Crypto Breaking

A federal court is set to review whether a $5 million settlement between the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Gemini should be reversed, even as Gemini co-founder Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have directed substantial Bitcoin donations to political groups supporting President Donald Trump. The latest development comes from a new disclosure by the MAGA Inc. Super PAC.
In a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing dated Monday, MAGA Inc. Super PAC reported receiving two Bitcoin contributions exceeding $5 million each on June 19—totaling $10 million in BTC—sent by the Winklevoss-run Gemini Trust Company. The donation timing overlaps with the period when the CFTC and Gemini are seeking to revisit the earlier enforcement outcome in federal court.
Key takeaways
MAGA Inc. Super PAC’s July FEC report says Gemini Trust Company sent two Bitcoin contributions of more than $5 million each on June 19.
The payments were made about three weeks after the CFTC and Gemini jointly filed a motion to reverse a January 2025 settlement.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig previously characterized the original enforcement as politically targeted under the prior administration.
A CFTC spokesperson told Cointelegraph in June that, if the court grants relief, the $5 million penalty would not be returned to Gemini.
Separately, lawmakers have pushed the Trump White House to nominate additional CFTC commissioners as the agency prepares to oversee broader crypto-market rules.
Bitcoin donations disclosed amid court fight over Gemini settlement
According to the MAGA Inc. Super PAC report filed with the FEC, Gemini Trust Company made two separate transfers of Bitcoin on June 19. Each contribution was valued at more than $5 million, bringing the disclosed total to $10 million.
The filing indicates the super PAC can use the funds for independent expenditures supporting Trump. That matters because super PAC spending can influence elections indirectly—by funding advertising and other political activities—rather than making direct coordination with candidates.
The June 19 contributions came roughly three weeks after the CFTC and Gemini jointly moved in federal court to revisit a settlement dated to January 2025. In that earlier case, the CFTC alleged Gemini made false or misleading statements. The current joint filing seeks a reversal of that settlement in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
When the CFTC and Gemini filed their joint motion, Cointelegraph reported that CFTC Chair Michael Selig argued at the time that the enforcement during the Biden administration “politically targeted” the Winklevosses. The broader implication is that the dispute is not only about legal interpretation of statements, but also about whether the CFTC’s enforcement posture should be treated as politically motivated.
What’s known about the CFTC-Gemini motion—and what remains unanswered
While the joint motion was filed in May, Cointelegraph reported that no decision has yet been posted to the public docket. That means the court’s view on whether the settlement should be reversed is still pending.
Cointelegraph also said it reached out to the CFTC and Gemini’s counsel, Avi Perry, for comment on the $10 million contribution but did not receive an immediate response. A CFTC spokesperson, however, provided context in June about the penalty outcome: both sides “agreed that the $5 million penalty will not be returned to Gemini” if the court grants the reversal.
This point is important for market watchers because it separates two possible outcomes. Even if the settlement is overturned, the agency’s position (as relayed by a spokesperson) suggests the immediate financial consequence may not change in Gemini’s favor. In other words, the court fight may affect precedent or regulatory record more than it affects the transfer of funds already paid.
The dispute is occurring as crypto regulation in the US continues to evolve—especially around how regulators determine what constitutes improper statements and how they translate market-facing communications into enforcement actions.
Winklevoss political support spans multiple BTC donations
The MAGA Inc. disclosure is the latest entry in a broader pattern of political involvement by the Winklevoss brothers and Gemini leadership.
Cointelegraph reported that both brothers donated $1 million each to Trump’s 2024 election campaign and supported the then-candidate through social media posts. After Trump took office in January 2025, the twins attended a stablecoin payments bill signing ceremony for the GENIUS Act. They also supported American Bitcoin, a crypto mining venture associated with Trump’s sons, and contributed $21 million in Bitcoin to the Digital Freedom Fund PAC, according to earlier coverage.
These actions do not establish any legal relationship to the CFTC-Gemini case on their own. But they do intensify political attention on the timing and dynamics between regulatory enforcement, court strategy, and high-profile political backing—particularly when lawmakers are already debating the degree of independence regulators should maintain.
Concerns from lawmakers and a CFTC shaped by a lone chair
Criticism of the CFTC’s joint approach to reversal has come from members of Congress. Cointelegraph reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren, in a June letter to CFTC Chair Selig, described the joint motion for reversal and other factors as “concerning signs” of a commission influenced by political pressures and aligned interests, rather than governed strictly by rule of law and a duty to protect investors and market integrity.
At the same time, the CFTC’s internal composition remains a central policy issue. Cointelegraph noted that Selig remains the sole commissioner leading the agency, with no additional nominations announced as of Thursday. The CFTC is usually governed by a bipartisan set of five commissioners, so a one-person board structure can shape both enforcement priorities and how quickly the agency can adopt new regulatory approaches.
Many lawmakers have been urging the Trump administration to nominate additional commissioners. That pressure coincides with congressional work on crypto market structure legislation, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which—per Cointelegraph’s reporting—is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority in regulating and overseeing digital assets.
With the White House not yet announcing nominations, Selig effectively directs the agency’s agenda for now. That matters to investors and market participants because the CFTC’s leadership and regulatory posture can influence which enforcement theories are pursued, how compliance expectations are interpreted, and what rulemaking momentum looks like in practice.
Separately, Cointelegraph reported that as of June 30, MAGA Inc. had received more than $397 million. That figure underscores the scale of political fundraising activity around the election cycle, even as individual disclosures like the June 19 BTC transfers keep drawing scrutiny to the intersection of crypto wealth, regulation, and politics.
As the court considers whether the Gemini settlement should be reversed, the key watchpoints are whether the docket produces a ruling soon, how the CFTC frames the reversal in legal terms if relief is granted, and whether additional CFTC commissioner nominations are announced—developments that could determine how aggressively the agency’s crypto oversight evolves next.
This article was originally published as Gemini Transfers $10M Bitcoin to Trump PAC After CFTC Motion on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin may be nearing a more stable trading base, but at least one prominent asset manager says investors shouldn’t pin the next major upside cycle on the same drivers that defined earlier booms. In a new write-up, Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan argues that the next bull market will be powered by deeper TradFi-to-crypto integration—specifically by platforms that can bring crypto’s 24/7 trading features into mainstream financial workflows.
Hougan points to Hyperliquid’s widening footprint and Robinhood’s push into crypto infrastructure as two concrete examples. In parallel, Bitwise data cited by Hougan and a separate X post from Bitwise research head Andre Dragosch suggest that “apparent demand” for BTC may be starting to improve after a prolonged period of weakness.
Key takeaways
Matt Hougan (Bitwise) says the next crypto bull market is more likely to be driven by TradFi integrations than by purely crypto-native catalysts.
He highlights Hyperliquid’s growing use cases across conventional assets and product expansion as a sign of broader convergence.
Hougan sees Robinhood-related infrastructure as another bridge that could help “lift” a wide range of crypto assets.
Bitwise’s framework for “apparent demand” indicates BTC demand may be “re-accelerating,” even as spot demand remains a recurring concern.
Why Bitwise thinks the next cycle starts in TradFi
Hougan framed his positioning thesis around the idea that the market’s next sustained expansion will come from crypto benefits becoming easier to access for traditional investors. In a blog post published Wednesday, he asked how to begin positioning for what he expects to be a new bull market and answered with a pair of entities he believes represent convergence from opposite directions.
“By looking at two entities that are leading this convergence from opposite sides: Hyperliquid and Robinhood.”
The underlying premise is that crypto’s structure—particularly constant markets and instant settlement—creates advantages that traditional finance has historically lacked. For Hougan, the key question is not whether Bitcoin will bottom, but whether new demand channels will be able to scale once mainstream firms and familiar interfaces adopt crypto trading patterns.
On Hyperliquid, Hougan emphasized that the platform’s activity is not confined to crypto pairs. According to his description, nearly half of Hyperliquid’s volume is tied to “conventional assets like oil, silver, and the S&P 500,” and the venue is reportedly expanding into spot commodities, prediction markets, and options.
That mix matters because it signals an appetite for trading experiences that look and feel familiar while still operating with crypto-native mechanics. If those flows continue to grow, Hougan argues that the effect should reach beyond isolated tokens and instead support the broader sector.
The “rising tide” thesis for majors and crypto equities
Hougan also ties his outlook to the competitive pressure from traditional financial players entering the crypto ecosystem through infrastructure and distribution. He referenced Robinhood’s “Chain layer-2 network” as an example of how legacy finance might become more directly connected to crypto market dynamics.
“I suspect the coming bull market will be big enough to lift most of the sector.”
From there, he lays out a portfolio-style approach: he says he remains bullish on major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, while also expressing optimism about crypto equities. The common thread in his argument is that broadening participation tends to support liquidity across the market, not just the most narrative-driven names.
Hougan’s positioning aligns with his broader tone entering 2026. Earlier this year, he argued that the end of the “crypto winter” could arrive sooner than expected, and he maintained that view while markets continued to work through weakness.
BTC: “apparent demand” shows a possible reversal
While Hougan’s thesis focuses on what could power the next cycle, the day-to-day question for traders is whether Bitcoin’s demand backdrop is stabilizing. Cointelegraph previously reported that many market participants were looking for bottoming signals, but also suggested the bear phase could still have months left depending on how spot demand evolves.
In that context, the spotlight has remained on the question of whether spot buying is returning—particularly on shorter time frames where demand can appear fragile even when longer-term conditions are improving.
However, Bitwise is pointing to a different metric that may be shifting. According to an X post on Thursday by Andre Dragosch, Bitwise’s European head of research, BTC “apparent demand” is “re-accelerating.” Dragosch’s post frames the change as a meaningful departure from the prior slowdown.
What “apparent demand” means: it measures the difference between newly mined BTC and the supply that has remained inactive for at least one year. In effect, it provides a way to infer whether recently produced coins are being absorbed rather than circulating from dormant holdings.
That distinction matters for investors because a sustained improvement in apparent demand can indicate that the market is finding new buyers—even if spot volumes are not yet fully convincing across every trading window. Still, the metric is not identical to spot demand, and it won’t resolve instantly the question of where a bottom will form on price alone.
What to watch next as TradFi integration and demand signals collide
Hougan’s argument implies that even if Bitcoin’s near-term chart shows gradual stabilization, the bigger inflection point will likely depend on how quickly mainstream access and crypto trading mechanics begin to reinforce each other. Hyperliquid’s ability to attract volume tied to conventional assets and its expansion into additional derivatives-style products could provide one path, while Robinhood-related ecosystem development is another.
At the same time, BTC investors appear to be watching for whether the “re-accelerating” apparent demand signal persists beyond a short burst. If apparent demand continues to improve while broader spot demand recovers, the market may be closer to a durable transition than “bottom” headlines alone would suggest.
This article was originally published as Bitwise Exec: Hyperliquid and Robinhood Could Boost Bitcoin’s Next Bull Run on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kazakhstan has approved a new regulatory framework for large-scale “strategic” crypto mining that ties access to electricity quotas at regulated tariffs to participation in a state-backed digital asset reserve. The rules were approved on July 18, according to Zakon.kz, which cited Government Resolution No. 638 published in Kazakhstan’s PRG.kz legal database.
Under the framework, designated miners receive electricity access in exchange for transferring part of the cryptocurrency they mine to Astana Hub, a government-supported technology cluster. The Kremlin of mining policy is likely to be felt first by industrial operators looking to scale, as the new model sets relatively high technical and infrastructure thresholds before a company can qualify.
Key takeaways
Kazakhstan’s strategic digital mining rules link regulated electricity tariff access to transfers of mined crypto assets to Astana Hub.
Applicants must meet infrastructure requirements, including a mining data center capacity of at least 150 MW and hardware with minimum 150 TH/s per unit.
The framework introduces additional operational and compliance conditions, including staffing, repair capabilities, internet service contracts, and being current on tax and other payments.
The government resolution is set to enter into force on Aug. 1, 2026.
