Crypto Breaking

A coalition of crypto firms and industry groups has urged frontier artificial intelligence labs to grant Bitcoin developers and other open-source defenders early, trusted access to their most capable models. The call comes in a letter published Monday by the Bitcoin Policy Institute (BPI), arguing that public access and “guardrails” on top-tier systems can leave key maintainers reliant on less capable alternatives.
In the letter, BPI and the signatories say many people responsible for maintaining critical digital infrastructure—including Bitcoin Core developers—may not have the ability to run high-end AI tools against complex codebases. That, they argue, can slow security research and reduce defenders’ ability to respond as threats evolve.
Key takeaways
BPI says open-source financial infrastructure defenders often lack early access to frontier AI tools needed to keep pace with escalating cyber threats.
The letter argues that guardrails on public frontier models can block qualified researchers from conducting effective security work.
Signatories call for “standing trusted-access programs” for qualified maintainers of open-source financial infrastructure.
BPI cites recent increases in crypto hacking activity and warns that AI-enabled attack techniques can increase risk for users.
Why the letter focuses on “trusted access”
The BPI letter frames frontier AI as a shift in how security research is performed. According to the letter, advanced models can scan large codebases more efficiently, flag potential weaknesses, and compress timelines for complex technical analysis—capabilities that can benefit both defenders and adversaries.
The core recommendation is practical: frontier AI labs should establish or expand “standing trusted-access programs” that allow qualified open-source financial infrastructure defenders to use high-performing models. Without such programs, the letter warns that defenders “may lack the tools needed to keep pace with evolving threats to the infrastructure they maintain.”
BPI also says it has received multiple independent reports from open-source maintainers describing sophisticated actors using advanced AI capabilities to support attacks. The implication is that defenders may be forced to work from a disadvantage if they cannot access the same level of AI capability under safe, controlled conditions.
Open-source infrastructure risk and why Bitcoin is central
The letter argues that open-source software underpins key parts of digital and financial systems. It singles out Bitcoin, stating that it alone secures more than $1 trillion in value. While the letter does not detail the measurement method, it uses that figure to emphasize the real-world stakes of maintaining and securing open-source infrastructure.
BPI further states that vulnerabilities in open-source infrastructure can endanger users’ life savings. That argument links the access request to a broader security policy question: how to balance model safety and guardrails with the need for qualified maintainers to conduct effective defense research.
Just as importantly, the letter suggests a mismatch between “publicly available” AI systems and the reality of defending production-grade infrastructure. If frontier tools are constrained such that certain security workflows are blocked, then—even for well-intentioned developers—defense capacity may not scale at the pace of attacker capabilities.
Crypto hacking surge underscores the pressure on defenders
The letter’s security pitch arrives alongside signs of mounting pressure across the broader crypto ecosystem. It points to DefiLlama data indicating that hacking activity across the industry surged in April 2026, when malicious actors reportedly stole more than $634 million from cryptocurrency platforms—described in the letter as the highest monthly total since the Bybit hack.
DefiLlama’s dashboard is cited in the letter for those figures, and it also notes that the Bybit incident contributed to total losses of roughly $1.4 billion in February 2025. While the letter does not attribute the April 2026 thefts to AI-enabled techniques, the juxtaposition is clear: as cyber incidents increase, defenders need better tooling and faster ways to assess and mitigate vulnerabilities.
For market participants who rely on infrastructure maintainers—exchanges, custody providers, wallet vendors, and protocol teams—the practical effect of slower vulnerability discovery can be significant. The difference between months and weeks can determine how quickly patches roll out, how quickly monitoring improves, and how much exposure a system carries before fixes reach production.
AI-enabled vulnerability discovery and the “vulnerability apocalypse” concern
The letter ties its access request to a broader trend in crypto security: AI-assisted vulnerability discovery is raising concerns across the industry. It references commentary from Mitchell Amador, CEO of bug bounty platform Immunefi, who described the current environment as a “vulnerability apocalypse,” in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
That earlier reporting cited the growing role of frontier models such as Claude Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5 in accelerating vulnerability research. The BPI letter uses that context to argue that advanced AI is increasingly part of the threat landscape—meaning defenders also need effective, timely access to advanced tools to conduct their own research and response.
Crucially, this is not framed as unrestricted model use. Instead, it centers on the idea that defenders should be able to work with frontier systems through trusted programs, designed to allow security research while reducing the risks associated with misuse.
Who signed the open letter
The open letter was co-signed by multiple crypto companies and organizations, including the African Bitcoin Institute, Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Bull Bitcoin, MARA, Kraken, Ledger, and Trezor, among others.
With this mix of infrastructure providers, custodians, security-oriented stakeholders, and Bitcoin-focused organizations, the letter reflects a common concern across the sector: that the security advantage could tilt toward attackers if AI capability is easier for adversaries to access than for open-source maintainers.
Going forward, the key question for readers is whether major AI labs respond by creating or expanding trusted-access programs that can be used by qualified open-source financial infrastructure defenders—and, if so, what eligibility and guardrail structures will look like in practice. The next signals to watch are concrete policy changes from frontier labs and measurable shifts in how quickly critical vulnerabilities are identified and patched as hacking activity remains elevated.
This article was originally published as Crypto Firms Ask AI Companies for Early Access to Bitcoin Devs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin treasury company Strategy has completed another Bitcoin sale, selling 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million, and using the proceeds to repurchase $109 million of its STRC preferred stock.
The company also sold $653 million in MSTR shares, using the proceeds to increase its dollar reserve by $650 million.
Strategy’s Latest Bitcoin Sale
The Michael Saylor-founded company disclosed the sale in an updated filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The sale is the latest by the Bitcoin treasury company to manage its dividend and interest obligations and leverage a portion of its holdings to fund a $5 billion reserve.
According to the filing, Strategy sold 1,690 BTC for $108.6 million, and repurchased $109 million worth of its STRC preferred stock. It also sold $653 million in MSTR common stock, using the proceeds to increase its dollar reserve.
Strategy swore by its Bitcoin purchases, spending billions to become the largest publicly traded holder of the flagship cryptocurrency, and spawning several other Bitcoin treasury companies. However, Strategy has pivoted away from its buy-and-hold approach in recent months due to macroeconomic and geopolitical headwinds. The company concluded a small sale of around 704 BTC in 2022. However, it switched to regular sales in late May and June, starting with a 32 BTC sale. It sold 3,588 BTC in late June and early July, and another 1,638 BTC at the beginning of August. The August 10 sale takes Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings down to 840,447 BTC.
Repurposing Its Bitcoin Holdings
Strategy has strategically sold BTC as its priorities pivot to meeting dividend, interest, investor, and capital obligations during a difficult phase for the broader market. The change in the company’s approach has been driven by a substantial decline in BTC’s value, forcing it to abandon its accumulation model to manage its balance sheet, including building a cash reserve and strategic sales to meet dividend obligations.
CEO Phong Le stated during a CNBC interview in May that Strategy could sell some of its Bitcoin holdings if it benefits shareholders.
“At the point where selling Bitcoin versus selling equity to pay a dividend is better for our bitcoin-per-share, we will do it.”
Saylor echoed similar thoughts, but stressed that Strategy would never be a “net-seller” of Bitcoin, a distinction made after intense criticism of the company’s selling.
“I’m very famous for saying ‘never sell your Bitcoin.’ That’s why the internet went crazy when we said we might sell it. But if I was being more precise: never be a net seller of Bitcoin. It just wouldn’t have been so viral.”
STRC Preferred Stock Declines
One of the primary drivers of Strategy’s recent selling is STRC’s declining share value. STRC, Strategy’s preferred stock, fell significantly below $100, hampering the company’s ability to issue new stock and fund Bitcoin acquisitions.
Strategy has attempted to get STRC back to $100 by introducing a new capital management framework that allows it to sell Bitcoin, build a cash reserve, and repurchase STRC.
Strategy has sold 6,948 BTC worth $432.5 million since May, using the proceeds to fund dividend and interest obligations. It introduced its Digital Assets Capital Framework in June, formalizing its strategy to sell a portion of its Bitcoin holdings. The framework allows the company to sell up to $1.25 billion in BTC to replenish its Dollar reserve, fund interest payments, dividends, and share buybacks.
Bitcoin Remains Primary Treasury Asset
Despite an uptick in selling, BTC remains Strategy’s primary reserve asset. The company currently holds 840,447 BTC, worth around $53.6 billion at current prices.
Le has insisted that Strategy will resume Bitcoin purchases over the course of the year, stating in a Fox interview,
“We’ll get back to buying more Bitcoin throughout the course of the year.”
