remittance cost of 6.65%. On that basis, stablecoin transfers were cheaper in most corridors examined. However, they were less expensive than Wise in only three of seven corridors where direct comparisons were possible—suggesting that established digital remittance providers can still outperform stablecoin routes in certain environments.
Why infrastructure investment matters more than token choice
The Bank of Italy argues that improving the competitiveness of stablecoin-based cross-border payments depends heavily on payment-rail upgrades—particularly domestic instant payment infrastructure. In other words, the study’s central implication is that stablecoin settlement can be fast only if the start and end points of the transfer process are equally efficient.
The authors also emphasized an important structural point: the potential benefits expand if stablecoins can be used in the real economy without repeated reconversion into local fiat. They wrote that:
If stablecoins could be spent directly in the real economy, for goods and services, rents, or school fees, without reconversion into local fiat currency, the economic advantages of stablecoin-based transfers would be substantially higher.
This framing highlights a key asymmetry in many cross-border use cases today. Even if blockchain rails reduce settlement friction, remittance economics can remain constrained when end users ultimately need local currency access and the process requires multiple conversions.
Regulation can either enable or complicate real-world use
The study also found that regulatory design plays a decisive role in shaping remittance efficiency. According to the authors, prohibitionist regimes have not fully eliminated stablecoin demand; instead, they can push users toward offshore platforms and other unregulated channels. Conversely, overly restrictive frameworks may increase operational complexity for retail users.
The analysis arrives as policy frameworks for crypto assets and stablecoins are taking shape in major jurisdictions. The European Union has implemented the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, while the United States has enacted the GENIUS Act, which governs crypto assets and payment stablecoins, respectively.
In terms of broader market momentum, the stablecoin market has grown to about $307 billion, up roughly 16% over the past year, according to DefiLlama data on stablecoins.
That growth provides context for why regulators and payment operators are increasingly focused on remittance and tokenized payments. But the Bank of Italy’s results suggest that the route to efficiency is not purely about allowing stablecoin settlement—it’s also about aligning regulatory expectations with workable payment flows and infrastructure.
What readers should watch next
The study implies that the next meaningful improvements in stablecoin remittances will likely come from upgrades to instant payment rails and from reducing the need for repeated fiat conversion at either end of the transfer. Investors and builders should monitor how policy changes under MiCA in Europe and the GENIUS framework in the US translate into compliant on- and off-ramp experiences—because, according to the Bank of Italy, that’s where most of the cost and delay still lives.
This article was originally published as Bank of Italy: No consistent cost edge for stablecoin remittances on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
28
Article
Aave to Shut 6 V3 Markets, Offboards 50 Low-Use ReservesA proposed Aave governance initiative would wind down multiple Aave V3 lending deployments on six blockchains and retire a large set of low-usage token listings. The plan, advanced through the protocol’s ARFC process, targets a cleanup covering $98.1 million in supplied assets and $15.6 million in outstanding debt, based on balances recorded on July 28.
According to LlamaRisk, which worked with Aave service providers on the assessment, the proposal recommends offboarding 50 low-use reserves and retiring 21 matured Pendle principal token listings across 11 deployments. It also calls for retiring all 25 reserves on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium, and Aptos.
Key takeaways
The ARFC would deprecate Aave V3 markets on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium, and Aptos, alongside removing 50 low-use reserves and 21 matured Pendle principal token listings.
The scope is tied to on-chain balances measured July 28, with $98.1 million supplied and $15.6 million in debt included in the cleanup.
Risk service provider LlamaRisk characterizes the action as part of Aave’s broader risk-governance frameworks rather than a reversal of its multichain growth thesis.
Prior multichain “temp check” voting already shut down underperforming instances on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium and set a $2 million annual revenue floor for new deployments.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov framed the move as reducing both economic and technical risk surface under updated listing and risk frameworks.
What the ARFC would change in Aave V3
An ARFC—an “Aave Request for Comment”—is presented as a detailed governance proposal and precursor to an Aave Improvement Proposal. It is not itself confirmation that final on-chain voting has been completed or that execution is already underway.
In this case, the recommendation focuses on reducing exposure to markets with limited usage or maturing positions. LlamaRisk’s work with other Aave service providers outlines multiple categories of deprecation: low-use reserves and certain Pendle principal token listings that have matured, alongside full reserve retirements on the six named chains.
Aptos exit arrives after a rapid liquidity decline
The inclusion of Aptos stands out because it follows relatively recent deployment activity. LlamaRisk’s materials indicate Aave launched its V3 market on Aptos about 11 months earlier. In that period, liquidity fell by 94% over six months, and quarterly revenue reportedly dropped below $1,000, according to LlamaRisk.
Under the proposal, not all chains are treated the same way. LlamaRisk states that every reserve on Scroll, zkSync, Metis, and Soneium was already frozen. By contrast, Sonic and Aptos remained active at the time of the snapshot, with the ARFC recommending that they be frozen as well.
This structure matters for how quickly deprecations could translate into actual risk reduction. Freezing already stops new activity, but full retirement would further narrow Aave’s operational footprint on those deployments.
How earlier “temp check” decisions set the stage
The ARFC is not the first governance signal that Aave would be willing to scale back underperforming V3 instances on certain chains. A prior “temp check” on Aave’s multichain strategy concluded on Dec. 5, 2025, according to the governance record referenced in the source materials. That vote reportedly returned 923,400 votes in favor and under 1% against changing reserve behavior for underperforming instances.
That earlier governance outcome included actions affecting zkSync, Metis, and Soneium—specifically shutting down instances—and introduced a $2 million annual revenue floor for new instance deployment. In other words, the latest ARFC reads less like a sudden pivot and more like an operational follow-through on criteria that were already accepted by the community.
Risk framework updates and protocol-wide cleanup logic
The proposal aligns with Aave’s evolving risk and listing governance. The source notes that Aave added Scroll to the affected set through an accelerated process in April, referencing a direct-to-AIP proposal. In that description, the measure was framed as completing Scroll’s deprecation after a rapid deterioration in network liquidity and Aave market activity.
Separately, Aave published an updated risk framework on June 9 covering asset, bridge, monitoring, and chain risk, along with criteria for winding down reserves or deployments. The current ARFC announcement, as described in the source materials, suggests “de facto” adoption of these rules for the present cleanup.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov also addressed the initiative in a Thursday social media post. He said the move would “reduce Aave’s economic and technical risk surface as part of the new Aave Risk Framework and Technical Asset Listing Framework.” He further emphasized that the action “is not a reversal” of the protocol’s multichain expansion strategy, and that Aave would continue continuous risk assessment across deployments.
That distinction is likely important for market participants. Aave’s multichain approach appears to remain intact conceptually, but the governance direction points toward tighter enforcement of performance and risk thresholds—essentially focusing capital and attention on deployments that meet criteria and exiting those that do not.
Why this matters for users and market participants
For users and liquidity providers, deprecations can change the path of capital: liquidity may diminish further as reserves are frozen or retired, and markets tied to low-use reserves can become less accessible over time. For borrowers and lenders, winding down V3 markets can also affect how easily positions can be adjusted, particularly if token listings tied to specific assets or principal tokens are retired after maturity.