Why Kazakhstan’s “strategic” model matters
Kazakhstan is widely recognized as one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining jurisdictions. In the April 2025 Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report, it ranked fifth globally by Bitcoin mining activity, according to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. The approval of this new framework suggests the country wants to keep mining activity moving while steering it into a more formal state-linked structure.
Investors and operators should pay attention to how the policy could change the economics of mining. Instead of purely commercial arrangements for power and site operations, “strategic” miners will gain access to electricity quotas at regulated tariffs, but in return they must participate in a reserve mechanism tied to Astana Hub. That trade-off effectively adds a new policy-driven cost component—sharing mined assets—while potentially improving power affordability for eligible participants.
Eligibility requirements: a high bar for applicants
The rules define strategic digital mining as an arrangement that grants miners electricity quotas at regulated tariffs, contingent on transferring a portion of mined assets to Astana Hub. Zakon.kz reports that applicants must satisfy strict prerequisites before they can be recognized as strategic miners.
Among the cited requirements, mining companies must:
Own a digital mining data center with at least 150 megawatts (MW) of capacity.
Use mining hardware where each unit has a minimum computing power of 150 terahashes per second (TH/s).
Have qualified technical staff and repair facilities located at their data centers.
Maintain multiple internet service contracts.
Be current on required tax and other payments.
In addition, the rules place the operational burden on firms to demonstrate readiness beyond just having equipment and power. For large-scale operators, this may reinforce an industry shift toward purpose-built facilities and contracted power and connectivity. For smaller miners, it could mean the “strategic” pathway is out of reach even if electricity costs are attractive.
Electricity access traded for a mined-asset reserve
Once approved, strategic miners must enter into agreements connected to Astana Hub’s autonomous cluster fund and purchase electricity from eligible power-generating companies under the new framework. The policy is designed to function like a barter between subsidized or regulated electricity access and transfers into a reserve mechanism.
However, the precise transfer percentage is not stated in the publicly described summary of the rules. Local media cited a 10% transfer rate, but the article notes that Cointelegraph could not independently verify that figure. For market participants, that uncertainty is significant: even small changes in the transfer share can materially affect cash flow and treasury planning for mining firms.
The reserve mechanism also reflects a broader policy direction: Kazakhstan appears to be building state-linked digital asset infrastructure rather than leaving mining incentives entirely to market forces. This approach could influence how miners structure operations, including whether they treat mined reserves as liquid holdings or as assets bound by policy transfer obligations.
A wider state-backed crypto push
The strategic mining framework arrives as Kazakhstan expands the role of state-backed structures in the crypto sector. In September 2025, Kazakhstan launched the Alem Crypto Fund, described in earlier coverage as a state-backed vehicle focused on long-term digital asset reserves, with its first investment involving BNB through a partnership with Binance Kazakhstan (as reported by Cointelegraph).
Kazakhstan has also been moving toward regulated crypto-related financial services. In July 2026, Alatau City Bank and Binance Kazakhstan launched Crypto Pay, a service allowing users to make crypto payments via QR codes and point-of-sale terminals integrated into the bank’s acquiring network, according to the bank’s announcement on its website.
These steps—mining policy, a reserve fund, and payment infrastructure—point to a coordinated national approach: rather than treating crypto as a purely private activity, Kazakhstan is assembling mechanisms that funnel participation into government-supported platforms and compliance-oriented channels.
As the strategic mining rules transition from approval to implementation, the most important details to watch are how the reserve transfer works in practice—especially the actual share miners must contribute—and how the eligibility requirements will be enforced during the run-up to the Aug. 1, 2026 effective date. For miners, the next question is whether the promise of regulated electricity quotas will outweigh the added reserve transfer obligation for companies that qualify.
This article was originally published as Kazakhstan Greenlights Crypto Mining Rules Linked to National Reserves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ether’s valuation picture is looking more compelling relative to Bitcoin, but on-chain data suggests the market may not yet have reached a decisive long-term bottom. CryptoQuant’s latest weekly analysis points to ETH trading below a key “realized value” benchmark while several other indicators are improving—just not all at the historical turning points seen in prior cycle lows.
In the report, CryptoQuant says ETH is approximately 17% under its realized price, an on-chain metric that reflects the average cost basis of ETH held across the network. That realized value is currently estimated at roughly $2,300, a level that historically has aligned with periods of broad undervaluation and longer-term bottoms. Still, CryptoQuant cautions that only part of its indicator set has reached the extremes typical of fully confirmed cycle transitions.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant estimates ETH is trading about 17% below its realized price (realized value around $2,300), a historically undervalued regime.
Two of CryptoQuant’s five “bottoming” indicators are at historical reversal levels, while the remaining three are improving but not yet at prior cycle lows.
ETH relative to BTC shows signs of stabilization: ETH/BTC spot volume has shifted into a range historically seen near market bottoms.
Exchange inflows appear to be cooling while ETF holdings have started to recover after months of weakness, according to CryptoQuant’s account.
Ethereum’s circulating supply continues to tighten as staking participation rises, with 34% of supply reported as staked by Staking Rewards.
ETH under realized value, but the bottom isn’t “confirmed”
The core of CryptoQuant’s valuation argument is that ETH is still trading at a discount to realized price. When market participants transact at prices below the average on-chain acquisition cost, it can indicate capitulation-like behavior—especially if sustained. CryptoQuant says this condition previously marked periods of undervaluation and longer-term basing for ETH.
However, the company frames its message carefully: even if the discount is present, a complete bottoming process typically requires multiple on-chain signals to align. In its weekly report, CryptoQuant notes that only two of five bottoming indicators have reached historical reversal levels. The rest are moving in the right direction, but they have not yet reached the extreme readings seen at previous cycle lows.
For traders and investors, the practical takeaway is that ETH’s valuation is improving relative to its own on-chain history, but the market’s “cycle bottom” may still be forming rather than fully established. That distinction matters because the typical pattern of post-bottom recovery can be uneven—particularly when some indicators have flipped while others remain mid-transition.
Shifts in ETH/BTC: cheaper relative to Bitcoin and calmer trading activity
CryptoQuant also highlights ETH’s improving relative posture versus Bitcoin. The analytics firm points to several metrics that, together, suggest Ethereum may be shedding an overvalued phase relative to BTC.
Among the factors cited: CryptoQuant says the ETH market value-to-realized value (MVRV) ratio has retreated from extreme overvaluation. It also reports that exchange inflows have declined and that ETF holdings have started to recover after months of weakness. On top of that, the firm notes that ETH/BTC spot trading volumes have fallen into a range historically associated with market bottoms.
CryptoQuant’s historical framing is important because it implies investors should consider not only where prices are, but how activity is behaving across markets. A shift toward lower relative volume can indicate reduced speculative churn—often a feature of consolidation during basing phases. At the same time, falling volume can also mean liquidity and volatility conditions are changing, which may affect how quickly price trends develop once sentiment improves.
CryptoQuant data also suggests the ETH/BTC MVRV ratio has fallen sharply from nearly 0.95 in August 2025 to around 0.65, signaling that Ethereum has become materially cheaper relative to Bitcoin. That degree of compression is consistent with a market moving away from the kinds of relative richness that can precede drawdowns.
Supply dynamics: exchange outflows, rising staking, and corporate accumulation
Beyond valuation, CryptoQuant’s broader on-chain lens aligns with a tightening supply narrative forming in Ethereum. A key component is exchange behavior. During the week beginning June 29, withdrawal activity on Binance—described in earlier coverage as the largest crypto exchange by trading volume—rose to its highest level in more than three years, according to reporting from Cointelegraph.
While exchange outflows are often interpreted as a sign that holders are moving assets toward self-custody or staking rather than leaving them on exchanges for potential sale, CryptoQuant’s kind of framework typically treats those flows as suggestive rather than determinative. Outflows can coincide with long-term conviction, but they can also reflect operational movements or transfers that do not automatically translate into net accumulation.
On the staking front, Ethereum’s supply appears to be increasingly locked away from immediate trading. Staking Rewards data referenced in the coverage indicates that 34% of Ethereum’s circulating supply is now staked, a record level. This matters because higher staking participation reduces the liquid portion of ETH available for frequent exchange-level trading—potentially easing short-term selling pressure if demand holds up.
Corporate accumulation also factors into the supply story. Cointelegraph previously reported that Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion Technologies, identified as the largest corporate ETH holder, increased its holdings by 325,000 ETH over a one-month period even while sitting on large unrealized losses. The company reportedly has a target to hold 5% of the second-biggest crypto.
Taken together, these elements—less ETH sitting on exchanges, more ETH being staked, and large holders adding—create an environment where upward price moves may face less immediate sell pressure than they would in a purely liquidation-driven setup. Still, supply tightness does not guarantee a bottom, which is why CryptoQuant’s multi-indicator approach remains central to its caution.
What’s happening in price action—and why macro optimism could matter
CryptoQuant’s on-chain caution arrives while price action has shown moments of strength. The report notes Ether briefly climbed above $1,950 this week, while Bitcoin topped $67,000, supported by optimism around the US CLARITY Act. The same coverage also references market analysts pointing to the possibility of capital rotating out of richly valued AI stocks and back into crypto—an argument that, if it materializes, could broaden risk appetite and support ETH alongside BTC.
Even so, the on-chain message is not “wait for confirmation” in a vague sense—it is more specific: only two of the five bottoming indicators have reached historical reversal levels, meaning key extremes still appear to be missing. For market participants, that implies monitoring should focus on whether the remaining metrics continue to accelerate toward prior-cycle low patterns rather than treating the current valuation discount as the whole story.
Going forward, the main question is whether the unconfirmed indicators catch up—especially those tied to market behavior such as inflows, valuation extremes, and volume conditions—while staking and exchange outflows keep tightening ETH’s liquid supply. If those trends persist, CryptoQuant’s “improving but not finished” framework could shift toward a more definitive bottoming profile; if they fade, the market may remain in a drawn-out consolidation instead of entering a clean rebound.
This article was originally published as CryptoQuant: Ethereum Approaches BTC Market Lows, Key Signals Not Confirmed on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX’s decision to shut down is reigniting debate about how mature the crypto derivatives market has become—and whether the industry’s next chapter will be defined by consolidation. Once a dominant venue for Bitcoin perpetuals and other leveraged products, the exchange is now being cited by analysts as a case study in how mid-sized centralized platforms struggle as liquidity concentrates and regulatory burdens rise.
While BitMEX helped popularize perpetual swaps that later became a baseline feature of digital asset derivatives trading, its momentum weakened as early as 2021. CryptoQuant data cited in earlier reporting shows BitMEX’s daily Bitcoin futures volume fell starting around May 2021 and never returned to its 2020 daily peak, which ranged between $1 billion and $5 billion.
Key takeaways
BitMEX will end trading on Sept. 23 following a strategic review by its parent company, HDR Global Trading.
CryptoQuant data indicates BitMEX’s daily Bitcoin futures volume declined from around May 2021 and did not rebound to 2020 levels.
Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights growing concentration of liquidity among the largest exchanges, reducing viable scale for smaller and mid-tier venues.
The shutdown comes as regulated competitors increasingly offer perpetual-style products in major jurisdictions, including the US and UK.
From derivatives pioneer to market shrinkage
BitMEX was founded in 2014 by Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo, and Samuel Reed and became closely associated with offshore perpetual derivatives at a time when comparable products were scarce through regulated channels. But the exchange’s decline has been visible in both trading dynamics and market-share rankings.
Cointelegraph previously noted that BitMEX’s utility token, BMEX, triggered a sharp sell-off after the shutdown plan was announced. The token fell by more than 90% as traders reacted to the prospect of reduced utility and a shrinking platform footprint.
Meanwhile, market-share snapshots from CoinGecko suggest BitMEX’s position weakened over time. CoinGecko ranked BitMEX ninth among derivatives exchanges in August 2023, with a 0.9% share of trading volume. By 2025, CoinGecko’s research indicated BitMEX was no longer listed among the firm’s top 10 perpetual exchanges.
Those changes are happening even as the broader perpetual market expanded. CoinGecko’s annual reporting cited in the coverage states that aggregate annual perpetual trading volume across leading platforms rose 47.4% to a record $86.2 trillion.