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 Strategy Sells 1,690 BTC, Repurchases $109 Million In STRC Stock on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A painstaking investigation into crypto-focused recruitment tactics has exposed how suspected North Korean IT workers operate when they think they’re joining a legitimate startup. In a ruse carried out over five weeks, researchers built a fictitious company called Ballena Azul and invited suspected operatives to develop software and complete tasks inside controlled virtual environments—allowing analysts to observe their day-to-day tooling, workflows, and infrastructure choices.
As described in reporting by Cointelegraph, the project was designed and executed by Mauro Eldritch, founder of cybersecurity firm BCA LTD, and Heiner García, a cyber threat intelligence analyst at Telefónica Tech and founder of NorthScane. The operation leveraged infrastructure from cybersecurity platform ANY.RUN, and Cointelegraph joined for one stage of the contact with the supposed hiring team.
Key takeaways
Researchers used a fake crypto startup, Ballena Azul, to study suspected DPRK recruitment and working methods inside controlled virtual desktops.
One of the most valuable findings was the use of external intermediary servers—some linked to earlier North Korean malware campaigns that were still active.
The suspected workers often relied heavily on AI tools to compensate for technical gaps and to help with coding, writing, and document manipulation.
The scheme showed how threat actors can pose as employees to gain access to internal systems, code, and credentials without deploying malware immediately.
Earlier cases reported by US and industry entities indicate this approach is evolving, spanning remote access strategies and identity manipulation.
From recruitment to “startup” onboarding
The Ballena Azul operation began when García connected with a recruiter via GitHub, after the recruiter was associated with Famous Chollima, a threat group linked to DPRK IT-worker activity. According to García, the startup needed software developers, and the recruiter offered multiple names for candidates—at least two of whom presented US identification.
As the interviews and onboarding progressed, the researchers used aliases to maintain the deception. Eldritch took on the persona of co-founder “Leonardo Nelson,” while García posed as “Andy Jones,” the team lead. Developers were assigned programming tasks inside controlled virtual desktop environments, which enabled the researchers to monitor what tools they reached for, how they responded when problems appeared, and how they handled technical obstacles.
To test the candidates’ responses, the researchers deliberately introduced issues, including selective network outages and changes to user interaction cues such as disappearing mouse cursors. In García’s account, the biggest surprise wasn’t only the tooling—it was the lack of a uniform corporate process. Instead, he described a pattern of improvisation rather than a rigid playbook.
Infrastructure clues and the “reuse” problem
Beyond the day-to-day behavior of the operatives, the investigation highlighted the role of infrastructure “in-between” moments. During the ruse, analysts identified external servers that acted as intermediary points before suspected workers connected to the controlled virtual desktops used by the researchers.
García told Magazine that some of those servers were associated with malware families tied to prior North Korean campaigns, including InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie. He said at least some of the intermediary servers were still active, suggesting that operational components can remain in use for extended periods—an issue that matters for defenders because long-lived infrastructure increases the window for compromise and detection evasion.
At the same time, García noted that other servers appeared entirely new from an intelligence perspective, “clean” and not previously documented in mainstream threat feeds or blocklists. That combination—some reuse of known infrastructure alongside previously unseen resources—underscores why investigations focused only on established indicators may miss portions of an operation.
“Some of the servers we found were tied back to distributing InvisibleFerret and BeaverTail/OtterCookie in prior years and were active to this day,” García said, adding that others were not previously tied to intelligence tracking.
AI-assisted impersonation and credential theft risk
The working environment also revealed how the operatives attempted to maintain productivity. The researchers found extensive use of AI tools for coding and other tasks that candidates struggled to complete on their own. According to García, they used ChatGPT for writing and coding, including help answering basic questions and finishing assignments. For image alteration and document forgery, García said the group showed a preference for Google Gemini.
The investigation also documented the wider operational toolkit suspected workers used: remote desktop software, crypto wallets, and services designed for sharing two-factor authentication codes. The implication is not simply that these actors can deploy malware, but that they may not need to—once hired, they can use legitimate access to reach sensitive internal information. Researchers described the long-term advantage as well: staying undetected allows threat actors to collect salaries for as long as they remain in place, which can support DPRK funding objectives.
Cointelegraph’s reporting situates this in a broader pattern of AI adoption across DPRK-linked activity. The same piece points to Reuters reporting that another North Korean hacking group, Kimsuky, uses AI locally to automate parts of cyberattacks and generate more convincing phishing materials. While those accounts involve different operators and likely different goals, together they suggest a trend toward integrating generative tools into cyber workflows.
How the ruse unraveled—and what stayed hidden
After weeks of tasks inside the controlled environments, researchers staged an internal disruption to force the operatives to react. They introduced a new persona—“Benito Camella,” a co-founder who supposedly had been busy in Milan while hiring accelerated. When Camella “returned,” the confrontational sequence was meant to expose inconsistencies in identity and documentation.
During the confrontation, the chat room rapidly emptied. One developer, Espree, left the video call first, while another, Anderson, stayed longer before realizing the scheme was collapsing. Even after the meeting ended, the researchers maintained the facade through company communications: the fake CEO accused “Andy Jones” of bringing in “illegal workers,” and “Jones” responded that he was pressured to build quickly and believed he was not being compensated adequately.
That staged dispute ended with “termination” of the working relationship and friendship, framing the collapse as the result of a hiring disaster. Afterward, one suspected operative contacted García privately to apologize and check whether he was okay. Researchers said they never heard from the rest of the group again, and—importantly—believe the operatives remained unaware that they had spent weeks helping analysts extract intelligence.
Why this matters for crypto and broader cybersecurity
North Korea-linked IT-worker schemes have increasingly been linked to threats against the cryptocurrency sector and beyond. Cointelegraph notes industry and government-linked reporting that shows how these operations can involve recruiting developers through intermediary channels, using remote-access pathways to appear legitimate, and targeting organizations for access to internal systems and sensitive data.
Earlier examples referenced in the same reporting include ConsenSys’ statement in July that it engaged a North Korea-linked developer through a third-party service provider before cutting off access. The piece also highlights a US Justice Department case alleging nearly $1 million in cryptocurrency theft by four North Korean nationals charged in connection with remote job fraud using false identities. Separately, the US Treasury has stated that North Korean IT-worker schemes generated nearly $800 million in 2024 to support the regime’s weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
For crypto investors, operators, and builders, the practical takeaway is that supply-chain and workforce risk remains as relevant as direct hacking. Even without an immediate malware payload, credential exposure and internal access can provide a pathway to funds and sensitive operational data—especially when attackers use “legitimate work” as cover for months-long persistence.
As defenders analyze what the Ballena Azul ruse exposed—especially intermediary server reuse and AI-enabled workflow patterns—the next step for organizations will be to tighten verification and monitor remote-access and identity controls continuously, not only when known indicators appear. The most uncertain element for now is how quickly threat actors will adapt their operational tooling and infrastructure in response to investigations like this one.
This article was originally published as Inside the Scheme: Fake Crypto Startup Recruited North Korean IT Workers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy CEO Phong Le says the firm plans to resume adding Bitcoin later this year, even after recent asset sales that have triggered renewed scrutiny from investors and market observers.
In a Monday interview with FOX Business, Le said Strategy purchased about 175,000 BTC since the start of the year while selling roughly 7,000 BTC, describing the activity as “about 25 times more” buying than selling. He also said Strategy has moved from being the world’s second-largest institutional Bitcoin holder to the largest.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it intends to restart accumulating Bitcoin later this year, after a year-to-date pattern of heavy net buying.
According to Le, Strategy bought ~175,000 BTC since January and sold ~7,000 BTC year-to-date—netting a large imbalance toward accumulation.
The company has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, with the latest reported sale totaling 1,690 BTC.
BitcoinTreasuries.NET data suggests public companies collectively hold more BTC than exchange-traded products and other funds, but the treasury “premium” financing model is under strain.
A pledge to buy more, after sales drew questions
Le told FOX Business that Strategy expects to “get back to buying more Bitcoin throughout the course of the year.” That statement comes after the firm shifted part of its approach—at least temporarily—from its long-standing narrative of avoiding Bitcoin sales whenever possible.
While Strategy’s sales have remained small relative to its total stash, the decision to sell has been closely watched because it represents a departure from the “never sell” stance that helped establish its credibility with long-term Bitcoin-focused shareholders.
Strategy has accumulated more than 840,000 BTC, but it has reportedly sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May. The most recent sale, according to the interview context, totaled 1,690 BTC. Le’s broader argument appears to be that the company can still prioritize net accumulation while meeting other corporate obligations.