For investors and governance observers, the bigger signal is how Aave is operationalizing its frameworks. By connecting deprecations to measurable liquidity and revenue outcomes—and by referencing an earlier temp check that set a revenue floor—the ARFC underscores a governance style that is increasingly rules-driven rather than ad hoc.
Readers should watch for the next procedural steps: whether the ARFC proceeds into an Aave Improvement Proposal for formal voting, and how execution is sequenced across the chains involved—especially where Sonic and Aptos were still active at the time of the July 28 snapshot.
This article was originally published as Aave to Shut 6 V3 Markets, Offboards 50 Low-Use Reserves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Aave to Shut 6 V3 Markets, Offboards 50 Low-Use Reserves
A proposed Aave governance initiative would wind down multiple Aave V3 lending deployments on six blockchains and retire a large set of low-usage token listings. The plan, advanced through the protocol’s ARFC process, targets a cleanup covering $98.1 million in supplied assets and $15.6 million in outstanding debt, based on balances recorded on July 28.
According to LlamaRisk, which worked with Aave service providers on the assessment, the proposal recommends offboarding 50 low-use reserves and retiring 21 matured Pendle principal token listings across 11 deployments. It also calls for retiring all 25 reserves on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium, and Aptos.
Key takeaways
The ARFC would deprecate Aave V3 markets on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium, and Aptos, alongside removing 50 low-use reserves and 21 matured Pendle principal token listings.
The scope is tied to on-chain balances measured July 28, with $98.1 million supplied and $15.6 million in debt included in the cleanup.
Risk service provider LlamaRisk characterizes the action as part of Aave’s broader risk-governance frameworks rather than a reversal of its multichain growth thesis.
Prior multichain “temp check” voting already shut down underperforming instances on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium and set a $2 million annual revenue floor for new deployments.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov framed the move as reducing both economic and technical risk surface under updated listing and risk frameworks.
What the ARFC would change in Aave V3
An ARFC—an “Aave Request for Comment”—is presented as a detailed governance proposal and precursor to an Aave Improvement Proposal. It is not itself confirmation that final on-chain voting has been completed or that execution is already underway.
In this case, the recommendation focuses on reducing exposure to markets with limited usage or maturing positions. LlamaRisk’s work with other Aave service providers outlines multiple categories of deprecation: low-use reserves and certain Pendle principal token listings that have matured, alongside full reserve retirements on the six named chains.
Aptos exit arrives after a rapid liquidity decline
The inclusion of Aptos stands out because it follows relatively recent deployment activity. LlamaRisk’s materials indicate Aave launched its V3 market on Aptos about 11 months earlier. In that period, liquidity fell by 94% over six months, and quarterly revenue reportedly dropped below $1,000, according to LlamaRisk.
Under the proposal, not all chains are treated the same way. LlamaRisk states that every reserve on Scroll, zkSync, Metis, and Soneium was already frozen. By contrast, Sonic and Aptos remained active at the time of the snapshot, with the ARFC recommending that they be frozen as well.
This structure matters for how quickly deprecations could translate into actual risk reduction. Freezing already stops new activity, but full retirement would further narrow Aave’s operational footprint on those deployments.
How earlier “temp check” decisions set the stage
The ARFC is not the first governance signal that Aave would be willing to scale back underperforming V3 instances on certain chains. A prior “temp check” on Aave’s multichain strategy concluded on Dec. 5, 2025, according to the governance record referenced in the source materials. That vote reportedly returned 923,400 votes in favor and under 1% against changing reserve behavior for underperforming instances.
That earlier governance outcome included actions affecting zkSync, Metis, and Soneium—specifically shutting down instances—and introduced a $2 million annual revenue floor for new instance deployment. In other words, the latest ARFC reads less like a sudden pivot and more like an operational follow-through on criteria that were already accepted by the community.
Risk framework updates and protocol-wide cleanup logic
The proposal aligns with Aave’s evolving risk and listing governance. The source notes that Aave added Scroll to the affected set through an accelerated process in April, referencing a direct-to-AIP proposal. In that description, the measure was framed as completing Scroll’s deprecation after a rapid deterioration in network liquidity and Aave market activity.
Separately, Aave published an updated risk framework on June 9 covering asset, bridge, monitoring, and chain risk, along with criteria for winding down reserves or deployments. The current ARFC announcement, as described in the source materials, suggests “de facto” adoption of these rules for the present cleanup.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov also addressed the initiative in a Thursday social media post. He said the move would “reduce Aave’s economic and technical risk surface as part of the new Aave Risk Framework and Technical Asset Listing Framework.” He further emphasized that the action “is not a reversal” of the protocol’s multichain expansion strategy, and that Aave would continue continuous risk assessment across deployments.
That distinction is likely important for market participants. Aave’s multichain approach appears to remain intact conceptually, but the governance direction points toward tighter enforcement of performance and risk thresholds—essentially focusing capital and attention on deployments that meet criteria and exiting those that do not.
Why this matters for users and market participants
For users and liquidity providers, deprecations can change the path of capital: liquidity may diminish further as reserves are frozen or retired, and markets tied to low-use reserves can become less accessible over time. For borrowers and lenders, winding down V3 markets can also affect how easily positions can be adjusted, particularly if token listings tied to specific assets or principal tokens are retired after maturity.
For investors and governance observers, the bigger signal is how Aave is operationalizing its frameworks. By connecting deprecations to measurable liquidity and revenue outcomes—and by referencing an earlier temp check that set a revenue floor—the ARFC underscores a governance style that is increasingly rules-driven rather than ad hoc.
Readers should watch for the next procedural steps: whether the ARFC proceeds into an Aave Improvement Proposal for formal voting, and how execution is sequenced across the chains involved—especially where Sonic and Aptos were still active at the time of the July 28 snapshot.
This article was originally published as Aave to Shut 6 V3 Markets, Offboards 50 Low-Use Reserves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to LlamaRisk, which worked with Aave service providers on the assessment, the proposal recommends offboarding 50 low-use reserves and retiring 21 matured Pendle principal token listings across 11 deployments. It also calls for retiring all 25 reserves on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium, and Aptos.
Key takeaways
The ARFC would deprecate Aave V3 markets on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium, and Aptos, alongside removing 50 low-use reserves and 21 matured Pendle principal token listings.
The scope is tied to on-chain balances measured July 28, with $98.1 million supplied and $15.6 million in debt included in the cleanup.
Risk service provider LlamaRisk characterizes the action as part of Aave’s broader risk-governance frameworks rather than a reversal of its multichain growth thesis.
Prior multichain “temp check” voting already shut down underperforming instances on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium and set a $2 million annual revenue floor for new deployments.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov framed the move as reducing both economic and technical risk surface under updated listing and risk frameworks.