Why consolidation pressure is intensifying
Legal and restructuring adviser Roshan Dharia, speaking to Cointelegraph, argued that BitMEX’s closure reflects pressures concentrated on mid-sized centralized exchanges rather than a short-lived downturn. In his view, liquidity has increasingly clustered among the largest players, leaving smaller venues with slimmer margins and limited pathways to scale.
The top five platforms now control an estimated 80% of global spot volume, leaving mid-tier and regional exchanges with shrinking margins and no viable path to scale… The headwinds are structural, not cyclical.
Dharia’s framing matters for traders and builders because market structure influences liquidity quality, execution costs, and product resilience. When trading activity consolidates, smaller exchanges may struggle to attract enough depth—particularly in highly competitive perpetual markets where traders prioritize low spreads and reliable order books.
In parallel, compliance costs continue to rise. While the coverage does not quantify those costs, the broader argument is that regulatory obligations can become increasingly difficult to absorb for firms that lack the balance-sheet scale of industry leaders.
Regulated venues move closer to “perpetual” reality
A key backdrop to BitMEX’s decline is that regulated competitors have expanded access to perpetual-style products. BitMEX rose by delivering derivatives offshore years before licensed venues offered comparable functionality. Today, that gap appears to be narrowing as major platforms operate under US and UK frameworks.
In the United States, Cointelegraph coverage referenced developments involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Coinbase launched perpetual-style futures on a CFTC-regulated exchange in May after receiving no-action relief from the regulator. The CFTC also approved Bitcoin perpetual futures for Kalshi. In June, Kraken followed with CFTC-regulated perpetual futures for eligible US traders via its recently acquired Bitnomial exchange.
The shift is not limited to the US. The same reporting notes that Coinbase obtained a UK investment services license, which it framed as a step toward expanding its derivatives business ahead of the country’s new crypto regulatory regime.
For market participants, this matters because regulatory pathways can affect institutional adoption, custody and compliance workflows, and the ease with which traditional finance players can interact with crypto markets. As regulated venues offer similar exposure formats, some traders may prefer locations where compliance processes are clearer.
What happens to users and liquidity when an exchange shuts
BitMEX’s end date—trading scheduled to stop on Sept. 23—puts a timetable around a process that can affect open positions, hedging workflows, and the availability of familiar liquidity venues. The coverage does not detail specific settlement mechanics for outstanding positions, but the shutdown itself highlights operational risk that leveraged-trading users implicitly assume when choosing venues.
The broader lesson is that derivatives markets are especially sensitive to venue continuity. Liquidity concentration already changes how quickly traders can enter or exit positions; a sudden withdrawal of a longstanding venue can add friction, particularly in niche contracts or where traders have built execution habits around a specific platform.
Looking ahead, traders and investors should watch whether liquidity meaningfully migrates to regulated competitors or remains fragmented across remaining venues, and how quickly order-book depth adjusts for the most common perpetual instruments. In parallel, industry participants will be watching for further consolidation signals—especially from exchanges that face similar scale and compliance challenges.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Exit Signals Faster Crypto Consolidation, Analysts Say on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped below the $65,000 mark on Thursday, touching a three-day low around $64,799 on Bitstamp, as broader risk markets weakened amid renewed US-Iran tensions. The drop came alongside a selloff in US equities, a rally in oil, and rising expectations that US interest rates could stay higher for longer.
With traders split over whether recent relief will extend—or fade—attention has turned to nearby technical levels, including a widely watched moving-average area that could influence the next leg of momentum.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin fell to three-day lows near $64,799 on Bitstamp as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq slid on Thursday.
US-Iran escalation fears fed into risk-off sentiment, lifting oil prices and pushing yields higher.
Coinciding with the selloff, CME FedWatch odds shifted toward a potential 0.25% hike by the upcoming FOMC, a typical headwind for crypto.
Traders are watching moving-average support and the $68,000 resistance zone for clues on whether BTC can attempt a bigger breakout.
Geopolitics hits risk assets, and BTC follows
According to TradingView data cited in the report, BTC/USD reached three-day lows of $64,799 on Bitstamp. The move lower was part of a broader pattern: when equities and other high-beta assets struggle, crypto often struggles too.
US market pressure intensified after President Donald Trump warned that he would blame Iran for recent Houthi strikes on Saudi commercial vessels. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was “very disappointed” in the Houthis and referenced attacks on US ships from 2025.
By the close of New York trading, the S&P 500 had fallen 1.2%, while the Nasdaq dropped 2.2%. Oil strengthened sharply as well, with Brent crude rising to its highest level since early June and topping $100 per barrel.
That mix—weak equities, higher energy prices, and tightening financial conditions—can be hard for speculative assets. One signal highlighted by The Kobeissi Letter on X was that inflation expectations and interest rates were rising again, reinforcing the sense of renewed macro pressure on risk-taking.
Fed expectations shift: a potential 0.25% hike becomes more likely
Crypto traders often treat changes in Federal Reserve expectations as a direct input into near-term risk appetite. In this case, the report pointed to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool showing an increased chance of a 0.25% hike ahead of the Federal Reserve’s next decision.
Odds neared 40% on Thursday, compared with roughly 12% a week earlier. Historically, expectations for additional rate hikes tend to weigh on assets that typically benefit from easier financial conditions.
The Kobeissi Letter also referenced 18-month highs in US 10-year bond yields, framing the move as evidence of fresh economic stress. Higher yields can tighten liquidity and raise discount rates—conditions that often challenge the multiples and leverage embedded in speculative markets.
BTC traders disagree on the path forward
As price weakened, the market message wasn’t consistent. The report described a split among traders about whether BTC’s relief could continue or whether the recent rally was approaching a turning point.
One commentator, Exitpump, argued on X that the “July rally” may end by late July and that traders should be prepared for downside if price breaks below $65,000. Their view—posted late on Wednesday—was effectively a stop-out narrative for longs: close positions near resistance and turn cautious once the $65K area gives way.
Other traders were more constructive. Crypto trader Jelle suggested BTC was “still making progress,” describing a path in which clearing a local area could open a route toward the $70K region and potentially establish a new trading range. The difference in outlook matters because it determines how quickly traders reposition—whether they treat the current decline as a continuation of bearish momentum or as consolidation before the next attempt higher.
Technical focus: moving averages and the $68,000 hurdle
Beyond macro catalysts, technical levels are currently driving day-to-day decision-making. The report highlighted crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe’s view that a 21-week simple moving average (SMA) around $64,073 represents key support.
Van de Poppe said, via an X post dated Thursday, that as long as BTC remains above the 21-Day MA, there should be room for a higher valuation in the near term. In the same post, he pointed to the “final hurdle” for a larger breakout: the $68,000 resistance zone, which he noted had been tested once and would now face a second attempt.
He also outlined a bullish target near $73,000 if BTC can break through that resistance area. For traders, this framing matters because it sets up a clear conditional roadmap: support preservation may keep the higher valuation thesis alive, while a sustained failure below key averages could invalidate the breakout scenario.
Heading into the next sessions, traders will likely keep one eye on macro signals—especially Fed expectations and bond yields—and the other on whether BTC can hold the $64K moving-average area and challenge $68,000 again without another sharp slide. The tension between geopolitics-driven risk aversion and the technical bullish targets is likely to define how quickly conviction returns to either side.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops Below $65K as Iran Tensions Lift Oil to $100, Yields Rise on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A federal court is set to weigh whether the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) should reverse a $5 million settlement with crypto exchange Gemini—an enforcement dispute that has become politically charged. In the meantime, filings show Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have backed a pro–Donald Trump political action committee (PAC) with large Bitcoin contributions.
According to the MAGA Inc. Super PAC’s July report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Gemini Trust Company, which the Winklevosses run, made two separate Bitcoin donations of more than $5 million each on June 19. The PAC said it may use the funds for independent expenditures supporting Trump.
Key takeaways
The MAGA Inc. Super PAC reported receiving two Bitcoin contributions from Gemini Trust Company on June 19, each over $5 million.
The donations occurred roughly three weeks after the CFTC and Gemini filed a joint motion to reverse a January 2025 settlement.
A CFTC spokesperson previously told Cointelegraph that, even if the court grants the reversal, the $5 million penalty would not be returned to Gemini.
Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the reversal effort, calling it a sign the CFTC may be influenced by political pressures.
The CFTC chair remains the only confirmed commissioner, with lawmakers pressing the White House to nominate additional CFTC members as major crypto legislation advances.
Bitcoin donations emerge alongside the Gemini settlement fight
The political donations come as Gemini and the CFTC continue to litigate the settlement. The CFTC and Gemini jointly filed a motion in federal court in May seeking reversal of a January 2025 settlement tied to allegations that Gemini made false or misleading statements.
The timing is notable: MAGA Inc. disclosed the Bitcoin transfers on June 19, about three weeks after the joint motion was submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The filings referenced in the story tie the dispute to the CFTC’s earlier enforcement posture under the prior administration.
Cointelegraph previously reported that CFTC Chair Michael Selig said at the time that the agency had been “politically targeted” against the Winklevosses under former President Joe Biden’s administration. In contrast, criticism from lawmakers has focused on whether the reversal request reflects outside influence rather than a purely legal correction.
What the CFTC-Gemini reversal request means in practice
While the court considers the reversal, the contours of potential outcomes are already clear in one respect: a CFTC spokesperson told Cointelegraph in June that both sides “agreed that the $5 million penalty will not be returned to Gemini” even if the court grants the motion.
That detail limits what “reversal” could realistically accomplish for Gemini from a financial standpoint. Even if the legal settlement is undone procedurally, the record presented to the public suggests the $5 million penalty would remain in place. As a result, investors and market participants are left watching what the court’s decision would change beyond the money—such as how the agency’s enforcement record is treated and whether the case signals a broader shift in CFTC posture toward crypto firms.
Cointelegraph also reported that since the attorneys filed the joint motion in May, no decision has yet appeared on the public docket.
Winklevoss political involvement extends beyond the latest PAC transfer
The June 19 contributions to MAGA Inc. add to a broader thread of political engagement by the Winklevosses. The article notes that Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss each donated $1 million to Trump’s 2024 election campaign and supported the candidate with social media posts.
After Trump took office in January 2025, the twins also reportedly participated in crypto-related policy and industry events. They attended the signing ceremony for the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin payments bill backed by Trump’s administration. They also supported American Bitcoin—linked to Trump’s sons’ crypto mining venture—and contributed $21 million in Bitcoin to the Digital Freedom Fund PAC, according to the reporting cited in the article.
For readers trying to understand what this could signal for crypto policy, the key point is not only the size of the donations but their concentration around moments when regulation is actively being reshaped. The donations align with a period in which the CFTC is at the center of ongoing conversations about digital asset market structure.
Lawmakers question whether enforcement is being politicized
One of the sharpest critiques referenced in the article came from Senator Elizabeth Warren. In a June letter to Chair Selig, Warren called the joint motion for reversal and other related factors “concerning signs of a CFTC beholden to political pressures and interests of the wealthy insiders,” adding that the agency appeared “unbound by the rule of law” and “failing to protect investors and market integrity.”
Warren’s concern underscores a broader tension frequently debated in U.S. crypto enforcement: whether regulatory actions reflect technical findings based on statutes and evidence, or whether high-profile political dynamics shape the trajectory of major cases. In this instance, the case’s timing—paired with prominent political contributions—has amplified skepticism among critics.
At the same time, supporters of the reversal effort could argue that legal outcomes can evolve independently of campaign activity, and that political support should not automatically be equated with improper decision-making. What remains uncertain for now is how the court will frame the reversal request and what legal reasoning it will accept or reject.
CFTC leadership remains concentrated as nominations stall
The broader governance picture also matters. The article states that Selig remains the only confirmed commissioner at the CFTC, leaving him to effectively direct the agency’s agenda. The CFTC chair is a Republican confirmed by the U.S. Senate in December 2025, and the agency usually operates as a bipartisan body of five commissioners.