Why Strategy’s sales matter to investors
Even limited selling can have outsized signaling effects for a company built around a Bitcoin treasury strategy. The concern is not only about the immediate numbers, but about what the sales suggest regarding internal trade-offs.
The proceeds from Strategy’s recent Bitcoin sales have been used to support preferred stock dividends, share repurchases, and its U.S. dollar reserve. That mix highlights a core tension for any public company holding large BTC reserves: management must balance capital preservation and growth with shareholder payouts, equity-market expectations, and liquidity requirements.
Le’s “25 times more” framing underscores that Strategy’s year-to-date behavior still leans toward accumulation. However, the very fact that the company has made multiple sales since May suggests conditions have required more flexibility than the firm’s earlier messaging implied.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Strategy’s earlier capital and balance-sheet approach aimed to preserve Bitcoin exposure while also addressing returns to shareholders, including through a capital framework designed to fund dividends. The latest remarks reinforce that Strategy is trying to maintain that direction while navigating the pressures of public-company financing constraints.
The broader corporate treasury model faces a tougher environment
Strategy’s challenge fits into a larger pattern across the corporate Bitcoin treasury sector. Corporate holdings have continued to grow, but weaker market conditions make the traditional economics of the model harder to sustain.
According to BitcoinTreasuries.NET, public companies hold more than 1.26 million BTC, while trailing exchange-traded funds and other funds hold more than 1.6 million BTC. The size of the holdings suggests institutional accumulation remains active, but it does not automatically solve the capital question that determines how quickly companies can keep buying.
NOVAQUE Research has previously described the financing cycle that powered rapid expansion: when Bitcoin treasury companies traded at premiums to the net asset value of their BTC holdings, they could raise capital through equity or debt and then deploy proceeds to purchase more Bitcoin. That premium effectively reduced the dilution cost for shareholders because the market was valuing the companies above the value of their BTC.
In more difficult market regimes, that cycle becomes harder to maintain. When shares trade below net asset value, new fundraising can dilute existing holders more than it would in a premium environment—making continued aggressive accumulation financially less straightforward. Cointelegraph previously noted this shift in market dynamics in an analysis of how trade and holdings trends have changed for funds and BTC-holding entities.
What to watch next for Strategy
Strategy’s stated plan to resume accumulating Bitcoin later this year will likely be judged against two practical signals: whether future BTC purchases appear to outweigh any continued liquidity needs, and whether management’s willingness to sell—however small—persists as market conditions evolve. With the corporate treasury model sensitive to share-price-to-NAV dynamics, investors may also watch whether Strategy can keep access to capital on terms that don’t force meaningful dilution.
This article was originally published as Strategy CEO: Firm to Restart Bitcoin Accumulation in 2026 After Sales on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has invoked emergency authority to keep prediction market operator Kalshi running, arguing that New York’s efforts to restrain the platform amount to a market emergency. In an order issued Tuesday, the regulator said the federal government must ensure continuity in derivatives markets and prevent a “patchwork” of state rules from disrupting national price discovery.
The move keeps Kalshi operating while a separate legal fight continues over whether federal law—specifically the Commodity Exchange Act—preempts state gambling enforcement when event contracts are traded on federally regulated venues.
Key takeaways
The CFTC ordered Kalshi to continue operating, citing an emergency created by New York’s request for a temporary restraining order.
New York argues Kalshi is operating an illegal, unlicensed gambling business tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events, seeking substantial damages.
The CFTC says the Commodity Exchange Act requires a uniform national derivatives market and gives it exclusive jurisdiction over certain transactions involving swaps on designated contract markets.
The dispute is ongoing and does not resolve whether federal law preempts New York’s gambling enforcement.
The CFTC said it is litigating similar jurisdictional questions beyond New York, including cases involving eight other states.
CFTC emergency order keeps Kalshi live
In the order, the CFTC said New York’s enforcement action and the state’s request for a temporary restraining order together triggered what the agency characterized as a market emergency. The regulator directed Kalshi to keep operating under its normal practices and in line with the Commodity Exchange Act’s core principles.
Importantly, the CFTC emphasized continuity in trading. It argued that major disruptions can undermine orderly markets and impede price discovery—especially in derivatives markets meant to function as a cohesive national system.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to face a fragmented set of state gaming rules. The commission tied its emergency authority to concerns that a state-by-state approach could destabilize federal derivatives oversight.
New York’s restraining order seeks nationwide operational limits
New York’s request, as described by the CFTC, would bar Kalshi from operating in connection with contracts tied to sports, culture, elections, and other events in or from New York or directed to people in the state. The CFTC warned that because Kalshi is based in New York, the restrictions could effectively prevent the platform from offering all event contracts nationwide.
According to the CFTC, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in compensatory damages pending an accounting. The underlying state lawsuit, filed July 31, alleges Kalshi runs an illegal, unlicensed gambling business through its event-linked contracts. New York seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties, including a penalty equal to three times Kalshi’s alleged gains and $100,000 for each unauthorized sports wagering offer or attempt in New York.
New York’s case reflects a broader theory that state gambling law applies to prediction-market style contracts—an issue that has become a central legal battleground for the emerging event-contract space.
Federal preemption and the jurisdiction fight
Kalshi has argued that states cannot shut down a federally licensed exchange. The CFTC, by contrast, maintains that the Commodity Exchange Act gives it exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps traded on designated contract markets, including event contracts that Kalshi lists as swaps.
This is not a new legal question. In a separate New York case, a federal judge denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 7. At that stage, the judge found that New York gambling laws were not preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts.
Previously, the CFTC also sued New York in federal court in April, seeking to block the state from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets. In that earlier action, Judge Jed Rakoff denied without prejudice the agency’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order. The court found the CFTC had not shown a high likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm.
While Tuesday’s order directs Kalshi to continue operating, it does not decide the underlying jurisdictional dispute. The CFTC itself characterized the order as separate from a final judicial determination on whether federal law preempts state enforcement.
A nationwide regulatory dispute across multiple states
The Kalshi controversy is also being framed by the CFTC as part of a broader effort to defend federally granted authority. The agency said in its order that it has sued eight other states in addition to New York to protect what it views as congressionally granted jurisdiction.
That means the outcome of the Kalshi litigation could carry implications beyond a single company. If courts ultimately endorse the CFTC’s preemption theory, state regulators may face tighter limits when attempting to apply gambling statutes to event contracts traded on designated contract markets. If courts reject that position, enforcement could become more decentralized, potentially pushing operators to navigate divergent state regimes.
For market participants—exchanges, traders, and institutions—the practical stakes are straightforward: disruptions to listings, contract availability, or trading access can directly affect liquidity and price formation. The CFTC’s focus on “orderly trading and price discovery” suggests the regulator is trying to prevent a compliance or shutdown cascade while the legal questions play out.
For Kalshi and similarly structured platforms, the key uncertainty remains judicial. Tuesday’s CFTC order preserves operations in the short term, but it does not substitute for a court ruling on the scope of federal preemption versus state gambling enforcement.
Readers should watch next for how courts handle the preemption question on the merits and whether any additional federal or state rulings narrow (or expand) what event-contract platforms can offer during the litigation. The emergency posture may keep the platform running for now, but the core jurisdictional disagreement is still unresolved.
This article was originally published as CFTC Uses Emergency Powers to Maintain Kalshi’s New York Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has stepped in to keep prediction market operator Kalshi running, citing an “emergency” created by New York’s enforcement action and its request for a temporary restraining order. In an order issued Tuesday, the regulator directed Kalshi to continue operating under its normal practices and in line with the Commodity Exchange Act’s Core Principles.
The CFTC warned that an abrupt disruption to event-contract trading could undermine the goal of maintaining a uniform, national derivatives market—something it says is critical for orderly trading and price discovery. The dispute is also framed as part of a wider federal-versus-state battle over whether federal commodities law preempts state gambling rules when event contracts are traded on federally regulated exchanges.
Key takeaways
The CFTC invoked emergency authority to require Kalshi to keep operating while New York pursues a temporary restraining order.
New York’s proposed order could restrict Kalshi’s event-contract offerings tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events occurring in or connected to New York residents.
The CFTC argues the Commodity Exchange Act requires a consistent national derivatives market and cautions against a “patchwork” of state gaming laws.
The latest CFTC order does not resolve whether federal law preempts state enforcement; it mainly addresses operational continuity.
The CFTC says it has taken similar actions against multiple states beyond New York to defend its jurisdiction.
Emergency order keeps Kalshi trading as the legal fight escalates
In its statement, the CFTC said New York’s move—both the state’s enforcement action and its request for a temporary restraining order—amounts to a market emergency. The agency referenced the risk that the temporary restraining order could effectively prevent Kalshi from offering event contracts nationwide, given the company’s New York ties.