What the ARFC would change in Aave V3
An ARFC—an “Aave Request for Comment”—is presented as a detailed governance proposal and precursor to an Aave Improvement Proposal. It is not itself confirmation that final on-chain voting has been completed or that execution is already underway.
In this case, the recommendation focuses on reducing exposure to markets with limited usage or maturing positions. LlamaRisk’s work with other Aave service providers outlines multiple categories of deprecation: low-use reserves and certain Pendle principal token listings that have matured, alongside full reserve retirements on the six named chains.
Aptos exit arrives after a rapid liquidity decline
The inclusion of Aptos stands out because it follows relatively recent deployment activity. LlamaRisk’s materials indicate Aave launched its V3 market on Aptos about 11 months earlier. In that period, liquidity fell by 94% over six months, and quarterly revenue reportedly dropped below $1,000, according to LlamaRisk.
Under the proposal, not all chains are treated the same way. LlamaRisk states that every reserve on Scroll, zkSync, Metis, and Soneium was already frozen. By contrast, Sonic and Aptos remained active at the time of the snapshot, with the ARFC recommending that they be frozen as well.
This structure matters for how quickly deprecations could translate into actual risk reduction. Freezing already stops new activity, but full retirement would further narrow Aave’s operational footprint on those deployments.
How earlier “temp check” decisions set the stage
The ARFC is not the first governance signal that Aave would be willing to scale back underperforming V3 instances on certain chains. A prior “temp check” on Aave’s multichain strategy concluded on Dec. 5, 2025, according to the governance record referenced in the source materials. That vote reportedly returned 923,400 votes in favor and under 1% against changing reserve behavior for underperforming instances.
That earlier governance outcome included actions affecting zkSync, Metis, and Soneium—specifically shutting down instances—and introduced a $2 million annual revenue floor for new instance deployment. In other words, the latest ARFC reads less like a sudden pivot and more like an operational follow-through on criteria that were already accepted by the community.
Risk framework updates and protocol-wide cleanup logic
The proposal aligns with Aave’s evolving risk and listing governance. The source notes that Aave added Scroll to the affected set through an accelerated process in April, referencing a direct-to-AIP proposal. In that description, the measure was framed as completing Scroll’s deprecation after a rapid deterioration in network liquidity and Aave market activity.
Separately, Aave published an updated risk framework on June 9 covering asset, bridge, monitoring, and chain risk, along with criteria for winding down reserves or deployments. The current ARFC announcement, as described in the source materials, suggests “de facto” adoption of these rules for the present cleanup.
Aave founder Stani Kulechov also addressed the initiative in a Thursday social media post. He said the move would “reduce Aave’s economic and technical risk surface as part of the new Aave Risk Framework and Technical Asset Listing Framework.” He further emphasized that the action “is not a reversal” of the protocol’s multichain expansion strategy, and that Aave would continue continuous risk assessment across deployments.
That distinction is likely important for market participants. Aave’s multichain approach appears to remain intact conceptually, but the governance direction points toward tighter enforcement of performance and risk thresholds—essentially focusing capital and attention on deployments that meet criteria and exiting those that do not.
Why this matters for users and market participants
For users and liquidity providers, deprecations can change the path of capital: liquidity may diminish further as reserves are frozen or retired, and markets tied to low-use reserves can become less accessible over time. For borrowers and lenders, winding down V3 markets can also affect how easily positions can be adjusted, particularly if token listings tied to specific assets or principal tokens are retired after maturity.
For investors and governance observers, the bigger signal is how Aave is operationalizing its frameworks. By connecting deprecations to measurable liquidity and revenue outcomes—and by referencing an earlier temp check that set a revenue floor—the ARFC underscores a governance style that is increasingly rules-driven rather than ad hoc.
Readers should watch for the next procedural steps: whether the ARFC proceeds into an Aave Improvement Proposal for formal voting, and how execution is sequenced across the chains involved—especially where Sonic and Aptos were still active at the time of the July 28 snapshot.
This article was originally published as Aave to Shut 6 V3 Markets, Offboards 50 Low-Use Reserves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
85
Article
SBI Holdings Reaffirms $41.2B Ripple Stake Despite XRP Market SlumpSBI Holdings has reaffirmed its commitment to Ripple despite weaker XRP prices and slower cryptocurrency activity. The Japanese financial group values its Ripple shareholding at ¥6.6 trillion, equal to about $41.2 billion. Meanwhile, SBI delivered record first-quarter earnings and continued expanding its digital asset operations.
SBI Holdings Maintains Its Ripple Investment
SBI disclosed the updated Ripple valuation during its first-quarter earnings presentation. The company stressed that its Ripple shareholding remains highly valuable despite the current weakness in the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, SBI continues to treat Ripple as a major strategic asset within its broader financial portfolio.
The group has maintained a long relationship with Ripple and has supported XRP-based payment services. SBI has also promoted blockchain settlement systems through its financial subsidiaries and regional partnerships. Consequently, its latest statement reinforces the group’s long-term focus on Ripple’s payments technology and international network.
XRP has faced selling pressure during the recent cryptocurrency market slowdown. However, SBI did not announce any reduction in its Ripple position during the earnings update. Instead, the company highlighted the stake’s valuation while explaining weaker conditions across its cryptocurrency division.
Clarity Act Uncertainty Weighs on Crypto Activity
SBI linked the sluggish cryptocurrency market to uncertainty surrounding the proposed Clarity Act. The legislation seeks to establish clearer oversight rules for digital assets within the United States. Therefore, its progress could influence market structure, regulation, and business planning across the cryptocurrency sector.
The United States Senate continues considering the bill before its scheduled August recess. Senator Cynthia Lummis recently indicated that Senate leaders had reserved potential floor time for the measure. However, several other legislative matters were also competing for attention during the remaining session.
The Clarity Act has become an important issue for cryptocurrency companies seeking clearer federal rules. Ripple has spent years operating within an uncertain American regulatory environment. As a result, regulatory progress could affect its domestic operations and the wider use of XRP-related services.
SBI Reports Record First-Quarter Earnings
SBI Holdings recorded its strongest first-quarter performance as revenue and profit increased sharply. Revenue reached ¥571.0 billion, while profit before tax climbed to ¥225.8 billion. Additionally, shareholder-attributable net profit rose 149.9% year-over-year to ¥148.1 billion.
The group reported a 29% return on equity for the previous twelve months. That result exceeded SBI’s medium-term return target of 15% by a wide margin. Strong performance across its main financial businesses offset weakness within the cryptocurrency asset division.
SBI’s crypto asset business recorded a ¥1.4 billion pre-tax loss during the quarter. However, global cryptocurrency market maker B2C2 remained profitable and supported the group’s digital asset operations. The mixed results showed continued pressure in retail crypto services but stronger performance within institutional trading activities.
SBI Expands Its Digital Asset Services
SBI continues building its digital asset business through lending, stablecoins, custody, and exchange services. SBI VC Trade recently introduced cryptocurrency lending and support services linked to the JPYSC stablecoin. These services extend the group’s reach across regulated digital payments and blockchain-based financial products.