The absence of additional nominations has drawn pressure from lawmakers, particularly as Congress considers comprehensive market-structure legislation. The story notes that the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act is expected to give the CFTC more authority over digital assets. Several lawmakers have pushed Trump to announce additional CFTC nominations in parallel with this legislative process.
As of Thursday, the White House had not announced any nominations, according to the article—meaning Selig continues to hold a disproportionate share of influence during a key period for crypto regulation.
With a reversal motion pending in federal court and CFTC leadership concentrated in a single confirmed commissioner, the next developments will likely come from two directions: what the Southern District of New York decides on the Gemini settlement, and whether the White House moves to restore a fuller CFTC commission as market-structure legislation advances.
This article was originally published as Gemini Transfers $10M in Bitcoin to Trump PAC After CFTC Joint Motion on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new U.S.-focused economic study argues that the domestic crypto sector is already delivering a measurable real-economy footprint—from jobs to consumer spending—estimating that salaries, worker spend and output will contribute $55 billion this year. The analysis was released Wednesday by the Pragmatic Policy Group on behalf of the National Cryptocurrency Association (NCA), an organization backed by Ripple Labs.
According to the report, the industry’s total impact is calculated through direct, indirect and induced employment, meaning not only workers employed by crypto firms, but also jobs supported elsewhere in the economy due to crypto-related activity.
Key takeaways
The NCA-linked study estimates crypto contributes $55 billion to the U.S. economy in the current year through direct, indirect and induced effects.
Crypto companies are said to directly employ about 34,000 people, while the broader industry supports 232,000 jobs across the U.S.
The report highlights particularly large contributions tied to securities and commodity contracts ($9.7 billion) and housing/real estate ($4.8 billion).
States with the most industry-related employment include Texas, Washington, North Carolina, California and New York, while the report points to Colorado and North Dakota as fast-growing or infrastructure-oriented hubs.
The same period has also seen multiple crypto-linked shutdowns, underscoring that industry scale and project-level viability do not necessarily move in tandem.
How the study measures crypto’s U.S. footprint
The report’s main headline is the projected $55 billion economic contribution to the United States this year. It frames the impact in economic terms tied to workforce effects—jobs created or sustained by crypto activity ripple outward as spending and production elsewhere increase.
On the employment side, the NCA estimates that about 34,000 people are directly employed by crypto companies. That figure is positioned as a comparatively small share of a much larger total: the study claims crypto activity supports 232,000 jobs across the broader economy when indirect and induced employment are included.
The report also includes sector-level emphasis. It identifies investments in securities and commodity contracts as among the largest contributors at $9.7 billion. It further states that housing and real estate together account for $4.8 billion in contributions.
To help contextualize the scale of direct employment, the study compares the number of people working directly in crypto to employment levels in other manufacturing and aerospace segments, citing U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Where crypto jobs are concentrated—and why some states stand out
Geography matters in the report. It says the states employing the most people involved in the industry are Texas, Washington, North Carolina, California and New York. Those findings align with the broader pattern that U.S. crypto labor demand tends to concentrate in large and financially significant states.
At the same time, the report draws attention to states it describes as gaining momentum. It calls Colorado a “growing blockchain hub,” attributing the development to friendly regulatory policies. For North Dakota, the report characterizes the state as “becoming an energy-integrated digital infrastructure hub,” pointing to tax treatment for crypto mining and favorable flare gas policies.
For investors and builders, the practical value of this kind of regional analysis is that it can hint at where talent, infrastructure, and compliance pathways may be converging. Still, the figures reflect an economic model rather than a real-time census, so readers should treat them as a snapshot of estimated impact rather than a precise headcount of every role touching crypto.
NCA’s origins and Ripple’s involvement
The NCA itself launched in March 2025 as a non-profit focused on consumer crypto education. In the report’s framing, the group received $50 million in backing from Ripple, and the organization’s leadership lists Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s chief legal officer, as the head of the group.
That background matters because it helps explain the policy and communications context of the study. The report is presented as an economic assessment but produced through a policy group on behalf of an industry-backed association—an important consideration for readers who want to weigh the methodology and incentives behind any advocacy-adjacent research.
Economic scale does not prevent project shutdowns
While the economic study argues crypto’s broader contribution is growing, 2026 has also brought shutdown announcements from several projects—highlighting a tension between macroeconomic claims and the reality of operational challenges inside the sector.
Earlier in the year, the report references multiple crypto-linked wind-downs. Entropy, a New York-based startup, said in January that it would shut down after four years of operation. Dmail, a decentralized email platform based in Singapore, began ceasing operations in May, according to coverage cited by the source article, pointing to costs such as bandwidth, storage and computing.
In addition, the source indicates that governance-focused platform Tally and Balancer Labs also shuttered in March. While these developments are not the same thing as a sector-wide contraction, they do reinforce that individual teams can face scaling and market-condition pressures even when the industry’s economic footprint appears to be expanding.
For users, the practical takeaway is that employment and ecosystem size do not automatically translate into long-term product continuity. For builders and investors, it’s a reminder to scrutinize runway, unit economics, and infrastructure costs—especially for applications with compute or storage-heavy requirements.
Going forward, the key question for readers is whether future reporting from the NCA and similar research efforts will consistently show the same employment and output patterns as more projects attempt to scale—or whether shutdowns will increasingly concentrate around the same business models. The next signal to watch is how regional job gains and sector contributions evolve alongside project-level survival and the broader regulatory environment.
This article was originally published as NCA Study: U.S. Crypto Industry Could Add $55B by 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Empery Digital has committed $20 million to Cardinal Data Power, purchasing an approximately 8% stake in the private developer behind “powered” data center campuses designed for AI and high-performance computing workloads. The capital injection is tied to Cardinal Data Power’s Series A round of roughly $70 million and is intended to help advance a 750-megawatt campus project in West Texas.
While the investment highlights growing demand for large-scale compute infrastructure, it also lands in the middle of Empery’s own strategic shift away from its earlier Bitcoin treasury approach. Over the past two months, the company sold about 1,400 BTC for approximately $87.1 million, leaving it with 1,514 BTC after the transactions.
Key takeaways
Empery Digital invested $20 million for an ~8% stake in Cardinal Data Power as part of a Series A of about $70 million.
Cardinal’s West Texas powered data center campus is expected to begin delivering power in 2027, expand to around 1 GW by 2029, and ultimately exceed 5 GW.
Empery’s Cardinal investment follows a reduction in its Bitcoin holdings, after it sold roughly 1,400 BTC over two months.
Across the broader market, Bitcoin treasury firms are splitting between continued accumulation and exits or restructurings.
Investors are watching whether corporate Bitcoin strategies increasingly prioritize operational assets—such as AI infrastructure—over pure balance-sheet accumulation.
Empery backs AI-focused “powered” campus development
Cardinal Data Power builds data center sites that integrate power generation, natural gas supply, and electrical infrastructure into a single development model. According to Empery Digital, the goal is to accelerate the delivery of large-scale computing campuses for artificial intelligence and HPC customers.
The company’s current plan centers on a West Texas campus with an initial scale of 750 MW. Cardinal expects first power in 2027, then scaling to about 1 gigawatt by 2029. The longer-term target is to exceed 5 gigawatts, implying a phased buildout designed to support expanding demand as AI workloads and compute capacity requirements grow.
For investors and data center developers, the appeal of “powered” campus design is that it aims to reduce bottlenecks often associated with securing power capacity and the infrastructure required to deliver electricity at the scale large AI deployments demand. Empery’s decision to place capital into this model suggests it sees AI infrastructure as a near-to-medium term driver of value creation rather than relying solely on financial asset appreciation.
Bitcoin treasury strategy under pressure at Empery
Empery’s investment decision comes during an ongoing adjustment to its treasury posture. Earlier this year, the company moved away from an electric powersports business and adopted a Bitcoin treasury strategy in mid-2025, positioning Bitcoin holdings as a key part of its balance sheet.
However, the company recently reported that it sold about 1,400 BTC over a two-month period for approximately $87.1 million. Empery said it intends to use those proceeds to fund AI infrastructure investments and repay debt.
After the sales, Empery’s Bitcoin holdings dropped to 1,514 BTC. BitcoinTreasuries.NET data indicates Empery previously held as many as 4,081 BTC before beginning to trim its position in March.
The reduction appears to have taken place amid shareholder activism: the filings and coverage referenced in the source say that shareholder Tice P. Brown urged the company to abandon its Bitcoin treasury strategy and called for the resignation of the chief executive officer and the board. The pressure helps explain why Empery’s corporate narrative is shifting from a “hold Bitcoin” approach toward funding operational and infrastructure projects—at least in part using realized value from earlier BTC holdings.
Bitcoin treasury firms diverge: unwind, restructure, or persist
Beyond Empery, the broader Bitcoin treasury landscape continues to show a wide range of strategies and outcomes. Some companies remain committed to accumulation, while others are winding down positions, changing corporate direction, or revising how Bitcoin appears on their balance sheets.
Satsuma Technology is one of the clearest examples of an exit. According to the source, shareholders voted overwhelmingly on July 20 to sell the company’s Bitcoin holdings, return substantially all of its capital to investors, and delist from the London Stock Exchange. More than 90% of votes cast supported both the capital return and delisting.
Meanwhile, a different kind of change played out through attempted consolidation. The proposed merger between Tether-backed Twenty One Capital, Strike, and Bitcoin miner Elektron Energy was scrapped earlier this week. The source notes that Strike will remain a standalone company while discussions between Twenty One and Elektron continue. Even after the abandoned deal, Twenty One remains among the largest publicly tracked corporate Bitcoin holders with 43,514 BTC, ranking behind Strategy.
Taken together, these moves show that the corporate Bitcoin treasury model is not static. Some firms treat BTC accumulation as a long-term thesis; others appear to conclude that capital can be deployed more effectively elsewhere or that shareholder appetite is better aligned with liquidity and balance-sheet simplification.
A new playbook: Bitcoin alongside permanent-capital business ownership
Another strand of development comes from efforts to reframe Bitcoin’s role inside corporate structures. The source says Bitcoin analyst Lyn Alden co-founded Orange Juice HODLINGS, a permanent-capital holding company backed by Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas. It reportedly launched with $40 million in initial funding.
Rather than using Bitcoin strictly as an asset to accumulate and hold, the described plan is to acquire and retain profitable businesses indefinitely, while using Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. The strategy aims to combine long-term ownership of operating companies with a Bitcoin-backed balance sheet—an approach that differs from both pure accumulation and pure exit.
For readers trying to understand where the market may be headed, this is a meaningful shift in framing. It suggests corporate actors may increasingly treat Bitcoin as one component of a diversified capital stack, rather than the sole centerpiece of a treasury thesis—particularly as institutional narratives around AI infrastructure, compute scaling, and power availability gain traction.
What to watch next
With Empery using realized Bitcoin proceeds to fund AI infrastructure and with Cardinal’s campus ramp targeting multi-year power delivery milestones, investors should watch for how quickly capital commitments translate into construction progress, power milestones, and incremental financial disclosures. At the same time, the broader split in corporate treasury outcomes—unwind versus restructure versus hybrid models—will likely shape how future corporate Bitcoin strategies evolve under shareholder pressure and shifting capital allocation priorities.
This article was originally published as Empery Digital’s $20M Bitcoin Treasury Invests in Cardinal AI Data Centers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has voiced support for a US Senate bill intended to reshape crypto market structure, arguing that the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act is “not perfect” but could help create a more consistent framework for participants.
According to a Thursday report by Politico, Solomon framed the legislation as necessary to establish a “level playing field” that could improve market stability as digital asset markets continue to develop.
Key takeaways
David Solomon says the CLARITY Act is “not perfect,” but supports it for creating a more “level playing field” to bolster stability.
Many industry leaders oppose the bill’s approach, including concerns that it would allow certain crypto firms to pay yield related to stablecoins outside existing financial-institution rules.
Republicans released the CLARITY Act text ahead of a potential Senate vote, but Senate leaders had not scheduled timing as of Thursday.
Democrats and critics highlighted ethics provisions, with objections centered on enforcement and accountability mechanisms.