According to the CFTC, New York is seeking at least $36 billion in compensatory damages while also pursuing a damages accounting. The state’s requested relief is designed to bar Kalshi from offering a broad set of contracts—spanning sports, cultural events, elections, and other event categories—when those contracts are offered in, from, or to people located in New York.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to operate under a fractured set of state gaming rules. The commission’s position is that major disruptions to regulated derivatives markets can harm orderly trading and impede the price discovery function the framework is meant to support.
How New York describes the case—and what Kalshi disputes
New York’s lawsuit, filed on July 31, alleges Kalshi runs an illegal, unlicensed gambling operation by offering contracts tied to sports, elections, culture, and other events. The state says it is seeking restitution, disgorgement, damages, and penalties—describing potential penalties that include a figure equal to three times Kalshi’s alleged gains, plus $100,000 for each unauthorized sports-wagering offer or attempt in New York.
Kalshi’s core argument is that states cannot effectively shut down a federally licensed exchange. The conflict centers on legal jurisdiction: New York frames its position as state regulation of gambling and wagering, while the CFTC argues that the Commodity Exchange Act provides it with exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps traded on designated contract markets, including event contracts Kalshi lists as swaps.
That difference matters because it determines which regulator—state authorities or the CFTC—has the power to restrict or condition Kalshi’s product offerings. It also shapes whether event-contract trading will be governed uniformly across state lines or subject to multiple state-by-state enforcement theories.
Preliminary rulings have not ended the jurisdiction dispute
There have already been setbacks for Kalshi in some respects, but also legal findings that keep the dispute alive. In a separate New York case, a federal judge denied Kalshi’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 7. At that stage, the court found that New York’s gambling laws were not preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act as applied to Kalshi’s sports-event contracts.
Meanwhile, the CFTC has also attempted to prevent New York from applying its gambling laws to CFTC-registered contract markets. In April, the CFTC sued New York in federal court for that purpose, seeking to stop the state’s enforcement. Judge Jed Rakoff denied—without prejudice—the CFTC’s emergency request for a temporary restraining order. The denial was tied to the court’s view that the agency had not shown, at that early stage, a high likelihood of success on the merits or a likelihood of irreparable harm.
According to the CFTC, Tuesday’s order is intended to keep trading functioning while the underlying jurisdictional conflict continues. The agency emphasized that its action is not a final judicial determination of whether federal law preempts state gambling enforcement.
Federal-state clash over event contracts spans more than one state
This confrontation is not confined to New York. The CFTC said it has sued eight other states, along with New York, to defend the jurisdiction it says Congress granted it. The underlying legal theory is that event contracts falling under the federal derivatives framework should not be subjected to state gambling restrictions in ways that fragment the market.
For market participants, the practical implication is straightforward: even when a product is traded on a federally regulated exchange, the business model can still face state-level disruption. The CFTC’s emergency order suggests the regulator views that risk as severe enough to justify immediate intervention to avoid shutdown-by-injunction dynamics.
What remains uncertain is whether courts will ultimately treat the relevant Commodity Exchange Act provisions as preempting state gambling enforcement in the context of event contracts described as swaps. Tuesday’s order does not settle that question, and the dispute is likely to continue through further motions and rulings.
Investors, traders, and builders using prediction markets should watch how courts assess the preemption question in the ongoing cases and whether additional states face similar CFTC action. The timing and scope of any eventual injunction—or the lack of one—could determine how consistently event-contract trading can operate across the U.S. while the federal jurisdictional argument plays out.
This article was originally published as CFTC Uses Emergency Powers to Maintain Kalshi in New York on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has moved the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act toward a potential September floor vote by filing for cloture just before the chamber left for a month-long recess, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting. The bill is widely seen as a key attempt to formalize crypto market rules, but advocates say the path to enactment remains narrow as senators return with limited calendar time before multiple breaks tied to the November election.
The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.
A rushed legislative runway after a long wait
Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”
Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.
Uncertainty grows around the November election
Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.
For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.
Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely
As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.
The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.
In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.
Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.
What still needs to be solved in the bill
While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.
For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.
As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.
This article was originally published as Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to Enactment on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Itaú, Latin America’s largest private-sector bank, is joining an industry pilot focused on tokenizing Brazil’s fixed-income securities and investment funds, partnering with OpenAssets to test how these assets could work on a distributed ledger technology (DLT) network.
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA) and is designed to evaluate not only the technical feasibility of issuance and trading, but also the practical requirements that institutions face around operations, compliance, and overall system design.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets will develop technical proofs of concept for tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot is organized by ANBIMA and examines issuance, trading, and settlement using DLT in a controlled, simulated setting.
Debentures and investment funds are among the primary tokenization use cases being explored.
ANBIMA’s pilot originally began testing after selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 organizations.
ANBIMA-led pilot expands tokenization testing beyond concept
Tuesday’s announcement places Itaú and OpenAssets inside ANBIMA’s broader effort to test capital markets activities—specifically issuance, trading, and settlement—using distributed ledger technology.
ANBIMA frames the work as an industry-led evaluation rather than a live rollout, with participating groups producing proofs of concept and mapping out how tokenized capital market instruments could fit into existing institutional processes.
That structure matters for markets because the barriers to tokenized assets are often as much operational and regulatory as they are technological. In a bank-led pilot, issues like controls, reconciliation, and compliance workflows can be as consequential as the smart contract design itself.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to test
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will provide the tokenization infrastructure used for the pilot’s technical work. Itaú, meanwhile, is expected to contribute capital markets expertise as the teams explore how tokenized assets could operate within institutional frameworks.
According to the announcement, the companies’ work will focus on developing technical proofs of concept and assessing the operational, compliance, and technology requirements for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are explicitly included among the use cases being examined.
Because the pilot is conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated environment, the activity is intended to test system behavior and requirements without deploying real financial transactions. That approach is often used early on to reduce risk while still exposing the process to realistic constraints.
From 39 proposals to 20 use cases—and why the simulated network matters
ANBIMA previously moved the pilot into its testing phase in April, selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies.
While the announcement does not provide details on how Itaú’s participation changes the existing scope, it does show how quickly the project is attracting large institutional players. The selection step indicates there was already substantial interest across different segments of Brazil’s financial industry, with many groups competing to define what should be tested first.
Running trials on a permissioned network and in a simulated environment is a significant design choice. It allows participants to model how tokenized instruments might be issued, transferred, and settled while keeping the pilot insulated from the risk and complexity of live markets. For investors and market participants watching tokenization efforts, that distinction helps clarify what is being validated: process design and feasibility, not yet market migration or production-grade infrastructure.
RWA momentum continues to rise on public blockchains
Although Itaú’s work is focused on Brazil’s capital markets pilot within a permissioned DLT setting, it lands amid broader momentum for real-world asset tokenization globally.
RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the value of tokenized real-world assets distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year. It rose from around $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of the report, with US Treasury debt the largest category, accounting for more than $16 billion.
That growth highlights a key tension the industry is working through: public blockchain tokenization has seen expanding adoption, while institutional fixed-income and fund tokenization often requires additional layers—legal, operational, and settlement-related—before it can be integrated at scale. Pilots like ANBIMA’s aim to bridge that gap by testing capital markets workflows in a way that aligns with institutional expectations.
What to watch next in Brazil’s tokenization roadmap
Participants will likely focus on whether tokenized debentures and investment funds can be handled with acceptable operational rigor and compliance alignment in the pilot’s proof-of-concept environment. The next signal investors and market observers should look for is how ANBIMA and participating institutions translate those simulated results into clearer requirements for real-world issuance, trading, and settlement.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have filed separate civil lawsuits targeting Goliath Ventures and its founder Christopher Delgado, alleging conduct consistent with a crypto Ponzi scheme that raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.
The SEC’s action focuses on an alleged unregistered securities offering totaling at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says roughly 1,600 customers contributed about $397 million tied to solicitations for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agencies are seeking remedies that include restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and permanent bans—expanding potential consequences beyond a parallel criminal case already moving through the courts.
Key takeaways
The SEC alleges Goliath raised at least $425 million via an unregistered offering and that investor funds were not invested as promised.
According to the SEC, Delgado allegedly diverted at least $51 million for personal use and allegedly fabricated account balances and performance reporting.
The CFTC alleges about $397 million came from approximately 1,600 customers after solicitations connected to crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether.
Both civil suits add securities and commodities-law enforcement actions, potentially enabling broader investor compensation and market bans than the criminal plea alone.