The company also plans to acquire Bitbank and expand its cryptocurrency customer base. SBI expects the combined operations to serve about three million cryptocurrency accounts after completing the planned transaction. Furthermore, it targets approximately ¥870 billion in digital assets under custody.
These expansion plans support SBI’s strategy of combining traditional finance with regulated cryptocurrency services. The group continues investing in trading, custody, payments, stablecoins, and blockchain infrastructure. Meanwhile, its $41.2 billion Ripple stake remains the largest highlighted asset within that digital strategy.
This article was originally published as SBI Holdings Reaffirms $41.2B Ripple Stake Despite XRP Market Slump on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
SBI Holdings Reaffirms $41.2B Ripple Stake Despite XRP Market Slump
SBI Holdings has reaffirmed its commitment to Ripple despite weaker XRP prices and slower cryptocurrency activity. The Japanese financial group values its Ripple shareholding at ¥6.6 trillion, equal to about $41.2 billion. Meanwhile, SBI delivered record first-quarter earnings and continued expanding its digital asset operations.
SBI Holdings Maintains Its Ripple Investment
SBI disclosed the updated Ripple valuation during its first-quarter earnings presentation. The company stressed that its Ripple shareholding remains highly valuable despite the current weakness in the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, SBI continues to treat Ripple as a major strategic asset within its broader financial portfolio.
The group has maintained a long relationship with Ripple and has supported XRP-based payment services. SBI has also promoted blockchain settlement systems through its financial subsidiaries and regional partnerships. Consequently, its latest statement reinforces the group’s long-term focus on Ripple’s payments technology and international network.
XRP has faced selling pressure during the recent cryptocurrency market slowdown. However, SBI did not announce any reduction in its Ripple position during the earnings update. Instead, the company highlighted the stake’s valuation while explaining weaker conditions across its cryptocurrency division.
Clarity Act Uncertainty Weighs on Crypto Activity
SBI linked the sluggish cryptocurrency market to uncertainty surrounding the proposed Clarity Act. The legislation seeks to establish clearer oversight rules for digital assets within the United States. Therefore, its progress could influence market structure, regulation, and business planning across the cryptocurrency sector.
The United States Senate continues considering the bill before its scheduled August recess. Senator Cynthia Lummis recently indicated that Senate leaders had reserved potential floor time for the measure. However, several other legislative matters were also competing for attention during the remaining session.
The Clarity Act has become an important issue for cryptocurrency companies seeking clearer federal rules. Ripple has spent years operating within an uncertain American regulatory environment. As a result, regulatory progress could affect its domestic operations and the wider use of XRP-related services.
SBI Reports Record First-Quarter Earnings
SBI Holdings recorded its strongest first-quarter performance as revenue and profit increased sharply. Revenue reached ¥571.0 billion, while profit before tax climbed to ¥225.8 billion. Additionally, shareholder-attributable net profit rose 149.9% year-over-year to ¥148.1 billion.
The group reported a 29% return on equity for the previous twelve months. That result exceeded SBI’s medium-term return target of 15% by a wide margin. Strong performance across its main financial businesses offset weakness within the cryptocurrency asset division.
SBI’s crypto asset business recorded a ¥1.4 billion pre-tax loss during the quarter. However, global cryptocurrency market maker B2C2 remained profitable and supported the group’s digital asset operations. The mixed results showed continued pressure in retail crypto services but stronger performance within institutional trading activities.
SBI Expands Its Digital Asset Services
SBI continues building its digital asset business through lending, stablecoins, custody, and exchange services. SBI VC Trade recently introduced cryptocurrency lending and support services linked to the JPYSC stablecoin. These services extend the group’s reach across regulated digital payments and blockchain-based financial products.
The company also plans to acquire Bitbank and expand its cryptocurrency customer base. SBI expects the combined operations to serve about three million cryptocurrency accounts after completing the planned transaction. Furthermore, it targets approximately ¥870 billion in digital assets under custody.
These expansion plans support SBI’s strategy of combining traditional finance with regulated cryptocurrency services. The group continues investing in trading, custody, payments, stablecoins, and blockchain infrastructure. Meanwhile, its $41.2 billion Ripple stake remains the largest highlighted asset within that digital strategy.
This article was originally published as SBI Holdings Reaffirms $41.2B Ripple Stake Despite XRP Market Slump on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
SBI Holdings Maintains Its Ripple Investment
SBI disclosed the updated Ripple valuation during its first-quarter earnings presentation. The company stressed that its Ripple shareholding remains highly valuable despite the current weakness in the cryptocurrency market. Therefore, SBI continues to treat Ripple as a major strategic asset within its broader financial portfolio.
The group has maintained a long relationship with Ripple and has supported XRP-based payment services. SBI has also promoted blockchain settlement systems through its financial subsidiaries and regional partnerships. Consequently, its latest statement reinforces the group’s long-term focus on Ripple’s payments technology and international network.
XRP has faced selling pressure during the recent cryptocurrency market slowdown. However, SBI did not announce any reduction in its Ripple position during the earnings update. Instead, the company highlighted the stake’s valuation while explaining weaker conditions across its cryptocurrency division.
Clarity Act Uncertainty Weighs on Crypto Activity
SBI linked the sluggish cryptocurrency market to uncertainty surrounding the proposed Clarity Act. The legislation seeks to establish clearer oversight rules for digital assets within the United States. Therefore, its progress could influence market structure, regulation, and business planning across the cryptocurrency sector.
The United States Senate continues considering the bill before its scheduled August recess. Senator Cynthia Lummis recently indicated that Senate leaders had reserved potential floor time for the measure. However, several other legislative matters were also competing for attention during the remaining session.
The Clarity Act has become an important issue for cryptocurrency companies seeking clearer federal rules. Ripple has spent years operating within an uncertain American regulatory environment. As a result, regulatory progress could affect its domestic operations and the wider use of XRP-related services.
SBI Reports Record First-Quarter Earnings
SBI Holdings recorded its strongest first-quarter performance as revenue and profit increased sharply. Revenue reached ¥571.0 billion, while profit before tax climbed to ¥225.8 billion. Additionally, shareholder-attributable net profit rose 149.9% year-over-year to ¥148.1 billion.
The group reported a 29% return on equity for the previous twelve months. That result exceeded SBI’s medium-term return target of 15% by a wide margin. Strong performance across its main financial businesses offset weakness within the cryptocurrency asset division.
SBI’s crypto asset business recorded a ¥1.4 billion pre-tax loss during the quarter. However, global cryptocurrency market maker B2C2 remained profitable and supported the group’s digital asset operations. The mixed results showed continued pressure in retail crypto services but stronger performance within institutional trading activities.
SBI Expands Its Digital Asset Services
SBI continues building its digital asset business through lending, stablecoins, custody, and exchange services. SBI VC Trade recently introduced cryptocurrency lending and support services linked to the JPYSC stablecoin. These services extend the group’s reach across regulated digital payments and blockchain-based financial products.