The bill likely requires additional Democratic votes to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Solomon’s “level playing field” argument
In comments reported by Politico, Solomon emphasized that legislation is rarely flawless, but maintained that CLARITY’s central purpose is to normalize how digital asset markets operate—at least relative to how traditional finance is regulated.
His view stands in contrast to broader skepticism within parts of traditional banking circles, where executives have questioned whether CLARITY expands regulatory permission in ways that could weaken investor and depositor protections.
Politico’s report also notes that Solomon’s endorsement is relatively uncommon among leaders at major financial institutions considering the bill.
Banking concerns over stablecoin yield permissions
A key point of contention involves whether crypto firms would be allowed to offer interest or yield on stablecoins under rules that critics say do not map cleanly to the protections expected of regulated financial institutions.
Earlier coverage highlighted that many peers oppose the bill on these grounds, arguing that the proposal’s stablecoin yield approach does not provide the guardrails banks would be expected to meet. Cointelegraph previously reported on these concerns.
The contrast in views is also reflected in remarks from JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon. As reported in an interview conducted in May, Dimon said CLARITY would let crypto companies pay interest on stablecoins “without the protection that they should have,” arguing that banks would not accept a similar arrangement. The interview was shared on YouTube.
Democrats focus on ethics provisions and enforcement
Even as the CLARITY Act moves toward a possible Senate vote, Democratic lawmakers have signaled resistance—not only on technical market-structure issues, but also on ethics language attached to the bill.
As described in reporting from Cointelegraph and subsequent commentary, Democrats are concerned that the ethics provisions do not go far enough and that enforcement would be left to the US Department of Justice rather than state authorities. If Republicans are unable to secure enough support beyond their ranks, the bill could stall at the 60-vote threshold required to advance in the Senate.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading Democratic critic, said in a statement released alongside the Wednesday publication of the bill text that she believes the legislation is designed to protect President Donald Trump’s crypto profits and that it fails to adequately safeguard investors, the financial system, and national security. The statement was posted by the Senate Banking Committee’s minority.
Cointelegraph earlier also reported on Democrats’ objections to the ethics language during the markup process, underscoring how these provisions have become a central political obstacle for CLARITY. Earlier coverage details the core Democratic concerns.
What happens next in the Senate
Republicans released the full CLARITY Act text on Wednesday, setting the stage for potential Senate action. However, as of Thursday, Senate leaders had not scheduled a vote, according to the Politico report.
With multiple factions still divided—particularly over stablecoin yield permissions and ethics/enforcement mechanics—the immediate question for investors and market operators is whether amendments can narrow the gap between competing priorities or whether the bill will face a larger momentum reversal.
Readers should watch for whether Senate leaders set a vote date soon and, more importantly, whether any compromise emerges that could attract enough Democratic support to meet the 60-vote threshold—since the bill’s advancement appears tightly linked to both ethics politics and the future regulatory treatment of stablecoin-related yield.
This article was originally published as Goldman Sachs CEO Endorses “Not Perfect” CLARITY Act Ahead of Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Negotiations over the long-awaited US Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—known as the CLARITY Act—have reportedly narrowed to one of the most politically sensitive issues: ethics rules for federal officials and who will enforce them. After months of drafting and bargaining, a dispute over a “code of conduct” element is now threatening to derail a bill that many in the industry view as crucial for regulatory certainty.
Democratic senators say the current version of the proposal does not go far enough, particularly on ethics provisions covering elected officials and related consumer and market-integrity safeguards. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that ethics enforcement should remain within the Department of Justice (DOJ) under a single national framework, rather than being handled by state attorneys general.
Key takeaways
Seven Democratic senators said the current CLARITY Act text “falls short,” calling for stronger ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflict-of-interest, and market-integrity provisions.
The latest draft would bar senior federal officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office, alongside limits on crypto platforms listing such assets.
Democrats want ethics enforcement to allow state attorneys general to step in if DOJ does not enforce the law; Republicans insist DOJ should be the sole enforcement channel.
Multiple policy and industry stakeholders say lawmakers may still be able to compromise, but uncertainty over ethics is becoming the central bottleneck.
Even if senior officials are restricted from sponsoring or issuing new tokens, the draft would still allow covered officials to own cryptocurrencies.
What the new CLARITY ethics language would change
According to the latest Senate draft made public Wednesday, the CLARITY Act would prohibit the president, vice president, members of Congress, and other senior federal officials—along with their spouses—from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while they are in office. This would apply to officials covered under the bill’s ethics framework.
The draft also includes a platform-facing restriction: crypto platforms would be prevented from listing assets issued or sponsored by covered officials. As described in coverage of the text, these prohibitions are set to expire in 2029, after President Donald Trump’s current term ends.
Importantly for investors and market participants, the restrictions would focus on “issuing or sponsoring” while in office, not on personal ownership. Covered officials would still be allowed to hold cryptocurrencies even during the restricted period.
Why Democrats say the proposal isn’t strong enough
In a joint statement released Wednesday, seven Democratic senators argued that the bill’s current provisions are inadequate. They said “key provisions,” including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest, and market integrity, must be strengthened.
“Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened,” the senators said.
Senator Angela Alsobrooks—speaking at a Semafor event on Wednesday—stated that while negotiations may be “fairly close,” the ethics language remains a dealbreaker. She indicated she would not support the legislation on the Senate floor unless it includes stronger ethics provisions.
Alsobrooks’ primary concern is both the substance and the enforcement structure. She said it cannot be taken for granted that DOJ will enforce the law effectively, framing the issue as a credibility problem rather than a purely theoretical one.
Democrats’ stance has been amplified by scrutiny of President Trump’s growing crypto-related business interests, which have reportedly included meme coin activity and a broader portfolio of digital asset exposure. Critics argue that this creates incentives and potential conflicts that stronger ethics and enforcement mechanisms should address.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has also signaled that she views the draft as insufficient, arguing that it would not prevent the president from profiting from new crypto activity in a way that could be economically significant. Separately, former SEC official Amanda Fischer argued that the restrictions could still allow the president to benefit from existing crypto projects, with the proposed limitations aimed at future income streams.
Republicans push for DOJ-only enforcement
Republicans contest the idea that the ethics provisions are too weak, while also objecting to Democratic calls for additional enforcement leverage for state attorneys general. They argue that federal ethics requirements should be enforced through a single national mechanism—DOJ—rather than through a patchwork of state interpretations and political priorities.
Attorney and former Republican Senate candidate John Deaton said the CLARITY Act is federal legislation and that DOJ, not “fifty different state AGs,” is the appropriate body to enforce federal law. In this view, allowing state officials to intervene would risk undermining the uniformity that supporters say the bill is intended to provide.
Other Republican-aligned commentators characterized the ethics language as unprecedented. For example, Senator Bernie Moreno described the current draft as containing “the most powerful ethics language in US history.”
Patrick Witt, a former White House and Senate counsel, suggested the disagreement may be driven by two incompatible Democratic positions: that ethics rules would be meaningless without state AG enforcement, or that the proposal could not be changed in a way that would satisfy concerns about constitutional constraints. Witt argued that endorsing the first position would effectively dismiss the enforceability premise behind existing federal ethics laws, while the second position would be difficult or impossible to meet without violating constitutional principles.
Industry and policy observers see a path—but not an easy one
Despite the ethics dispute, many observers believe the bill can still progress through negotiation. Kristin Smith, former CEO of the Blockchain Association and now president of the Solana Policy Institute, told Cointelegraph that the latest draft reflects meaningful compromise on ethics—an element viewed as necessary for Senate Democrats to come closer to supporting the measure.
Smith also emphasized that ethics is only one component of the broader package. She pointed to additional elements added to the Senate’s work, including a disclosure regime, an illicit finance section, and improved spot market regulation. In her view, rejecting the bill on ethics alone could mean lawmakers lose more than just the ethics language—they could lose the rest of the regulatory structure altogether.
“There is no version of a ‘no’ vote that produces a stronger bill,” Smith said. “A ‘no’ vote produces no bill at all: no disclosure regime, no illicit finance protections, no spot market improvements, no ethics provisions, nothing.”
Vincent Chok, co-founder and CEO of stablecoin issuer First Digital, likewise suggested that narrowing negotiations to ethics rather than the overall structure indicates progress. He framed the question less as whether the US needs a framework and more as how to finalize one that can attract broad support.
Chok argued that no regulatory scheme is likely to be perfect at the start, but businesses can adjust if the market gets clarity. Long periods of uncertainty, he said, make it harder to justify long-term investment and product development.
Other industry figures expressed cautious optimism while still criticizing how far the initial ethics proposal goes. Salman Banaei, head of public policy at Plume, a blockchain network focused on tokenized real-world assets, said compromise may be possible, but cautioned that the White House’s initial ethics proposal was “not a good starting point.”
At the heart of the debate remains the enforcement question: the current draft appears to rely heavily on DOJ for ethics implementation, while Democrats want a mechanism that gives state attorneys general a clearer role if federal enforcement falls short. How lawmakers balance these competing views—without stalling the broader CLARITY framework—may determine whether the bill reaches the next stages.
As negotiations continue, the key variable for readers is whether the parties can agree on an enforcement structure that satisfies Democrats’ concerns about DOJ reliability while preserving Republicans’ push for a single federal enforcement lane. With the bill’s timetable dependent on this remaining sticking point, investors and builders should watch for the next revised ethics draft and any accompanying language changes that clarify whether enforcement authority can shift beyond DOJ.
This article was originally published as Why the CLARITY Act’s Ethics Deal Faces Major Negotiation Hurdles on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX’s utility token (BMEX) has suffered a dramatic collapse following the exchange’s announcement that it will wind down operations. Data from CoinGecko shows the token fell by nearly 90%, dropping to as low as $0.002 from about $0.06, and it was trading around $0.0063 at the time of writing.
The selloff started shortly before the shutdown became public. According to CoinGecko pricing, BMEX began sliding at around 7:00 am UTC—approximately an hour before BitMEX posted its shutdown notice on X, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Key takeaways
BMEX lost almost all of its value after BitMEX announced it would cease operations, with CoinGecko data indicating a move from ~$0.06 to near $0.002.
The token’s drop began about an hour before the public shutdown message on X, suggesting markets were already repricing quickly ahead of confirmation.
CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju linked the decision to BitMEX’s reduced Bitcoin futures share, citing ~0.08% and about $84 million in daily BTC futures volume.
Blockchain research firm 10x Research told Cointelegraph the exchange’s owners explored a possible $1 billion sale in 2025 before opting for an orderly wind-down.
What triggered BMEX’s sharp repricing
The immediate catalyst for BMEX’s decline was BitMEX’s decision to wind down. The token’s value had recently traded closer to $0.06, but it then experienced a sudden, sustained fall as the market absorbed the implications of an exchange shutting down.
CoinGecko’s timestamps place the start of the selloff around 7:00 am UTC, roughly an hour before BitMEX’s shutdown announcement on X. That timing matters for traders because it suggests the market had already begun anticipating severe downside—or at least a major operational change—before the message was made public.
BitMEX’s shrinking futures footprint
In explaining the broader context for BitMEX’s exit, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju pointed to the exchange’s declining position in Bitcoin derivatives. He said BitMEX’s share of the Bitcoin futures market had fallen to about 0.08%, alongside roughly $84 million in daily Bitcoin futures trading volume.
Ju also emphasized the exchange’s historical impact, saying on X that it helped shape the industry and that it was now “passing the torch” to newer platforms that grew out of the model BitMEX pioneered.
BitMEX cofounder Arthur Hayes later echoed the sentiment in a separate X post, writing that it had been “an amazing ride” and that the team had “done something special together.”
Details behind the wind-down: sale talks and operational reality
Beyond the headline closure, 10x Research shared additional context with Cointelegraph: BitMEX’s owners had explored a potential $1 billion sale in 2025 before selecting an orderly wind-down process.
The report suggests the shutdown wasn’t simply an abrupt break with operations, but the outcome of a longer decision cycle—one where finding an acquirer may have been considered, but ultimately did not materialize into a transaction.