Delgado has agreed to a bifurcated settlement in the SEC case that would impose permanent bars, pending court approval and final determinations on financial penalties.
SEC: Alleged unregistered offering and diverted investor funds
In its complaint, the SEC said Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what it characterized as an unregistered securities offering. The agency alleged that investors were told their money would be placed into crypto liquidity pools, but that “none” of the funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the manner represented.
The SEC further alleged that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. The SEC also said Goliath used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to make earlier payments—an arrangement the agency characterized as inconsistent with the investment strategy sold to participants.
According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns ranging from 3% to 10% and guaranteed investor principal, claiming the returns were generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the company made payments by recycling investor money and fabricated account balances and performance metrics to support the scheme.
The SEC also alleged that commissions were paid to sales agents who recruited investors. The agency said the business eventually faltered after it could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and collapsed—an outcome the SEC said came after the company’s operations turned unsustainable.
CFTC: Commodities-law claims tied to Bitcoin and Ether trading solicitations
Separately, the CFTC said Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether, attracting approximately 1,600 customers and at least $397 million. The agency’s complaint positions the conduct within commodities and trading enforcement frameworks, seeking consequences aimed at restoring losses and preventing continued market participation.
In its civil action, the CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. While the SEC case centers on alleged unregistered securities and the handling of investor capital, the CFTC action reflects the regulator’s view that the underlying promotional and trading-related representations also triggered commodities-law concerns.
Delgado’s SEC settlement and what it does—and doesn’t—end
In the SEC matter, Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval. The deal, as described by the SEC, would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. It would also restrict him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer.
The settlement leaves key financial components to be determined by the court, including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. In practice, this means the case can still produce significant financial exposure, even as certain legal and behavioral restrictions are agreed in principle.
Delgado is also tied to a criminal resolution. The article notes that he previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice has said that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. The DOJ further stated that forfeiture was part of the agreement, covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme.
These developments underscore why the SEC and CFTC actions matter: civil proceedings can pursue investor-focused remedies and broader prohibitions that may not be fully addressed through a plea deal alone. Together, the cases give regulators additional tools to seek compensation, impose penalties, and limit future access to regulated markets.
Why the paired SEC and CFTC cases signal a tougher enforcement stance
Running parallel civil actions under two different federal agencies is notable because it reflects a broader pattern in crypto enforcement: regulators are increasingly willing to frame the same promotional conduct through multiple legal lenses—securities and commodities—depending on how the offering and trading-related representations are structured.
Here, the SEC’s allegations emphasize return guarantees, alleged principal protection, and promised placement into liquidity pools—elements the agency says were used to attract capital under an unregistered offering. The CFTC’s allegations, meanwhile, tie customer solicitations to Bitcoin and Ether trading, supporting its request for trading-specific bans and other restrictions.
For investors watching these cases, one practical takeaway is that “getting the money back” often depends on how quickly courts move on disgorgement, restitution, and related orders. Another is that criminal outcomes do not necessarily close the door to civil enforcement: as the regulators seek permanent injunctions and long-term participation restrictions, the civil cases can continue to shape who is barred from markets even after criminal resolution.
Next, investors and observers will likely focus on court approval of the SEC settlement terms and the final rulings on disgorgement, interest, and penalties, along with how the CFTC case progresses toward relief such as restitution and permanent bans.
This article was originally published as SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Russia’s central bank has drawn up a proposed shortlist of crypto assets that, if approved, could be eligible for trading on regulated platforms under the country’s newly enacted crypto framework. The regulator said the candidate assets include Bitcoin, Ether, and the stablecoin USDT.
The proposal is part of broader rules taking shape after President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Aug. 4 granting the Bank of Russia authority to decide which digital currencies may be admitted to “organized” trading and to set investor-access requirements. The central bank is now inviting public comments on the draft through Aug. 24.
Key takeaways
The Bank of Russia’s draft list names Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether’s USDT as potential candidates for admission to organized exchange trading.
Eligibility is tied to criteria such as market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on overseas markets.
New access rules would cap purchases for non-qualified investors at 300,000 Russian rubles (about $3,650) per year per intermediary, while qualified investors face no such limit.
All investors would need to complete a test and review crypto risk information before trading, regardless of their classification.
The regulator is accepting comments on the proposal until Aug. 24, meaning the draft could change before final rules are set.
Draft eligibility list: what assets could be admitted
In a statement Tuesday, the Bank of Russia said it has compiled a proposed set of crypto assets that could be allowed for public trading on exchanges under the incoming regulatory regime. The announcement, published on the regulator’s website, also specified that the assets must satisfy a number of benchmark conditions.
According to the central bank, those conditions include a requirement tied to market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on international markets. By emphasizing both scale and long-running market data, the approach appears designed to narrow eligibility toward more established assets rather than newer tokens.
Among the named candidates are Bitcoin and Ether—two of the most liquid and widely traded cryptocurrencies globally—as well as USDT, a stablecoin issued by Tether. The inclusion of a major stablecoin signals that the regulator’s framework is not limited strictly to volatile coins, at least at the eligibility stage.
Why the new law changes the regulator’s role
The draft list does not stand alone; it follows a shift in Russia’s regulatory structure created by federal law that took effect after being signed by Putin on Aug. 4. That law gives the Bank of Russia the power to determine which crypto assets can enter organized trading and to create the operating rules for that process.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that the core rules were set to take effect in 2026 as part of the new legal framework. With the central bank now moving to propose an asset list and investor rules, the practical implementation of that authority is beginning to take shape.
For market participants, the key implication is that not all tokens may be treated equally under the same umbrella. The regulator’s criteria—and the fact that eligibility is decided by the central bank—introduces an additional layer of compliance and potentially affects which assets exchanges can list for retail access.
Investor access rules: limits, “qualified” status, and risk testing
Beyond which assets could trade, the Bank of Russia’s proposal also addresses who can buy and how much. Under the draft rules, non-qualified investors would be limited to purchasing up to 300,000 rubles per year (about $3,650) of cryptocurrency through each intermediary. Intermediaries explicitly referenced include brokers, crypto exchange services, and asset managers.
Qualified investors, by contrast, would not face purchase limits for crypto assets traded on exchanges or through over-the-counter markets. The distinction between “qualified” and “non-qualified” investors matters because it shapes the effective scale at which different classes of customers can participate.
Importantly, the Bank of Russia said the framework requires a pre-trade step for everyone. “Before making transactions, all investors, regardless of their status, will have to pass a test and familiarize themselves with the risks of investing in crypto assets,” the central bank stated.
This requirement is designed to apply across the board, potentially limiting impulsive participation by ensuring buyers demonstrate awareness of crypto risk—while still allowing higher-volume activity for those who qualify.
Regulator rationale and what to watch next
The central bank said the restrictions are intended to protect non-qualified investors from sharp and unpredictable crypto price fluctuations. The logic is straightforward: if retail access is permitted, the regulator wants guardrails to reduce the likelihood of outsized losses among less experienced participants.
Russia’s draft also signals where the regulator’s focus may be during implementation. First, asset eligibility appears to rely on objective market metrics and longevity, which may constrain the range of tokens available for public exchange trading. Second, investor limits and required testing could reshape the economics of retail trading—especially if intermediaries must build compliance processes around classification and risk education.
The proposal remains open for public comment until Aug. 24, so investors and industry participants should watch for any changes to the eligibility criteria, the list of assets, or the specifics of the investor test and qualification thresholds.
For now, the central development is clear: Russia’s crypto market is moving toward a regulated structure where both the tradable universe and retail access conditions are determined by the Bank of Russia. The next key moment will be how the regulator responds to feedback and finalizes the framework ahead of full implementation of the new law.
This article was originally published as Russia Proposes Regulated Exchange Trading for Bitcoin, Ether, USDT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have filed separate civil lawsuits targeting Goliath Ventures and its founder, Christopher Delgado, accusing the firm of running a crypto-linked Ponzi scheme that raised roughly $400 million from investors.
The SEC alleges an unregistered securities offering that raised at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says approximately 1,600 customers deposited at least $397 million after Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The civil actions broaden the regulatory and financial consequences beyond Delgado’s already-entered guilty plea in a related criminal case, potentially enabling additional compensation efforts and market bans.
Key takeaways
The SEC claims Goliath raised at least $425 million through an unregistered offering, with customer funds allegedly misused rather than invested as promised.
The CFTC alleges around $397 million was solicited for Bitcoin and Ether trading, with the agency seeking restitution, disgorgement, and penalties.
Delgado has agreed to settle the SEC case in a way that could impose long-term restrictions tied to the securities-law violations in the complaint, pending court approval.