The company also plans to acquire Bitbank and expand its cryptocurrency customer base. SBI expects the combined operations to serve about three million cryptocurrency accounts after completing the planned transaction. Furthermore, it targets approximately ¥870 billion in digital assets under custody.
These expansion plans support SBI’s strategy of combining traditional finance with regulated cryptocurrency services. The group continues investing in trading, custody, payments, stablecoins, and blockchain infrastructure. Meanwhile, its $41.2 billion Ripple stake remains the largest highlighted asset within that digital strategy.
This article was originally published as SBI Holdings Reaffirms $41.2B Ripple Stake Despite XRP Market Slump on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
191
Article
AMLBot Introduces AI Tracer to Track Cross-Chain Crypto FlowsAMLBot, a crypto compliance and forensics firm, has introduced “AI Tracer,” a new self-service blockchain analysis tool designed to help users follow funds across networks starting from a single transaction hash. The company positions the product as a way to reduce reliance on specialist tracing software and deep internal expertise when investigating how crypto moves on-chain.
In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, AMLBot says AI Tracer automatically builds a transaction graph, follows movements of funds through intermediate wallets, and attempts to map the journey toward the endpoint addresses the funds ultimately reach. As it walks the trail, the tool matches wallet activity against known entity labels such as exchanges, related services, and flagged addresses.
Key takeaways
AI Tracer is a self-service tracing tool that begins with a transaction hash and maps visible fund movements across supported blockchains.
The tool is designed to follow cross-chain transfers through bridges and to handle cases where assets are split among multiple wallets.
According to AMLBot, AI Tracer cannot view transfers between internal exchange accounts or explain the intent behind payments.
Reports are intended as an investigation starting point and do not replace audits, legal processes, or asset recovery.
The product includes a free check and paid plans that increase the number of automated checks.
How AI Tracer works for on-chain investigations
The core premise behind AI Tracer is graph-based transaction tracing. AMLBot states that the process is automatic: the system traverses the transaction graph from a starting transaction, follows where funds move through intermediary wallets, and continues until it reaches the money’s endpoint. This approach is aimed at giving users a structured view of the transfer path instead of requiring manual analysis across many hops.
A key added layer is entity labeling. AMLBot says it “matches known entity labels — exchanges, services, flagged addresses — against every wallet it encounters” during the traversal. For traders, compliance staff, and researchers, this can matter because addresses that look unrelated at first glance may in fact map to familiar services, custody providers, or previously identified risk clusters—information that can shape how an investigation is prioritized.
Cross-chain and split-funds tracing—plus clear limits
AMLBot highlights two real-world situations where tracing often becomes complicated: cross-chain activity and value fragmentation. The company says AI Tracer can trace through bridges that move assets between networks. It also claims it can follow cases where assets are split across multiple wallets, which is a common pattern in laundering attempts and in complex payment workflows.
At the same time, AMLBot lays out boundaries to prevent users from over-interpreting outputs. The tool, it says, cannot see transfers between internal exchange accounts. That limitation reflects a broader constraint in public blockchain data: while blockchains can show withdrawals and on-chain transfers, they do not reveal internal bookkeeping decisions inside centralized services. AI Tracer also cannot determine why a payment was made, cannot freeze assets, and does not guarantee recovery.
In the company’s description, AI Tracer’s findings are meant to help form hypotheses and provide a lead for next steps. Reports are positioned as a starting point rather than a substitute for audit procedures, legal processes, or formal enforcement action.
Networks supported and who the tool is for
AI Tracer is currently designed to work across a wide set of networks, according to AMLBot. The supported list includes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, TRON, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Ethereum Classic, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Solana, Cardano, and Ripple.
AMLBot says the tool is meant for multiple user groups, including journalists, researchers, traders, and crypto users who want to understand transaction paths. It also names law enforcement agents investigating crypto crime, along with independent investigators and compliance teams that need fast, repeatable analysis for due diligence or incident triage.
That “self-service” framing is significant: investigators often face a trade-off between speed and depth. By automating the tracing and labeling steps, AI Tracer aims to lower the initial friction for routine inquiries—especially when someone has a transaction hash but lacks the time or tooling to manually map intermediate hops across chains.
Pricing model and what to watch next
AMLBot states that AI Tracer offers a free check, with paid plans that raise limits on the number of automated checks users can run. While the announcement emphasizes usability and coverage, the practical value for compliance teams will likely depend on those limits and on the consistency of label matching over time.
For readers considering the tool, the biggest takeaway is to treat AI Tracer outputs as a structured visualization of on-chain movement—not as proof of culpability or intent. The company’s own limitations—no visibility into internal exchange transfers, inability to infer payment purpose, and no asset-freezing or recovery guarantees—signal that users should still pair the tool’s results with further verification and formal processes when stakes are high.
Going forward, attention should focus on how effectively AI Tracer handles increasingly complex cross-chain routes and entity labeling as bridge usage and address clustering tactics evolve. Users should also watch for updates that expand network support or refine what the system can reliably infer from public transaction data.
This article was originally published as AMLBot Introduces AI Tracer to Track Cross-Chain Crypto Flows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
AMLBot Introduces AI Tracer to Track Cross-Chain Crypto Flows
AMLBot, a crypto compliance and forensics firm, has introduced “AI Tracer,” a new self-service blockchain analysis tool designed to help users follow funds across networks starting from a single transaction hash. The company positions the product as a way to reduce reliance on specialist tracing software and deep internal expertise when investigating how crypto moves on-chain.
In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, AMLBot says AI Tracer automatically builds a transaction graph, follows movements of funds through intermediate wallets, and attempts to map the journey toward the endpoint addresses the funds ultimately reach. As it walks the trail, the tool matches wallet activity against known entity labels such as exchanges, related services, and flagged addresses.
Key takeaways
AI Tracer is a self-service tracing tool that begins with a transaction hash and maps visible fund movements across supported blockchains.
The tool is designed to follow cross-chain transfers through bridges and to handle cases where assets are split among multiple wallets.
According to AMLBot, AI Tracer cannot view transfers between internal exchange accounts or explain the intent behind payments.
Reports are intended as an investigation starting point and do not replace audits, legal processes, or asset recovery.
The product includes a free check and paid plans that increase the number of automated checks.
How AI Tracer works for on-chain investigations
The core premise behind AI Tracer is graph-based transaction tracing. AMLBot states that the process is automatic: the system traverses the transaction graph from a starting transaction, follows where funds move through intermediary wallets, and continues until it reaches the money’s endpoint. This approach is aimed at giving users a structured view of the transfer path instead of requiring manual analysis across many hops.
A key added layer is entity labeling. AMLBot says it “matches known entity labels — exchanges, services, flagged addresses — against every wallet it encounters” during the traversal. For traders, compliance staff, and researchers, this can matter because addresses that look unrelated at first glance may in fact map to familiar services, custody providers, or previously identified risk clusters—information that can shape how an investigation is prioritized.
Cross-chain and split-funds tracing—plus clear limits
AMLBot highlights two real-world situations where tracing often becomes complicated: cross-chain activity and value fragmentation. The company says AI Tracer can trace through bridges that move assets between networks. It also claims it can follow cases where assets are split across multiple wallets, which is a common pattern in laundering attempts and in complex payment workflows.