This matters to investors in tokenized exchange ecosystems because “utilities” tied to a platform’s activity can lose their economic meaning when the underlying venue stops operating. When wind-down plans advance, holders often anticipate reduced buyback or incentive mechanics (if any existed), weaker demand for token usage, and—most importantly—a fading buyer base for any token that derives value from exchange activity.
A legacy built on perpetual swaps, now ending
BitMEX previously highlighted its industry role by marking its 11th anniversary in November 2025. The exchange credited its influence in creating the perpetual swap—a futures contract structure with no expiration date—that became a cornerstone for modern crypto derivatives trading.
That legacy contrasts sharply with BMEX’s post-announcement price action. The disconnect underscores a key point for market participants: reputational and historical contributions do not automatically translate into ongoing token value once market structure changes, derivatives competition intensifies, and operational costs rise.
Cointelegraph also reported that a restructuring advisor and CEO of investment firm Echo Base, Roshan Dharia, described the closure as part of wider “structural corrections” across digital asset markets. He linked the pressures to a combination of a more competitive environment, increasing regulatory and compliance costs, and reduced tolerance for operational inefficiency.
In other words, BitMEX’s ending appears less like an isolated event and more like an outcome of sector-wide tightening—where exchanges that cannot maintain scale or profitability face limited pathways forward.
Going forward, attention is likely to shift to what happens to BMEX holders as the wind-down proceeds—whether any remaining token incentives, liquidity provisions, or related mechanisms persist, and how quickly markets reprice any residual expectations. With the timeline and final operational steps not detailed in the available reporting here, traders and long-term observers should watch for further updates from BitMEX, plus signals from analytics and on-chain activity that indicate how derivatives volume migrates to competing venues.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Token Drops 90% After Exchange Announces Shutdown on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy has unveiled the Bitcoin Security Consortium, a new coalition of financial institutions and Bitcoin-focused companies aimed at strengthening the network’s resilience against the potential impact of future quantum computing breakthroughs. In a Thursday announcement, Strategy said the group plans to commit an aggregate $15 million over the next three years toward developer efforts focused on “quantum security” work for Bitcoin.
The initiative adds formal institutional backing to a debate that has been running through the Bitcoin ecosystem for years: how and when (or whether) quantum computers could force a shift in how the network secures transactions. While experts disagree on timelines, the consortium’s creation signals that large players are preparing for long-horizon security challenges rather than waiting for consensus to harden.
Key takeaways
Strategy says the consortium will fund $15 million over three years to support developer work on Bitcoin’s quantum security.
Founding members include major asset managers and crypto firms such as BlackRock, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Blockstream.
Day-to-day coordination will be handled by Mike Schmidt, a volunteer executive director of Brink, a non-profit focused on Bitcoin open-source developers.
Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in separate grants earlier this week and formed a quantum-advisory council for research on migration solutions.
Bitcoin’s quantum risk timeline remains contested, with industry estimates ranging from decades away to only a few years.
A consortium built around long-term quantum resilience
According to Strategy’s press release, the Bitcoin Security Consortium brings together financial institutions and Bitcoin companies with the shared goal of supporting work designed to protect the network against a potential quantum-security threat. Strategy’s stated focus is enabling developers to pursue approaches that would help Bitcoin adapt if quantum capabilities reach a threshold that undermines existing cryptographic assumptions.
The consortium’s plan is structured as a multi-year funding pool: $15 million in total commitments over the next three years. While the announcement does not detail specific deliverables or milestones, the emphasis on developer support indicates that the effort is intended to translate research and engineering into practical upgrades and implementation work over time.
Who’s involved, and how the work will be managed
The consortium names a broad set of founding participants. In addition to Strategy, the list includes Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, BlackRock, Block, Blockstream, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Galaxy, among others.
Strategy also said the consortium’s daily operations will be coordinated by Mike Schmidt in a volunteer capacity. Schmidt is described as the executive director of Brink, a non-profit that supports Bitcoin open-source developers. The operational link to a developer-support organization matters because quantum security work is likely to require sustained engineering capacity—areas like cryptographic tooling, testing, and migration planning often take longer than headline news cycles.
Recent quantum-security funding momentum from Galaxy
In the same broader timeframe, Galaxy Digital separately announced support for quantum security-related development. Earlier coverage noted that Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in grants for developers working on Bitcoin’s quantum security and formed a council of quantum-advisory experts to study quantum-resistant migration options.
While the consortium and Galaxy’s grants are distinct efforts, together they reinforce a pattern: institutional capital is increasingly targeting the “preparation” phase—funding research and engineering before a crisis scenario forces rushed changes.
Disagreement on timelines, but shared urgency on preparedness
Bitcoin’s quantum risk debate is not purely academic. It influences how investors evaluate the durability of the network’s security model and how engineers prioritize long-term roadmap items.
Community concern is tempered by disagreements about when a meaningful quantum threat might arrive. Strategy’s announcement points to the ongoing debate rather than resolving it. In November 2025, Blockstream CEO Adam Back said Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph in an article about the topic (“Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years,” Back said).
Other viewpoints compress that timeline dramatically. In April, investment manager Bernstein suggested Bitcoin has roughly three to five years to prepare for a post-quantum security upgrade, as discussed in Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage (Bernstein said Bitcoin has about three to five years to prepare).
This split matters because it shapes what “useful funding” looks like. In a decades-ahead scenario, the priority is gradual research and maintainable upgrades. In a short-window scenario, the emphasis shifts toward accelerating migration planning and ensuring that any transition path can be executed with high confidence.
Institutional backing signals confidence in core development capacity
Alongside the consortium announcement, Strategy’s partner ecosystem includes large traditional finance and crypto incumbents. BlackRock’s involvement, for example, is tied to its view that Bitcoin developers are doing critical work. As stated in the announcement, Robert Mitchnick, BlackRock’s global head of digital assets, said Bitcoin core developers do “incredibly important work” and that BlackRock is pleased to provide “significant additional funding” to support Bitcoin’s long-term security needs.
For investors and market participants, that message carries a specific implication: quantum security is being treated not as a speculative side project, but as a core infrastructure concern worthy of institutional budget lines. Even if the exact timing of quantum risk remains uncertain, multi-year funding structures are better aligned with how protocol security improvements actually get built—through testing, peer review, and coordinated development rather than emergency patching.
At the same time, it’s worth noting the consortium does not claim to settle the timeline question. Instead, it appears designed to fund the unknowns: research gaps, migration options, and implementation readiness that could become valuable under multiple scenarios.
Looking ahead, the key question is how the consortium and parallel grant efforts translate funding into concrete engineering outputs—such as migration research, candidate upgrade work, and developer tooling—while the broader community continues to debate quantum timelines. Observers should watch for updates that clarify priorities and measurable milestones over the consortium’s three-year window.
This article was originally published as Strategy-Led Consortium Commits $15M to Quantum-Resilient Bitcoin Network on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bernstein reiterated that it is still overweight on Bitcoin mining, arguing that the sector’s expanding partnerships are increasingly tied to the power needs of AI data centers. In a Thursday research note shared with Cointelegraph, the firm pointed to a steady stream of AI-related deals throughout July—evidence, it said, that access to electricity is becoming the decisive constraint for AI infrastructure buildouts.
According to Bernstein’s Bitcoin mining industry deal tracker, the number of AI-related transactions recorded in July averaged at least one per week. Combined, those deals total more than 7.5 gigawatts of capacity, or the contracted equivalent of $150 billion across multi-year agreements.
Key takeaways
Bernstein says Bitcoin miners’ third-party computing capacity remains valuable as AI growth is constrained more by power availability than by software or hardware supply.
In July, Bernstein’s tracker recorded AI-related deal flow at roughly a weekly pace, totaling over 7.5 GW and the equivalent of $150 billion in multi-year contracted value.
Recent announcements from Hut 8 and IREN linked mining firms to large-scale AI infrastructure and cloud revenue models.
Bernstein also highlighted political pushback in the US that could slow new data center construction—making contracted capacity sourced from miners and other providers harder to replicate.
Why Bernstein still favors miners
The core of Bernstein’s argument is that AI data center development is increasingly bottlenecked by electricity access. As power becomes harder to secure, miners and other third-party computing providers—already operating energy-intensive facilities—may be better positioned to supply the incremental capacity AI companies need.
Bernstein’s note framed this as a structural opportunity rather than a short-term market trade. The firm linked the attractiveness of the mining sector to the growing number of partnerships that allow AI-focused operators to secure power and compute capacity through contracted arrangements.
July deal momentum and what it signals
Public market interest in the “AI-miner” theme accelerated after Bitcoin mining companies announced major infrastructure and cloud deals. On Monday, shares tied to AI infrastructure moves posted double-digit gains, following announcements from Hut 8 and IREN.
Hut 8 disclosed a 15-year, $9.8 billion lease for its AI data center campus. IREN, meanwhile, announced $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers. Bernstein’s upbeat framing aligns with a broader investor focus on miners converting their physical capacity into more predictable, contract-based revenue streams.
As Seeking Alpha contributor The Curious Analyst wrote in a Thursday commentary, IREN appears to be turning an infrastructure advantage into “contracted and more predictable revenue,” while noting execution risk as the key potential downside.
Beyond those two names, other publicly traded miners also expanded their AI ambitions. Earlier in July, MARA Holdings said it planned to acquire a Texas site with up to 2 gigawatts of capacity to support its AI and digital infrastructure business. TeraWulf signed a 20-year data center lease with AI startup Anthropic, which the company said could generate roughly $19 billion in contract revenue. Bitdeer has also moved into AI cloud services and high-performance computing.
Bernstein’s ratings, as reported in the research note shared with Cointelegraph, include an outperform stance on all of the stocks it discussed except MARA, which it rates as market perform. Sector performance reflected the same narrative: CoinShares Bitcoin Mining ETF (WGMI) was up ahead of the Nasdaq open, with several miner stocks also higher in premarket activity.
US political friction could raise the value of contracted capacity
Bernstein’s analysis also tied the AI-miner alignment to a policy environment that could complicate new data center construction. The firm said bipartisan political pushback is increasingly shaping the timeline and feasibility of building additional facilities, especially amid concerns about local impacts such as water use and electricity costs.
In Texas, a report by the Houston Chronicle said a proposal backed by Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico would strengthen local approval processes and repeal certain tax breaks for AI data centers. In Oregon, US Senator Ron Wyden has publicly raised concerns about water scarcity during drought conditions, arguing that large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day and asking operators to explain how they would reduce groundwater withdrawals to protect local supplies.
At the federal level, the Trump administration published a “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” aimed at expanding AI infrastructure without increasing electricity bills for households and small businesses. Separately, state governors released plans to expand the grid to meet rapidly growing AI data center demand, while emphasizing that new facilities should bear the costs they create instead of shifting them to existing residential and small business customers.
For investors, the implication is straightforward: if political and infrastructure constraints delay new capacity coming online, the market may increasingly reward entities that already have power access and can lock in compute demand through multi-year contracts.
What to watch next
With Bernstein pointing to both deal volume and policy headwinds, the next signal for the sector is whether miners can sustain the rate of AI-linked contracting and translate that into longer-term revenue visibility—especially as regulators and local communities continue to scrutinize data center construction.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: Bitcoin mining deals could ease AI energy constraints on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s Mirae Asset has completed its acquisition of cryptocurrency exchange Korbit. The financial group plans to increase its existing ownership stake from 92.06% to 97.15%.
The acquisition makes Mirae Asset the first financial group in South Korea to acquire a local cryptocurrency exchange.
Mirae Asset Acquires Korbit
Mirae Asset Financial Group is set to take control of South Korean cryptocurrency exchange Korbit through its affiliate, Mirae Asset Consulting. The latter completed the acquisition of the exchange, bringing its stake to 92.06%. Mirae Asset has also submitted a revised regulatory filing to increase its stake to 97.15%. The acquisition raises Mirae Asset’s cumulative investment in the exchange from 133.5 billion won to 141.4 billion won.