Both agencies’ civil suits aim to expand consequences beyond the criminal case outcome, including investor compensation tools and trading or registration bans.
SEC’s allegations: unregistered offering and diverted funds
According to the SEC, Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what the agency characterizes as an unregistered securities offering. In the SEC’s account, investors were told their capital would be placed into crypto liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that no funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the way described to investors, and that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use.
The SEC further alleges that Goliath told investors it would generate returns of 3% to 10% each month, purportedly funded by fees from traders using its liquidity pools, while also guaranteeing investors’ principal. Instead, the complaint states that the firm used money and crypto assets from newer and existing investors to pay earlier participants and that it allegedly fabricated account balances and performance figures to sustain the scheme.
The SEC also claims Goliath paid commissions to sales agents who recruited investors. It says that by November 2025, the company could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet its obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and ultimately collapsed.
The SEC’s case was filed in a civil posture, and it points to securities-law violations that go beyond what a criminal plea alone may fully address for market conduct and investor remedies. The SEC’s litigation release is available at SEC enforcement documentation.
CFTC case: alleged solicitation for Bitcoin and Ether trading
In a separate action, the CFTC said it received allegations that Goliath solicited funds from about 1,600 customers for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The CFTC stated that those customers contributed at least $397 million.
The CFTC’s complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. Those remedies are aimed at both financial recovery for affected customers and preventing continued misconduct or re-entry into regulated trading activity.
The CFTC announcement is posted at the CFTC press room.
Settlement terms in the SEC case, pending court approval
The SEC states that Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement—meaning parts of the agreement are subject to court approval. The proposed resolution would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the SEC complaint. It would also bar him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and prohibit him from associating with a broker or dealer.
Under the SEC’s description, the court will determine the remaining components including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. While settlements in these cases can limit certain future disputes, the ultimate financial numbers still depend on what the court orders.
The settlement agreement matters to investors because a court-ordered civil remedy can create a pathway for recovery and impose enforceable restrictions that reduce the risk of similar conduct returning through related entities or roles.
How the civil suits build on the criminal case
The civil filings come after Delgado previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The SEC and CFTC actions add securities and commodities-law consequences that can be pursued even when criminal proceedings already concluded certain issues through a plea.
Earlier coverage cited the role of the U.S. Department of Justice in the criminal matter, including a statement that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. That same DOJ process included a forfeiture agreement covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme. These details underscore the breadth of alleged harm and the government’s view that the misconduct involved significant investor funds.
Viewed together, the SEC and CFTC suits reflect how U.S. regulators typically seek to address both investor protection failures and ongoing market integrity risks: criminal cases can punish wrongdoing, while civil actions can impose longer-lasting bans, restrict future participation in regulated activities, and pursue restitution-focused remedies.
What to watch next
The immediate next step is court approval of Delgado’s proposed settlement terms in the SEC case, along with the final determination of disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties. For affected investors, the larger open question is how the SEC and CFTC remedies translate into compensation and whether the civil findings strengthen broader efforts to freeze or recover misappropriated assets.
This article was originally published as SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Fraud on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped in early U.S. trading on Tuesday as investors rotated toward gold, pushing the precious metal to fresh multi-week highs. The move comes as analysts continue to watch whether BTC’s historically observed relationship with gold—often treated as a proxy for “digital gold”—is still holding during periods of heightened macro uncertainty.
Gold rose to $4,435 per ounce, its highest level since June 5, while BTC/USD fell back below $64,000 after failing to sustain a low-timeframe rebound. The broader backdrop included renewed geopolitical risk and firmer oil prices, both of which tend to influence safe-haven demand and risk appetite across asset classes.
Key takeaways
Gold hit $4,435/oz (highest since June 5), while BTC slipped below $64,000 as “safe haven” interest intensified.
Analysts point to a still-active positive correlation between Bitcoin and gold on a 90-day rolling basis.
BTC price action remains capped near the $66,000 area, where a 50-month EMA sits around $65,827 on the daily chart.
The next major catalyst for risk assets is the U.S. CPI report for July, with traders historically bracing for volatility into inflation releases.
Gold’s rally puts Bitcoin on the sidelines
According to TradingView data cited in the report, BTC/USD ended Monday down about 1.5%. The decline was tied to concerns over the U.S.–Iran conflict and a renewed standoff involving the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz oil route. In parallel, U.S. equities largely traded sideways while oil prices surged, with a fresh move upward noted alongside earlier coverage that described oil nearing a 5% gain on Hormuz-related disappointment.
Against that macro backdrop, gold demand strengthened further. The report highlights gold’s jump to $4,435 per ounce, and references earlier focus on Chinese buying for the metal, already a theme in August. When gold performs strongly during uncertain geopolitical conditions, it can draw incremental capital away from risk assets—at least in the short term—creating cross-asset tension for Bitcoin price.
Retail flows into gold ETFs spotlight the “safe haven” shift
A key detail in the story is where the buying is coming from. The report cites data from The Kobeissi Letter indicating that retail investors have been returning to gold exchange-traded products. Specifically, NYSE ARCA-traded SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) reportedly attracted daily retail inflows of $50 million on Aug. 5, the highest single-day figure since mid-March for the largest U.S. physical gold-backed ETF.
The same cited dataset places Aug. 5 total GLD inflows at $637 million, while U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a combined inflow of $244.4 million that day. Kobeissi Letter framed the takeaway on X by noting that, through August, investors had added about $1.4 billion to GLD and that gold appetite appeared to have returned.
For Bitcoin investors, the implication is twofold. First, even if Bitcoin can trade like “digital gold,” the immediate flow of funds may still favor conventional safe havens when retail participation in gold ETFs re-accelerates. Second, because retail is often a late-cycle driver of positioning, the re-emergence of retail demand in gold can signal that investors are not yet fully rotating from protection into risk—or at least not doing so in a way that benefits BTC in the same session.
Correlation with gold remains, but BTC’s technical ceiling is unchanged
Even with gold stealing attention, the report argues that Bitcoin’s linkage to gold hasn’t disappeared. Using 90-day rolling metrics presented by on-chain analytics firm CryptoQuant, it states that Bitcoin’s correlation to gold remains positive on that timeframe. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju also commented on X that the Bitcoin–gold correlation is back to “digital-gold-era levels,” underscoring that the relationship has re-formed after periods when it weakened.
However, correlation alone does not guarantee upside timing. The article points to a separate, more immediate factor: BTC’s technical resistance on lower timeframes. It notes that BTC/USD has been contained by a long-term trend reference point—the 50-month exponential moving average (EMA) at $65,827. Since the beginning of June, the pair has reportedly managed only three daily closes above the 50-month EMA, suggesting a persistent barrier that sellers and leveraged traders are watching.
Range behavior appears to be driving sentiment among short-term market participants. The report cites trader and analyst Michaël van de Poppe saying BTC remains “stuck in this range,” interpreting the recent dip as potentially a liquidity grab from leveraged longs. He also indicated that a bounce toward $64,500 could help prevent any continuation of the sell-off cascade, while a break above $65,800 could raise the odds of a move toward $73,000.
CPI in focus as Bitcoin trades into the next macro test
Wednesday’s U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) print for July is the next major volatility trigger highlighted in the report. The piece notes that crypto markets have historically tended to weaken into major U.S. inflation data releases, while also pointing to an earlier example: July’s softer inflation reading reportedly helped spark daily gains of more than 4% in Bitcoin when traders reacted to the change in expectations.
For traders, this sets up a familiar pattern. If CPI comes in hot, markets can reprice rate expectations, often weighing on high-duration assets like BTC. If CPI surprises softer, it can provide the kind of risk-on impulse that supports a breakout attempt—especially if BTC’s resistance zone near $65,800–$66,000 eventually gives way.
As gold remains elevated and retail ETF inflows appear to support the metal’s safe-haven bid, investors will likely keep a close eye on whether Bitcoin can convert its gold correlation into actual upside—particularly after the CPI print. The next question is straightforward: does BTC break and hold above the $65,800–$66,000 region, or does the macro shock steer flows further toward conventional havens like gold?
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Slips to a One-Week Low as Retail Turns to Gold Buying on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Nasdaq has agreed to acquire LeveL Markets, a major US alternative trading system (ATS), as the exchange operator moves deeper into tokenized and “always-on” trading infrastructure. The deal combines Nasdaq’s push for programmable market structures with LeveL’s institutional execution network, positioning the assets under Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit.
Under the terms announced Tuesday, LeveL Markets will keep operating as a FINRA-regulated ATS with its own management team after the acquisition. Financial details were not disclosed, and the transaction remains subject to regulatory approval.