At the same time, AMLBot lays out boundaries to prevent users from over-interpreting outputs. The tool, it says, cannot see transfers between internal exchange accounts. That limitation reflects a broader constraint in public blockchain data: while blockchains can show withdrawals and on-chain transfers, they do not reveal internal bookkeeping decisions inside centralized services. AI Tracer also cannot determine why a payment was made, cannot freeze assets, and does not guarantee recovery.
In the company’s description, AI Tracer’s findings are meant to help form hypotheses and provide a lead for next steps. Reports are positioned as a starting point rather than a substitute for audit procedures, legal processes, or formal enforcement action.
Networks supported and who the tool is for
AI Tracer is currently designed to work across a wide set of networks, according to AMLBot. The supported list includes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, TRON, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Ethereum Classic, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Solana, Cardano, and Ripple.
AMLBot says the tool is meant for multiple user groups, including journalists, researchers, traders, and crypto users who want to understand transaction paths. It also names law enforcement agents investigating crypto crime, along with independent investigators and compliance teams that need fast, repeatable analysis for due diligence or incident triage.
That “self-service” framing is significant: investigators often face a trade-off between speed and depth. By automating the tracing and labeling steps, AI Tracer aims to lower the initial friction for routine inquiries—especially when someone has a transaction hash but lacks the time or tooling to manually map intermediate hops across chains.
Pricing model and what to watch next
AMLBot states that AI Tracer offers a free check, with paid plans that raise limits on the number of automated checks users can run. While the announcement emphasizes usability and coverage, the practical value for compliance teams will likely depend on those limits and on the consistency of label matching over time.
For readers considering the tool, the biggest takeaway is to treat AI Tracer outputs as a structured visualization of on-chain movement—not as proof of culpability or intent. The company’s own limitations—no visibility into internal exchange transfers, inability to infer payment purpose, and no asset-freezing or recovery guarantees—signal that users should still pair the tool’s results with further verification and formal processes when stakes are high.
Going forward, attention should focus on how effectively AI Tracer handles increasingly complex cross-chain routes and entity labeling as bridge usage and address clustering tactics evolve. Users should also watch for updates that expand network support or refine what the system can reliably infer from public transaction data.
This article was originally published as AMLBot Introduces AI Tracer to Track Cross-Chain Crypto Flows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, AMLBot says AI Tracer automatically builds a transaction graph, follows movements of funds through intermediate wallets, and attempts to map the journey toward the endpoint addresses the funds ultimately reach. As it walks the trail, the tool matches wallet activity against known entity labels such as exchanges, related services, and flagged addresses.
Key takeaways
AI Tracer is a self-service tracing tool that begins with a transaction hash and maps visible fund movements across supported blockchains.
The tool is designed to follow cross-chain transfers through bridges and to handle cases where assets are split among multiple wallets.
According to AMLBot, AI Tracer cannot view transfers between internal exchange accounts or explain the intent behind payments.
Reports are intended as an investigation starting point and do not replace audits, legal processes, or asset recovery.
The product includes a free check and paid plans that increase the number of automated checks.
How AI Tracer works for on-chain investigations
The core premise behind AI Tracer is graph-based transaction tracing. AMLBot states that the process is automatic: the system traverses the transaction graph from a starting transaction, follows where funds move through intermediary wallets, and continues until it reaches the money’s endpoint. This approach is aimed at giving users a structured view of the transfer path instead of requiring manual analysis across many hops.
A key added layer is entity labeling. AMLBot says it “matches known entity labels — exchanges, services, flagged addresses — against every wallet it encounters” during the traversal. For traders, compliance staff, and researchers, this can matter because addresses that look unrelated at first glance may in fact map to familiar services, custody providers, or previously identified risk clusters—information that can shape how an investigation is prioritized.
Cross-chain and split-funds tracing—plus clear limits
AMLBot highlights two real-world situations where tracing often becomes complicated: cross-chain activity and value fragmentation. The company says AI Tracer can trace through bridges that move assets between networks. It also claims it can follow cases where assets are split across multiple wallets, which is a common pattern in laundering attempts and in complex payment workflows.
At the same time, AMLBot lays out boundaries to prevent users from over-interpreting outputs. The tool, it says, cannot see transfers between internal exchange accounts. That limitation reflects a broader constraint in public blockchain data: while blockchains can show withdrawals and on-chain transfers, they do not reveal internal bookkeeping decisions inside centralized services. AI Tracer also cannot determine why a payment was made, cannot freeze assets, and does not guarantee recovery.
In the company’s description, AI Tracer’s findings are meant to help form hypotheses and provide a lead for next steps. Reports are positioned as a starting point rather than a substitute for audit procedures, legal processes, or formal enforcement action.
Networks supported and who the tool is for
AI Tracer is currently designed to work across a wide set of networks, according to AMLBot. The supported list includes Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, TRON, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Ethereum Classic, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Solana, Cardano, and Ripple.
AMLBot says the tool is meant for multiple user groups, including journalists, researchers, traders, and crypto users who want to understand transaction paths. It also names law enforcement agents investigating crypto crime, along with independent investigators and compliance teams that need fast, repeatable analysis for due diligence or incident triage.
That “self-service” framing is significant: investigators often face a trade-off between speed and depth. By automating the tracing and labeling steps, AI Tracer aims to lower the initial friction for routine inquiries—especially when someone has a transaction hash but lacks the time or tooling to manually map intermediate hops across chains.
Pricing model and what to watch next
AMLBot states that AI Tracer offers a free check, with paid plans that raise limits on the number of automated checks users can run. While the announcement emphasizes usability and coverage, the practical value for compliance teams will likely depend on those limits and on the consistency of label matching over time.
For readers considering the tool, the biggest takeaway is to treat AI Tracer outputs as a structured visualization of on-chain movement—not as proof of culpability or intent. The company’s own limitations—no visibility into internal exchange transfers, inability to infer payment purpose, and no asset-freezing or recovery guarantees—signal that users should still pair the tool’s results with further verification and formal processes when stakes are high.
Going forward, attention should focus on how effectively AI Tracer handles increasingly complex cross-chain routes and entity labeling as bridge usage and address clustering tactics evolve. Users should also watch for updates that expand network support or refine what the system can reliably infer from public transaction data.
This article was originally published as AMLBot Introduces AI Tracer to Track Cross-Chain Crypto Flows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
44
Article
Bitcoin Drops to 2-Week Lows as US Stocks Lag Asia’s ReboundBitcoin slipped Friday and tested its weakest levels in more than two weeks as market participants pushed risk assets toward the end of the monthly trading window. According to TradingView data, BTC/USD dropped about 3.5% to trade near $62,369 on Bitstamp, a price zone last seen on July 14.
While crypto did not seem to receive the same tailwind as parts of Asia’s equity rebound, the day’s macro cross-currents were hard to ignore. QCP Capital pointed to the outsized role of semiconductor and AI-related exposures in driving swings across regional markets—an environment that appears to be feeding back into crypto liquidity and positioning.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD fell roughly 3.5% to around $62,369 on Bitstamp, the lowest level in over two weeks.