South Korea’s Fair Trade Commission approved the deal earlier this month, determining that the acquisition was unlikely to decrease market competitiveness. Korbit had only a 0.5% share of South Korea’s cryptocurrency market as of 2025.
A Global Investment Platform
The acquisition is part of Mirae Asset Financial Group’s mid- to long-term strategy. The group plans to leverage the exchange and develop a global investment platform that encompasses digital assets and traditional finance. Park Hyeon-joo, Mirae Asset Financial Group founder, stated that Korbit will relaunch as Digital X under the group’s Mirae Asset 3.0 vision.
“Digital X will serve as the most powerful engine for realizing Mirae Asset 3.0.”
Meanwhile, Korbit assured existing users that its services will remain unchanged, and user deposits and virtual assets will be held and managed separately. The exchange added that there will be no changes to how it is used or processed.
“Building on Mirae Asset’s stability and financial expertise, we will further strengthen user protection and service competitiveness and continue to grow as a trusted digital asset platform.”
According to CoinGecko, Korbit is South Korea’s fourth-largest cryptocurrency exchange by trading volume, recording around $4.3 million in the past 24 hours. In comparison, Upbit, the country’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, processed over $224 million.
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 Mirae Asset Completes Korbit Acquisition on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hyperliquid’s $HYPE fell to around $58 earlier Wednesday as large staking withdrawals queued up, bringing a sizable supply overhang into the market over the next week. On-chain data compiled by Block Liquidity points to a coordinated set of unstaking and withdrawal requests involving multiple major crypto funds.
According to Block Liquidity’s flow tracking, Multicoin Capital controls a combined $138.78 million worth of staked HYPE, with about 83%—roughly $116 million—showing up as pending withdrawal. Separately, Selini Capital and Galaxy Digital have also queued withdrawals totaling $4.4 million and $29.4 million, respectively. Block Liquidity also flags a Multicoin-linked wallet depositing approximately 167,000 HYPE (about $11.2 million) to Coinbase, suggesting at least some tokens may be routed for potential sale or other handling.
Key takeaways
Block Liquidity data shows Multicoin has about $116M in HYPE pending withdrawal, forming the bulk of the near-term unlock.
Across the tracked queues, funds total roughly $150M in HYPE—large versus the token’s relatively thin spot market.
HYPE spot liquidity has not matched the scale of withdrawals; Block Liquidity recorded $72.8M in HYPE spot volume over ~28 hours.
Selini’s unstaking appears tied to the shutdown of a HIP-3 CASH perpetuals market, leaving open whether tokens are reallocated or sold.
Multicoin managing partner Tushar Jain said the unlocked HYPE was not intended for selling, but where the July 28 liquidity ends up remains the key question.
Unstaking queues create a near-term supply overhang
The immediate pressure on HYPE came from the scale of withdrawals initiated by market participants. Pending unlocks are expected to be processed over roughly five to seven days, which effectively places a large amount of newly available HYPE into the liquid ecosystem on a compressed timeline.
While HYPE perpetuals volumes are substantially larger—reported around $400M daily for perps—the spot market is materially smaller. Block Liquidity recorded just $72.8M of HYPE spot volume across approximately 28 hours leading up to Wednesday morning, with 1,463 unique buyers and 982 sellers. Wintermute stood out as the largest net buyer at over $9M, while the biggest net seller reduced exposure by about $5.2M.
That imbalance—withdrawal queues that can approach $150M versus daily spot turnover that is far lower—helps explain why traders reacted quickly when the unlocks became visible. Even if not all tokens are sold, the market often prices in uncertainty around absorption capacity, especially when spot liquidity is thin relative to the potential supply.
Whether tokens get sold is unclear
The main variable for investors and traders is straightforward: do these withdrawals translate into market selling, or do they get redeployed elsewhere within Hyperliquid’s ecosystem?
For Selini Capital, the unstaking appears connected to the shutdown of HIP-3 CASH perpetuals markets run under the HIP-3 framework. The withdrawal activity is associated with Selini’s unstaking flow (see Selini-linked address on Hyperevmscan). The broader context points to DreamCash posting that relevant markets struggled to maintain liquidity, particularly as USDC became more entrenched in Hyperliquid’s trading environment.
Under HIP-3 deployments, a builder-deployed perpetual requires staking 500,000 HYPE as a slashable security bond. That bond is intended to be refunded when a market goes defunct, turning the unlock into something closer to a “release of collateral” than a direct liquidity event. That said, collateral can still be sold—potentially through OTC channels—depending on the fund’s strategy and risk posture.
As a result, the market’s near-term direction depends on what happens after the July 28 unlock and subsequent processing window. HYPE had dropped about 11% over the past week at the time of reporting, and even after recovering modestly from the day’s lows, it had not yet returned to earlier highs.
Multicoin’s role: potential redeployment rather than liquidation
While Selini’s unlock is tied to closing a specific HIP-3 market, Multicoin’s pending withdrawal could represent either liquidation or a reallocation into a new deployment. The distinction matters: redeployments into new perps can keep tokens within the ecosystem, while sales put downward pressure on both spot and potentially perp pricing if the sell pressure is large enough.
Multicoin was also recently involved in a Hyperliquid-linked venture bet. Last week, the firm led a $1.75 million seed round into Trasia, described as an Asia-focused, non-custodial trading platform aiming to launch perpetuals for Asian equities. Managing partner Tushar Jain said in an X post that Trasia is targeting “net new users” unfamiliar with Hyperliquid.
In a later Wednesday update on X, Jain also claimed that the HYPE being unstaked was not intended for selling. That statement directly addresses the question traders are asking: whether the visible withdrawal queue turns into a dumping event or becomes collateral movement toward a new deployment.
Investors will likely watch the July 28 unlock closely to see where the assets go next. If HYPE is redeployed into new HIP-3 markets or other ecosystem uses, the market may stabilize once immediate selling risk fades. If, however, the tokens are moved to venues in a way that suggests liquidation, the overhang could persist longer than the processing window itself.
Market watch: follow the flow after the unlock window
For now, HYPE’s near-term price action appears less about long-term demand and more about supply mechanics: how quickly pending withdrawals convert into spot selling versus redeployment. The decisive signal will be the post-unlock routing—whether tokens flow into new perpetual deployments or toward exchanges—particularly in the days surrounding the July 28 release.
This article was originally published as Crypto Funds Lock Near $150M for Withdrawals as Hype Eases on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX, a landmark crypto derivatives exchange that helped popularize perpetual swaps, is shutting down its trading services. The company says it will stop exchange operations on Sept. 23, 2026, at 04:00 UTC, urging users to close positions and withdraw funds before the deadline.
BitMEX’s owner and operator, HDR Global Trading Limited, decided to close the exchange following a strategic review. In an announcement shared with users, BitMEX said it wants to reassure customers that their assets remain “fully safe and under your control during this transition period,” while declining to provide additional details on the reasons behind the decision.
Key takeaways
BitMEX will cease trading services on Sept. 23, 2026 at 04:00 UTC, after stopping new account registrations immediately.
Risk limits introduced on Aug. 26, 2026 will prevent opening new positions while allowing users to reduce existing exposure.
BitMEX says it will close remaining open positions at shutdown time to wind down markets in an orderly way.
Users who don’t withdraw by the end will still be able to access wallet balances and historical transaction records after trading stops.
The closure comes amid recent executive departures, with Peter Wilkinson stepping in as CEO.
Shutdown timeline: from account freeze to forced closes
BitMEX said it stopped accepting new account registrations immediately, but will continue operating normally until the scheduled closure date. The exchange then plans to tighten trading conditions ahead of time: on Aug. 26, 2026 it will implement risk limits designed to stop users from opening additional positions while still permitting them to close or reduce existing positions.
At the moment trading shuts down, BitMEX says it will force-close any remaining open positions. The exchange framed this as part of an “orderly wind-down” process intended to bring derivatives markets to a close cleanly rather than leaving positions active without a functioning trading venue.
BitMEX also advised users to withdraw their funds before Sept. 23, 2026. The exchange noted that while wallet balances and historical transaction records will remain accessible after trading services end, users should not assume they will be able to continue interacting with the exchange as they have in the past.
Withdrawal warnings and proof-of-reserves process
In its user communication, BitMEX warned about potential phishing attempts and fake withdrawal offers, emphasizing that it does not offer an expedited withdrawal service. BitMEX also indicated it may apply additional withdrawal reviews and network restrictions during the transition period if withdrawal activity spikes.
The exchange further stated that its proof-of-reserves and liabilities process shows user assets exceed liabilities. While BitMEX did not add new performance metrics or third-party verification details in the available text, the company’s decision to reference this process suggests it wants users to understand the basis of its solvency assurances as it transitions out of operations.
What led to the closure: strategic review and leadership change
BitMEX’s shutdown follows a leadership transition and a decision by HDR Global Trading Limited to close the business after a strategic review. The exchange did not disclose further factors behind the decision, and it did not provide additional comments beyond the user-facing assurances.
According to BitMEX, CEO Stephan Lutz, chief financial officer Ina Steiner, and chief growth officer Raphael Polansky departed last month. Peter Wilkinson—previously BitMEX’s general counsel and chief operating officer—has taken over as CEO.
The timeline matters for market participants because leadership departures often coincide with shifts in risk posture, product strategy, or operational priorities. In this case, however, BitMEX did not connect the leadership changes directly to the closure rationale, leaving users to interpret the strategic review in the context of a broader industry transition.
BitMEX’s role in derivatives—and why the shutdown lands now
BitMEX launched in 2014 and became widely known for introducing the 100x leverage perpetual swap—an instrument that enables traders to speculate on crypto prices without a fixed expiry date. Over time, BitMEX said the product became one of the most traded in the crypto industry and was adopted by thousands of users and other exchanges.
The exchange’s exit reflects a market reality that has been shifting for some time: decentralized derivatives platforms are capturing increasing attention and liquidity relative to traditional centralized venues. The available report notes that, according to CoinGecko’s Q2 2026 Crypto Industry Report, CEX perpetual futures volume fell 10% to $12.7 trillion during the quarter, while decentralized platforms continued gaining ground.
Within that decentralized growth narrative, Hyperliquid is highlighted as a leading decentralized perpetual exchange. CoinGecko’s report ranks Hyperliquid second by open interest behind Binance. This kind of data point underscores why BitMEX’s closure may resonate beyond its user base: it’s the winding down of a pioneering CEX derivatives venue at a time when traders increasingly have competitive decentralized alternatives.
How users should think about the end of trading
For BitMEX customers, the most practical takeaway is timing: the exchange will block new position creation starting Aug. 26 and will close remaining positions at the shutdown moment, while also urging users to withdraw ahead of Sept. 23. In the final stretch, users should also be alert to withdrawal-related social engineering, especially given BitMEX’s explicit warning about fake withdrawal offers and phishing.
Looking ahead, the key uncertainty for market participants is not whether balances and records will remain available—BitMEX says they will—but how the wind-down will be experienced by individual traders with open exposure, and whether broader liquidity continues flowing to other venues as BitMEX exits. With decentralized perpetuals still expanding their footprint, users should watch how open interest and order flow redistribute in the weeks following the account-freeze and risk-limit milestones.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Announces Shutdown After 11 Years in Crypto Derivatives on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Democratic lawmakers are pushing back against the latest draft of the CLARITY Act over its ethics provisions. The lawmakers believe the provisions do not adequately address President Trump’s crypto interests.
Lawmakers have signalled support for the legislation if stronger provisions are included. However, the bill has found support in the crypto industry, with Coinbase and Ripple backing it.
Democratic Lawmakers Push Back Against Clarity Act Draft
Republican lawmakers released the latest draft of the CLARITY Act on Wednesday (July 22), with several prominent figures from the crypto industry supporting the measure. However, the legislation quickly faced fierce pushback from Democratic lawmakers over weak ethics provisions. The lawmakers argued that the provisions were inadequate to address President Trump’s crypto links. Senator Angela Alsobrooks said the current draft fell short and asked for key provisions to be strengthened, stating, “The Republican-proposed text of the CLARITY Act as it currently stands falls short. Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened.”