Key takeaways
Nasdaq will add LeveL Markets’ institutional execution network to its Digital Liquidity Networks initiative focused on tokenization and always-on trading.
LeveL will remain FINRA-regulated as an ATS, preserving its regulatory status and management structure post-acquisition.
The agreement follows Nasdaq’s earlier investment in LeveL (made in 2021) and builds on LeveL’s growth in multi-symbol execution.
Nasdaq’s acquisition aligns with broader industry moves toward longer trading hours and tokenized equity settlement pilots.
Why Nasdaq wants LeveL Markets
Nasdaq says LeveL Markets handles “hundreds of millions” of shares daily and supports more than 2,500 buy- and sell-side clients. The venue operates across more than 7,000 symbols each day, and Nasdaq credits LeveL’s expansion to increased institutional usage—stating it serves more than 300 institutional buy-side firms and that average daily trading volume rose by 56% in 2025.
The acquisition matters for traders and liquidity providers because ATS infrastructure often determines how quickly and efficiently orders are routed and executed across market participants. By folding LeveL into a dedicated digital unit, Nasdaq is effectively tying execution capacity to its larger ambition: building market plumbing that can support tokenization, programmable settlement, and a more continuous trading experience.
LeveL stays an ATS—at least for now
Nasdaq emphasized that LeveL Markets will continue to operate as a FINRA-regulated ATS following the acquisition. It will also keep its own management team, suggesting Nasdaq wants to preserve operational continuity while integrating the network into its broader digital strategy.
Nasdaq will run the combined effort within its Digital Liquidity Networks unit, led by Roland Chai. Nasdaq also noted that Chai has been overseeing its digital assets strategy since earlier this year, placing tokenization and next-generation market design inside a single execution-focused organization.
While financial terms were not shared, the transaction’s stated dependency on regulatory approval is important. Because ATS operations and cross-market integration can raise oversight questions, the final structure will likely determine how quickly both companies can translate their combined capabilities into live tokenized or extended-hour execution use cases.
Nasdaq’s tokenized markets roadmap and the SEC’s moving target
Nasdaq’s interest in LeveL arrives alongside multiple regulatory and product efforts aimed at tokenized equities and longer trading sessions.
According to filings and updates cited by Nasdaq, the exchange first proposed a framework allowing tokenized securities to trade on its exchange in September 2025. A January 2026 SEC filing updating the proposal states that eligible stocks and exchange-traded products could be traded in tokenized form alongside traditional shares, with Depository Trust Company handling tokenization and blockchain-based settlement through a three-year pilot program. (These details are based on SEC documents referenced in the announcement.)
Nasdaq also pointed to a March partnership effort involving Payward (which operates as Kraken), along with tokenization firm Backed, to develop infrastructure intended to link traditional equities markets with blockchain networks.
Beyond Nasdaq, other market operators are reportedly pursuing similar shifts. Cointelegraph earlier noted that Cboe and the London Stock Exchange are pursuing plans for longer trading hours, while the New York Stock Exchange is developing a separate platform for 24/7 trading and onchain settlement of tokenized securities. Those parallel initiatives suggest competition not only for liquidity but for the technical standards that govern how tokenized assets can be traded and settled.
In July, the SEC announced a September 17 roundtable focused on the shift toward 24-hour US equity trading. Cointelegraph’s coverage of the announcement referenced SEC chair Paul Atkins saying, “We are moving towards a new day – and night – in the US equity markets.” That backdrop reinforces why execution network capacity, not just tokenization software, has become a strategic priority for large venues.
Tokenized equities are growing—now execution networks are the bottleneck
Nasdaq framed the LeveL acquisition as part of its push toward programmable, “always-on” markets. It also tied the strategy to broader growth indicators for tokenized equities.
In the past year, Cointelegraph-referenced data from RWA.xyz suggests tokenized equities expanded more than sixfold. The report indicated distributed value rising to nearly $2.5 billion today from around $381 million in August 2025. While that figure is not a measure of how much of that trading occurs on any single venue, it underscores that the category is moving from concept to measurable capital allocation.
As tokenized equities attract more participants, the operational question becomes whether order routing, market-making participation, settlement mechanics, and compliance workflows can handle continuous or near-continuous trading at scale. That is the gap Nasdaq appears to be trying to close by pairing LeveL’s institutional execution network with its digital infrastructure capabilities.
For investors and market participants, the key issue to watch is not only whether tokenized products can be issued and settled, but whether liquidity can be sustained across trading hours—especially as “always-on” narratives meet the realities of regulation, counterparty risk, and operational readiness.
With the acquisition awaiting regulatory approval, the next milestones to track are the integration plan for LeveL Markets inside Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit and how Nasdaq’s tokenized trading proposal and pilots progress alongside broader SEC engagement on 24-hour equities. Those steps will determine how quickly tokenized markets move from growth in distributed value to reliably distributed liquidity.
This article was originally published as Nasdaq to Acquire LeveL Markets to Expand Always-On Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Itaú, the largest private-sector bank in Latin America, is joining an industry pilot to explore how tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds could work in Brazil’s capital markets. The bank has partnered with digital asset infrastructure provider OpenAssets to participate in the testing phase focused on tokenizing real-world securities using distributed ledger technology (DLT).
According to an announcement made on Tuesday, the work will center on technical proofs of concept and an evaluation of the operational, compliance, and technology requirements needed for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are among the use cases being considered as the parties assess how tokenized instruments might fit within existing institutional workflows.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets are participating in an ANBIMA-led pilot to test tokenized fixed-income securities and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot aims to validate the technical feasibility of issuing, trading, and settling capital markets instruments on DLT, along with compliance and operational prerequisites.
Tests are being conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated setting without real financial transactions.
ANBIMA selected 20 pilot use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 institutions and technology firms.
Interest in tokenized real-world assets continues to expand, with RWA.xyz reporting more than doubling in value over the past year.
ANBIMA’s pilot expands beyond concept into controlled testing
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA), which is running a structured pilot to evaluate capital markets activities—issuance, trading, and settlement—using DLT. Unlike public blockchain experiments that rely on live settlement, the pilot is designed around controlled conditions: it uses a private, permissioned network and a simulated environment to test key mechanics without executing actual trades.
ANBIMA selected the pilot’s initial set of 20 use cases in April from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies. Itaú and OpenAssets are now contributing to the effort by developing proofs of concept and examining what it would take for tokenized instruments to operate within institutional and regulatory expectations.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to do
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will supply its tokenization infrastructure. Itaú’s role focuses on bringing capital markets expertise to the testing process, particularly as the partners examine how tokenized assets could be integrated into existing institutional frameworks.
The work is not limited to testing token issuance mechanics. The Tuesday announcement emphasizes that the parties will assess operational requirements, compliance considerations, and broader technology needs for tokenized products. In practice, these evaluations often determine whether tokenization can be deployed without undermining governance, auditability, custody models, or the controls financial institutions rely on for regulated market activity.
Debentures and investment funds are specifically named among the use cases being explored, highlighting that the pilot targets more than a single asset type. That breadth matters for investors and market participants because it can clarify whether one technical approach can generalize across different security structures—or whether separate designs are needed for different product categories.
Where tokenization demand is coming from
While the Brazil pilot remains focused on technical feasibility and institutional requirements, the broader market backdrop continues to draw attention to tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the total value of tokenized RWAs distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year, rising from roughly $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of writing.
According to the same data, US Treasury debt is the largest category, representing more than $16 billion. This concentration suggests that the RWA market—at least in terms of public-chain issuance—has largely started with highly standardized government instruments. The ANBIMA pilot’s focus on Brazilian debentures and investment funds therefore sits at an important junction: it tests whether tokenization approaches can be adapted from relatively uniform instruments to a wider set of capital markets products with distinct legal and operational features.
Why permissioned, simulated DLT matters for institutional adoption
A key detail in the pilot design is the use of a private, permissioned DLT network operating in a simulated environment without real financial transactions. For institutional participants, this approach can accelerate learning while containing risk: participants can evaluate workflow integration, data handling, and settlement logic before moving toward any live environment.
For market watchers, the permissioned and simulated structure also sets expectations around what success looks like. Rather than measuring immediate liquidity or adoption, the pilot’s milestones are likely to be tied to how issuance, trading, and settlement processes can be mapped into tokenized representations—and whether those representations can satisfy compliance and operational constraints under Brazil’s market rules.
What remains uncertain is how quickly any workable model can be translated into production deployments in the real economy. Tokenization pilots often uncover implementation gaps—ranging from data standardization and system integration to control frameworks—that take time to resolve, even when the core DLT mechanics perform as intended.