US stocks weakened around the monthly close, contrasting with Asia’s rally—especially South Korea’s KOSPI.
QCP Capital linked crypto activity to the relationship between equity positioning, regional tech sentiment, and crypto liquidity.
Analysts at CoinGlass showed July ended with strong gains, but at least one trader warns August could bring a rollover similar to 2022.
Rekt Capital highlighted the 50-month EMA around $65,820 as ongoing resistance after failed breakouts since mid-June.
BTC drifts lower as US equities soften into month-end
TradingView indicated BTC/USD lost ground during Friday’s session, moving toward $62,000 amid broader pressure into the monthly close. The move came despite a rebound elsewhere earlier in the day, when parts of Asia stabilized after a semiconductor-led sell-off.
According to the same macro framing cited by QCP Capital, semiconductor stocks drove both the decline and subsequent recovery because major indices remain heavily weighted to the global AI and memory-chip cycle. That concentration helps explain why an equity catalyst can quickly translate into shifts in sentiment—and potentially liquidity—across correlated markets, including crypto.
QCP Capital added that crypto trading activity increased around the KOSPI’s sharp swings, describing it as evidence of a growing relationship between crypto liquidity, regional equity positioning, and broader technology-sector sentiment. The firm’s argument is less about a single day’s price and more about how the plumbing of liquidity may be changing alongside technology-driven equity narratives.
Asia rebounds while the US turns cautious
US stocks traded red at the open before leveling out, which diverged from the earlier rebound seen in Asia. South Korea’s KOSPI index finished the day up 17.9%, its largest single-day gain on record, according to figures referenced in the market commentary.
The day’s backdrop also included currency and rate dynamics. The commentary noted that both Japan and Korea reportedly engaged in currency interventions on Thursday, while Japan’s central bank kept benchmark interest rates at 1.0% after the US Federal Reserve decided to hold steady earlier in the week, following the US PCE inflation update.
For crypto traders, the practical takeaway is that “risk-on” can appear in pockets while “risk management” remains active in other major venues. When that happens, BTC can still underperform even as some regional equities bounce—particularly when liquidity flows are being reallocated quickly between markets.
July strength sets up a test for August
Even with Friday’s pullback, BTC’s monthly performance has looked constructive. CoinGlass data referenced in the article showed BTC/USD was up 8.5% for the month as of the end of the monthly candle, its strongest July showing since 2022.
That improvement mattered because earlier positioning had already shifted toward the idea of a relief bounce extending into August. The comparison traders were drawing was specifically to the 2022 bear-market structure: a rally that ultimately transitioned into a subsequent move toward a next longer-term bottom.
Rekt Capital—one of the analysts cited for that 2022 mapping—forecast that any bullish attempt might not hold immediately. In an X post on Friday, he wrote that price could try to “maintain these highs in the early stages of August,” but that history suggests a rollover similar to what occurred in 2022.
Technical resistance remains in focus near the 50-month EMA
Rekt Capital also pointed to a technical level that has limited follow-through. He reiterated that Bitcoin’s 50-month exponential moving average (EMA), currently around $65,820, has continued to act as resistance. In his view, that has been visible through two failed breakouts since mid-June.
For investors and traders, the implication is straightforward: even when BTC can put together a strong July, the next phase depends on whether it can clear longer-term trend resistance rather than merely bounce within an existing range. Levels like the 50-month EMA tend to attract both systematic and discretionary attention because they represent a longer horizon for trend definition.
That context also helps reconcile the mixed picture on Friday. BTC weakening toward the low-$60,000 area may be consistent with traders taking profits or reducing exposure as the market transitions from a month-end catalyst period into a new monthly cycle—especially if macro uncertainty and equity volatility persist.
Going forward, readers should watch whether BTC can reclaim and hold above the mid-$60,000 resistance area highlighted by the 50-month EMA and whether August follows through on the “rollover” scenario traders cite from 2022—or instead breaks the pattern and sustains higher levels despite the month-start shift.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops to 2-Week Lows as US Stocks Lag Asia’s Rebound on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Bitcoin Drops to 2-Week Lows as US Stocks Lag Asia’s Rebound
Bitcoin slipped Friday and tested its weakest levels in more than two weeks as market participants pushed risk assets toward the end of the monthly trading window. According to TradingView data, BTC/USD dropped about 3.5% to trade near $62,369 on Bitstamp, a price zone last seen on July 14.
While crypto did not seem to receive the same tailwind as parts of Asia’s equity rebound, the day’s macro cross-currents were hard to ignore. QCP Capital pointed to the outsized role of semiconductor and AI-related exposures in driving swings across regional markets—an environment that appears to be feeding back into crypto liquidity and positioning.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD fell roughly 3.5% to around $62,369 on Bitstamp, the lowest level in over two weeks.
US stocks weakened around the monthly close, contrasting with Asia’s rally—especially South Korea’s KOSPI.
QCP Capital linked crypto activity to the relationship between equity positioning, regional tech sentiment, and crypto liquidity.
Analysts at CoinGlass showed July ended with strong gains, but at least one trader warns August could bring a rollover similar to 2022.
Rekt Capital highlighted the 50-month EMA around $65,820 as ongoing resistance after failed breakouts since mid-June.
BTC drifts lower as US equities soften into month-end
TradingView indicated BTC/USD lost ground during Friday’s session, moving toward $62,000 amid broader pressure into the monthly close. The move came despite a rebound elsewhere earlier in the day, when parts of Asia stabilized after a semiconductor-led sell-off.
According to the same macro framing cited by QCP Capital, semiconductor stocks drove both the decline and subsequent recovery because major indices remain heavily weighted to the global AI and memory-chip cycle. That concentration helps explain why an equity catalyst can quickly translate into shifts in sentiment—and potentially liquidity—across correlated markets, including crypto.
QCP Capital added that crypto trading activity increased around the KOSPI’s sharp swings, describing it as evidence of a growing relationship between crypto liquidity, regional equity positioning, and broader technology-sector sentiment. The firm’s argument is less about a single day’s price and more about how the plumbing of liquidity may be changing alongside technology-driven equity narratives.
Asia rebounds while the US turns cautious
US stocks traded red at the open before leveling out, which diverged from the earlier rebound seen in Asia. South Korea’s KOSPI index finished the day up 17.9%, its largest single-day gain on record, according to figures referenced in the market commentary.
The day’s backdrop also included currency and rate dynamics. The commentary noted that both Japan and Korea reportedly engaged in currency interventions on Thursday, while Japan’s central bank kept benchmark interest rates at 1.0% after the US Federal Reserve decided to hold steady earlier in the week, following the US PCE inflation update.
For crypto traders, the practical takeaway is that “risk-on” can appear in pockets while “risk management” remains active in other major venues. When that happens, BTC can still underperform even as some regional equities bounce—particularly when liquidity flows are being reallocated quickly between markets.