President Trump and his family remain involved in the crypto industry, with interests including a popular memecoin and World Liberty Financial, a decentralized protocol that operates a borrowing-and-lending platform. According to financial disclosures, President Trump received millions tied to WLF.
Incomplete Enforcement Mechanism
The 616-page draft prohibits public officials and their spouses from sponsoring and issuing digital assets. However, it does not prohibit extended family members. The draft also includes a clause stating the restrictions expire in January 2029 and tasks the Justice Department with enforcing the provisions. Senator Ruben Gallego supported the bill in the committee but has ruled out backing it in the Senate unless the ethics language is changed. Besides Alsobrooks and Gallego, Senate Democrats Catherine Cortez Masto and Cory Booker have also opposed the bill in its current form.
Senator Elizabeth Warren took to X, criticizing the bill and stating, “The new draft of the Senate GOP crypto bill does nothing to stop President Trump from making his next $1.4 billion from crypto. It’ll supercharge Trump’s crypto corruption. This bill should be dead on arrival.”
Amanda Fischer, Chief Operating Officer and policy director for Better Markets and former chief of staff for Gary Gensler, believes the draft does not change much for President Trump and his entanglement with crypto.
“The bottom line: Doesn’t change much at all about Trump’s existing crypto grift. No divestment required. Maybe stops new crypto grifts, but it’s up to his personal attorney [Acting U.S. Attorney General] Todd Blanche to enforce. Amnesty kicks in as soon as the new POTUS is inaugurated.”
Support From The Crypto Industry
Unsurprisingly, prominent individuals from the crypto industry threw their weight behind the legislation. Supporters were happy the bill retained software developer protections and added that the legislation would ensure regulatory clarity and elevate the US’ role in the digital asset industry. Ji Hun Kim, CEO of the Crypto Council for Innovation, urged for bipartisan support to get the bill across the line, and Solana Policy Institute CEO Miller Whitehouse-Levine called on Congress to “seize the moment.”
The strongest support for the bill came from Coinbase and Ripple. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said the lack of a clear regulatory framework had hurt the industry, allowing major incidents like the FTX collapse to hurt consumers. Stuart Alderoty, Chief Legal Officer at Ripple, said the bill gives law enforcement agencies the teeth to go after bad actors, while CEO Brad Garlinghouse stated the bill does not have to be perfect to pass.
Supporters of the legislation are urging Congress to vote on the bill before its August recess. However, this depends on whether Democrats and Republicans can agree to a timely compromise.
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 Democrats Push Back On Clarity Act Over Weak Ethics Provisions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Grayscale is challenging a key assumption many traders use to frame Bitcoin’s price cycle: the idea that bottoms reliably line up with the traditional four-year, halving-driven rhythm. In a Wednesday research note, the firm’s head of research, Zach Pandl, suggested that Bitcoin may have already found a floor—potentially pointing to a cycle low as early as September or October—if upcoming macro conditions remain supportive.
Pandl’s argument centers on Bitcoin’s increasing sensitivity to broader economic variables. Rather than treating the halving cycle as the dominant force, Grayscale says macro factors—especially Federal Reserve policy—may be doing the heavy lifting for price direction right now.
Key takeaways
Grayscale says Bitcoin’s cycle low could arrive earlier than the historical four-year pattern, with September or October cited as a potential window.
Zach Pandl argues Bitcoin is increasingly “macro-driven,” implying that rate expectations may determine when price bottoms.
CME FedWatch data at the time of Grayscale’s note showed markets pricing about a 66% chance the Fed holds rates on July 29, down from 88% a week earlier.
Despite the macro thesis, Grayscale warns regulation could still cap recovery momentum, particularly if the CLARITY Act fails to pass this year.
Other analysts still expect a later bottom, including a view that a trough may not appear until October–December 2026.
Why Grayscale thinks the cycle floor may be sooner
Grayscale’s framing departs from the more rigid “four-year cycle” approach. In the firm’s report, Pandl wrote that if the Federal Reserve “forgoes rate hikes” and economic growth remains resilient, Bitcoin “may already have bottomed.” That would imply the cycle low could come earlier than some models anticipate, potentially in September or October.
This matters for investors because it changes how risk is likely to be assessed around typical cycle milestones. If macro conditions are now the primary driver, historical calendar-based expectations may be less reliable—making forward-looking indicators (like real rates and central bank guidance) more important than fixed cycle timing.
The Fed’s meeting and shifting rate odds
A central element of Grayscale’s view is that the Fed remains the most actionable near-term variable for Bitcoin. Pandl said macro factors place Bitcoin in the “driver’s seat,” adding that Bitcoin could “bottom when these macro factors turn around.”
The next scheduled rate decision cited in Grayscale’s discussion is due on July 29. According to CME Group’s FedWatch tool referenced by Grayscale, market participants were pricing in a 66% chance the Fed will hold interest rates unchanged—down from 88% a week earlier. The change highlights how quickly expectations for policy path can evolve, and why Grayscale sees macro shifts as central to the timing of a market bottom.
Grayscale also connected prior Bitcoin bear markets to periods of slowing economic growth alongside rising real interest rates. In that framework, the direction of real rates—more than nominal liquidity narratives—has historically aligned with whether downside pressure persisted or eased.
Regulatory uncertainty remains a drag on upside
Even if macro conditions improve, Grayscale cautioned that policy risk could still limit how far Bitcoin can recover. In a June 26 Grayscale report titled “Two scenarios for the Bitcoin bear market,” Pandl argued that regulatory uncertainty may force continued “deleverage” among certain crypto treasury-related entities.
Specifically, Grayscale suggested that if the CLARITY Act does not pass this year, Strategy and other treasury companies may continue to reduce leverage, a process that could lead Bitcoin to “fall moderately further.”
This point is important because it introduces a potential mismatch: macro might be stabilizing, but balance-sheet pressure within parts of the crypto market could still weigh on prices. For market participants, the takeaway is that “macro-driven” doesn’t automatically mean “macro-only”—regulatory outcomes can influence liquidity and forced selling dynamics even when economic data looks better.
Competing views on how late the bottom could be
Grayscale’s earlier-bottom thesis is not universally shared. Earlier this year, crypto analysts pointed to market structure and long-term investor behavior as signals that a bottom could be approaching sooner rather than later. For example, K33 had argued that Bitcoin’s supply held at a loss could signal cycle timing, noting that historically Bitcoin has tended to bottom weeks after more than half of supply moved underwater. Separately, Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten told Cointelegraph in a June interview that record long-term holdings—reaching an all-time high of 14.7 million Bitcoin—could indicate an imminent bottom.
Still, other analysts have suggested that the trough may not arrive until later. Lebit Mining Pool founder Jiang Zhuoer predicted that Bitcoin’s bottom could fall between October and December 2026—roughly six months after Strategy’s Multiple to Net Asset Value (mNAV) indicated its cycle low.
That contrast underscores a broader uncertainty for traders and portfolio managers: different approaches—cycle timing, macro signals, supply-at-loss statistics, or balance-sheet metrics—can point to different windows. The question for readers is not only whether Bitcoin bottoms, but whether the market is responding to the same underlying regime shift that each model assumes.
What to watch next
With the Fed decision on July 29 in focus and regulatory developments still capable of influencing deleveraging pressure, investors should track both macro indicators (especially real-rate expectations) and any signs that the CLARITY Act timeline or related market balance-sheet activity is changing. Grayscale’s thesis hinges on “macro turning around,” but whether that translates into a durable cycle low may depend on policy risk and crypto-specific liquidity conditions as much as on economics.
This article was originally published as Grayscale’s Pandel Says Bitcoin Bottom May Precede Cycle Low on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto “wrench” attacks—incidents where victims are coerced or harmed to obtain access to their digital assets—accelerated sharply in the first half of 2026, according to new analysis from blockchain security firm CertiK.
CertiK verified 52 wrench attacks worldwide in H1 2026, up 33.3% from 39 incidents during the same period in 2025. Home invasions emerged as the most frequent method, climbing to 20 publicly reported cases versus 1 a year earlier. The same report also found that kidnappings increased to 16 from 12, while robberies fell from five incidents to just one.
Key takeaways
Wrench attacks rose to 52 verified incidents in H1 2026, up 33.3% year-on-year from 39 in H1 2025, according to CertiK.
Home invasions surged to 20 cases, up from 1 a year earlier, becoming the dominant attack pattern.
Kidnappings increased to 16 (from 12), while robberies dropped to 1 (from 5).
Estimated financial exposure reached about $124.1 million, up from $10.5 million in H1 2025, though the figure includes more than confirmed theft.
France accounted for 33 of 52 incidents, with Europe totaling 39, highlighting a major geographic concentration.
A shift toward physical coercion
CertiK’s report attributes part of the trend to a growing willingness by criminals to bypass purely digital defenses through direct physical pressure on victims and their families. The dramatic rise in home invasions is the clearest signal of that change: attacks that once appeared rarely in the dataset became the leading tactic during the first half of 2026.
CertiK also emphasized that its “financial exposure” number is broader than simple theft totals. The company reported that the recorded financial exposure linked to wrench attacks reached approximately $124.1 million, compared with $10.5 million a year earlier. CertiK clarified that the estimate is not restricted to confirmed stolen funds and may include ransom demands, transfers by victims, assets that were frozen or recovered, and even failed ransom attempts.
For investors and users who rely on self-custody, the implication is straightforward: traditional security guidance focused on protecting keys and accounts may not be sufficient when attackers aim to obtain control through coercion.
France dominates the verified caseload
Geographically, the report shows a concentrated pattern. CertiK said Europe accounted for 39 of the 52 verified incidents, with France alone responsible for 33—nearly two-thirds of the global total.
CertiK noted that it used a narrower methodology than French authorities. In particular, CertiK counted only publicly reported incidents that it could independently verify. That distinction matters for interpretation: the French government’s totals could be higher because they may rely on a wider set of cases than CertiK’s verification criteria.
On July 2, French Interior Minister Laurent Nuñez said authorities had recorded 77 crypto-linked kidnappings, extortion cases, or attempted extortion cases during the first half of 2026, up from 45 in the entirety of 2025. CertiK pointed to the possibility that France’s more visible crypto ecosystem contributes to the pattern, citing how data breaches and information flows can connect identities and home addresses with perceived crypto wealth.
Policy and wallet-design countermeasures
French officials have responded to the uptick with targeted enforcement and prevention efforts. In response to the threat, Nuñez said French authorities launched a dedicated prevention platform and a rapid-alert system for crypto holders and professionals. He also said emergency measures have resulted in 200 arrests.
CertiK’s recommendations, meanwhile, focus on making it harder for attackers to quickly convert coercion into irreversible transfers. The firm argued that physical coercion can undermine assumptions behind many “hold your own keys” practices, especially if a victim can be forced to act immediately.
To reduce the speed at which funds can be moved under pressure, CertiK recommended several technical and operational controls, including:
Multisignature or multiparty computation arrangements so no single threatened party can unilaterally authorize transfers.
Withdrawal delays to slow down transfers after authorizations are initiated.
Spending limits to cap the impact of any coerced transaction.
Geographically separated signers, so attackers cannot simultaneously pressure all parties needed to move funds.
These measures are designed to change the attacker’s advantage: instead of forcing victims to act immediately, they introduce friction, require multiple approvals, or create time windows that may allow victims to seek help.
Why the jump in home invasions matters
The sharp increase in home invasions suggests attackers are increasingly moving from remote scams or online compromise to scenarios where the victim’s immediate physical compliance becomes the key vulnerability. That trend also helps explain why “wrench” incidents can carry such a wide range of outcomes—ranging from transfers under duress to situations where assets are later recovered or ransom demands fail.
As regulators and law enforcement refine their response, the next test will be whether defensive practices keep pace across borders—particularly in regions where incidents are concentrated. Users should pay close attention to whether both public reporting and independently verified datasets continue to show the same pattern of escalation in the second half of 2026.
This article was originally published as CertiK: Crypto “wrench attacks” peak in H1 2026 amid rising home invasions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.