July strength sets up a test for August
Even with Friday’s pullback, BTC’s monthly performance has looked constructive. CoinGlass data referenced in the article showed BTC/USD was up 8.5% for the month as of the end of the monthly candle, its strongest July showing since 2022.
That improvement mattered because earlier positioning had already shifted toward the idea of a relief bounce extending into August. The comparison traders were drawing was specifically to the 2022 bear-market structure: a rally that ultimately transitioned into a subsequent move toward a next longer-term bottom.
Rekt Capital—one of the analysts cited for that 2022 mapping—forecast that any bullish attempt might not hold immediately. In an X post on Friday, he wrote that price could try to “maintain these highs in the early stages of August,” but that history suggests a rollover similar to what occurred in 2022.
Technical resistance remains in focus near the 50-month EMA
Rekt Capital also pointed to a technical level that has limited follow-through. He reiterated that Bitcoin’s 50-month exponential moving average (EMA), currently around $65,820, has continued to act as resistance. In his view, that has been visible through two failed breakouts since mid-June.
For investors and traders, the implication is straightforward: even when BTC can put together a strong July, the next phase depends on whether it can clear longer-term trend resistance rather than merely bounce within an existing range. Levels like the 50-month EMA tend to attract both systematic and discretionary attention because they represent a longer horizon for trend definition.
That context also helps reconcile the mixed picture on Friday. BTC weakening toward the low-$60,000 area may be consistent with traders taking profits or reducing exposure as the market transitions from a month-end catalyst period into a new monthly cycle—especially if macro uncertainty and equity volatility persist.
Going forward, readers should watch whether BTC can reclaim and hold above the mid-$60,000 resistance area highlighted by the 50-month EMA and whether August follows through on the “rollover” scenario traders cite from 2022—or instead breaks the pattern and sustains higher levels despite the month-start shift.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops to 2-Week Lows as US Stocks Lag Asia’s Rebound on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
While crypto did not seem to receive the same tailwind as parts of Asia’s equity rebound, the day’s macro cross-currents were hard to ignore. QCP Capital pointed to the outsized role of semiconductor and AI-related exposures in driving swings across regional markets—an environment that appears to be feeding back into crypto liquidity and positioning.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD fell roughly 3.5% to around $62,369 on Bitstamp, the lowest level in over two weeks.
US stocks weakened around the monthly close, contrasting with Asia’s rally—especially South Korea’s KOSPI.
QCP Capital linked crypto activity to the relationship between equity positioning, regional tech sentiment, and crypto liquidity.
Analysts at CoinGlass showed July ended with strong gains, but at least one trader warns August could bring a rollover similar to 2022.
Rekt Capital highlighted the 50-month EMA around $65,820 as ongoing resistance after failed breakouts since mid-June.
BTC drifts lower as US equities soften into month-end
TradingView indicated BTC/USD lost ground during Friday’s session, moving toward $62,000 amid broader pressure into the monthly close. The move came despite a rebound elsewhere earlier in the day, when parts of Asia stabilized after a semiconductor-led sell-off.
According to the same macro framing cited by QCP Capital, semiconductor stocks drove both the decline and subsequent recovery because major indices remain heavily weighted to the global AI and memory-chip cycle. That concentration helps explain why an equity catalyst can quickly translate into shifts in sentiment—and potentially liquidity—across correlated markets, including crypto.
QCP Capital added that crypto trading activity increased around the KOSPI’s sharp swings, describing it as evidence of a growing relationship between crypto liquidity, regional equity positioning, and broader technology-sector sentiment. The firm’s argument is less about a single day’s price and more about how the plumbing of liquidity may be changing alongside technology-driven equity narratives.
Asia rebounds while the US turns cautious
US stocks traded red at the open before leveling out, which diverged from the earlier rebound seen in Asia. South Korea’s KOSPI index finished the day up 17.9%, its largest single-day gain on record, according to figures referenced in the market commentary.
The day’s backdrop also included currency and rate dynamics. The commentary noted that both Japan and Korea reportedly engaged in currency interventions on Thursday, while Japan’s central bank kept benchmark interest rates at 1.0% after the US Federal Reserve decided to hold steady earlier in the week, following the US PCE inflation update.
For crypto traders, the practical takeaway is that “risk-on” can appear in pockets while “risk management” remains active in other major venues. When that happens, BTC can still underperform even as some regional equities bounce—particularly when liquidity flows are being reallocated quickly between markets.
July strength sets up a test for August
Even with Friday’s pullback, BTC’s monthly performance has looked constructive. CoinGlass data referenced in the article showed BTC/USD was up 8.5% for the month as of the end of the monthly candle, its strongest July showing since 2022.
That improvement mattered because earlier positioning had already shifted toward the idea of a relief bounce extending into August. The comparison traders were drawing was specifically to the 2022 bear-market structure: a rally that ultimately transitioned into a subsequent move toward a next longer-term bottom.
Rekt Capital—one of the analysts cited for that 2022 mapping—forecast that any bullish attempt might not hold immediately. In an X post on Friday, he wrote that price could try to “maintain these highs in the early stages of August,” but that history suggests a rollover similar to what occurred in 2022.
Technical resistance remains in focus near the 50-month EMA
Rekt Capital also pointed to a technical level that has limited follow-through. He reiterated that Bitcoin’s 50-month exponential moving average (EMA), currently around $65,820, has continued to act as resistance. In his view, that has been visible through two failed breakouts since mid-June.
For investors and traders, the implication is straightforward: even when BTC can put together a strong July, the next phase depends on whether it can clear longer-term trend resistance rather than merely bounce within an existing range. Levels like the 50-month EMA tend to attract both systematic and discretionary attention because they represent a longer horizon for trend definition.
That context also helps reconcile the mixed picture on Friday. BTC weakening toward the low-$60,000 area may be consistent with traders taking profits or reducing exposure as the market transitions from a month-end catalyst period into a new monthly cycle—especially if macro uncertainty and equity volatility persist.
Going forward, readers should watch whether BTC can reclaim and hold above the mid-$60,000 resistance area highlighted by the 50-month EMA and whether August follows through on the “rollover” scenario traders cite from 2022—or instead breaks the pattern and sustains higher levels despite the month-start shift.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops to 2-Week Lows as US Stocks Lag Asia’s Rebound on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
140
Log in to explore more content
Join global crypto users on Binance Square
⚡️ Get latest and useful information about crypto.
💬 Trusted by the world’s largest crypto exchange.
👍 Discover real insights from verified creators.
Email / Phone number
Trending Topics
USToCancelIranAttackSubjectToDeal
136,275 views
1,561 Discussing
Market News: Trump Cancels Iran Strike Pending Rapid Deal — Hormuz Reopening Terms Would Be the Most Bullish Single Macro Event for Bitcoin Since the June Ceasefire
Binance News
·135 Likes
·30.2k views
BerkshireSharesHit8MonthHigh
24,292 views
300 Discussing
TrumpCancelsIranStrikePendingDeal
33,686 views
301 Discussing