For readers tracking the tokenization race, the next signal to watch is how ANBIMA and its partners move from technical proofs of concept toward clearer operational and compliance pathways—particularly whether debentures and investment funds can be tokenized in a way that preserves institutional requirements without sacrificing efficiency.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets Platform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Majority Leader John Thune has moved the US Senate toward a potential September vote on the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, using a cloture filing that would allow the sweeping crypto market-structure bill to be considered on the Senate floor. The measure is now set to face a tight procedural and legislative timeline once lawmakers return from a month-long recess.
However, the path to final passage remains uncertain. Senate Democrats and industry stakeholders have flagged key sticking points—including proposed ethics-related language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital-asset connections and additional limits on how crypto firms may offer stablecoin rewards. Even if cloture happens in September, the Senate could still have only limited time to resolve outstanding disputes before the chamber breaks again ahead of the November election.
Key takeaways
Thune filed for cloture on the CLARITY Act shortly before the Senate’s August recess, setting up a possible September floor push.
After lawmakers return on Sept. 14, they would have 14 scheduled session days before another recess tied to the November election calendar.
Major unresolved issues include ethics provisions involving President Trump’s digital-asset ties and restrictions on stablecoin-reward offerings.
If the Senate misses its window, election-year dynamics could further complicate negotiations during the next Congress.
A narrow procedural window after the September return
The Senate is expected to return from recess on Sept. 14, with only 14 days scheduled to be in session before the chamber breaks again ahead of the November election. After that pre-election recess, lawmakers would face another gap—followed by additional time before the end of the year—meaning the practical window for resolving disputes over the CLARITY Act could be measured in weeks rather than months.
Thune’s cloture filing is a procedural step that can bring a bill closer to floor consideration, but it does not settle the substantive questions that have delayed action. According to reporting referenced by Cointelegraph, lawmakers had not publicly announced deals on several provisions that remain contentious.
The stakes for market participants are straightforward: CLARITY is intended to create clearer market-structure rules for digital assets by setting out how responsibilities should be allocated across regulators. Without the bill’s passage, companies and exchanges are left navigating a patchwork of existing regulatory approaches and enforcement-driven expectations.
Why the Senate’s unresolved provisions matter
At the center of the political friction are provisions that would shape the compliance landscape and business models for parts of the crypto industry.
Cointelegraph’s coverage notes that the Senate version of the CLARITY Act has drawn attention to ethics language linked to President Trump’s digital-asset ties. Opponents have previously described the measure as enabling “crypto corruption,” a critique that contributed to scrutiny of earlier versions and broader resistance from many Democrats during the bill’s protracted journey.
Another major point of contention involves additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards. Stablecoin incentives have become a common customer-acquisition and retention tool in parts of decentralized and centralized finance, and limits in this area could affect how issuers and platforms structure programs, marketing, and risk disclosures.
Even if cloture is secured in September, lawmakers would still need time to address these unresolved elements before a potential floor vote—and the calendar may not provide enough runway to find compromises acceptable to both chambers.
How election-year uncertainty could reshape negotiations
The CLARITY Act has already taken more than a year to travel through Congress after the House passed it last year. During that period, the Senate faced multiple disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, along with sustained pushback from within the political system and from industry leaders. Opposition has also been fueled by concerns about conflicts of interest and the ethics framework attached to the legislation, as described in earlier coverage referenced by Cointelegraph.
Looking ahead, a procedural setback in September could carry consequences beyond simple delay. After November, 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election. Election outcomes can significantly affect committee priorities, legislative bandwidth, and which members remain in office—potentially slowing or resetting negotiations into the next Congress.
For investors and operators, election-year uncertainty can be more than a political inconvenience. Regulatory clarity delays often translate into longer periods of compliance experimentation, more reliance on legal interpretations and agency guidance, and greater sensitivity to enforcement risk—even when market activity continues.
Regulators may fill the gap if Congress stalls
With the legislation back in limbo, some market participants are turning their attention to federal agencies—particularly the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—for regulatory signals and rulemaking momentum.
Cointelegraph’s cited reporting indicates that the legislation would be expected to give the CFTC more authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. Still, the broader point for the crypto sector is practical: if lawmakers do not finalize CLARITY, agencies have indicated they can move forward through their own rulemaking or enforcement frameworks.
In a July interview highlighted by Cointelegraph, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress failed to pass CLARITY. Separately, Cointelegraph cited statements from CFTC Chair Michael Selig in April indicating that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for oversight—referring to the expectation of legislative passage that would clarify roles.
Both agencies have also reportedly taken steps to coordinate oversight of financial markets, according to Cointelegraph’s reference to a memo describing efforts to align regulatory approaches. That coordination matters because market structure rules can otherwise become fragmented—leading to inconsistent treatment depending on which regulator asserts primary jurisdiction.
In other words, even without CLARITY, market participants may not be waiting in a vacuum. The question is whether agencies’ actions will provide the kind of stability that a comprehensive market-structure law is designed to deliver.
For now, the most important thing to watch is whether the Senate can convert Thune’s cloture filing into actual floor movement during the post–Sept. 14 schedule—while negotiations continue over ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions; if that narrow window closes, both the political calendar and regulator-driven rulemaking could become the main determinants of how quickly compliance expectations evolve.
This article was originally published as Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill With a Tight Path to Passage on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy CEO Phong Le says the company plans to resume accumulating Bitcoin later this year, despite having sold portions of its BTC holdings earlier in the year—an approach that has attracted investor scrutiny.
In a Monday interview with FOX Business, Le said Strategy purchased about 175,000 Bitcoin since the start of the year while selling roughly 7,000 BTC. He characterized the net flow as “about 25 times more” buying than selling and noted that Strategy has moved from being the world’s second-largest institutional Bitcoin holder to becoming the largest.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it will restart net Bitcoin accumulation later this year after earlier sales.
Le reported ~175,000 BTC bought since the beginning of the year versus ~7,000 BTC sold, implying Strategy remains a major net buyer.
Strategy has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, with the most recent sale totaling 1,690 BTC.
Recent sales have been linked to shareholder payouts and balance-sheet uses, including dividends and share repurchases.
Broader pressure is building on the corporate Bitcoin treasury model as some public companies trade below the net asset value of their BTC.
Strategy’s plan to keep buying, and why the sales matter
Le’s message is direct: despite stepping back from pure accumulation, Strategy intends to increase its BTC exposure again “throughout the course of the year.” That stance arrives after the company diverged from its long-running “never sell” narrative, even if the magnitude of selling appears small relative to its total holdings.
According to the interview, Strategy has accumulated more than 840,000 BTC overall, while still making sales on four occasions since May. The most recent disclosed sale was for 1,690 BTC.
Le’s comments help frame the trade-off Strategy is facing as a public company with ongoing obligations. The company has used proceeds from recent Bitcoin sales for purposes that extend beyond building its BTC treasury—supporting preferred stock dividends, funding share repurchases, and adding to its U.S. dollar reserve.
The tension for investors is straightforward: selling Bitcoin—even when paired with larger net buying—can be seen as a shift in the risk-management and capital allocation logic that originally attracted many BTC-focused shareholders.
From “never sell” to balancing equity and dividends
Market scrutiny has focused on Strategy’s departure from its “never sell” approach. The company’s situation underscores a challenge unique to Bitcoin-heavy treasury models when they operate under traditional public-company constraints.
As a result, Strategy’s capital decisions are not driven by Bitcoin price views alone. Instead, it must weigh requirements tied to common and preferred shareholders alongside its accumulation strategy. The implication is that even firms positioned as long-term Bitcoin holders may still periodically liquidate BTC to meet other corporate finance priorities.
Why the corporate Bitcoin treasury model is under strain
Beyond Strategy specifically, the broader economics of corporate Bitcoin treasuries have been stressed by weaker market conditions. Data cited from BitcoinTreasuries.NET indicates that public companies collectively hold more than 1.26 million BTC, while spot-exposed vehicles such as exchange-traded funds and other funds hold more than 1.6 million BTC.
The treasury model historically gained momentum during a period when corporate Bitcoin holders traded at premiums to the value of their BTC holdings. In that environment, firms could raise capital through equity or debt and then convert that financing into additional Bitcoin, according to analysis referenced from Novaque Research.
But the mechanics worsen when the market assigns a discount. When companies trade below the net asset value of their Bitcoin holdings, new capital raises can dilute existing shareholders more than they did during premium periods. That makes it harder for treasury firms to perpetuate rapid accumulation without creating downside dilution—especially if capital markets are tighter and equity valuation is less supportive.
In other words, even if the long-term thesis remains intact, the near-term path to growth may require more careful balancing between BTC buying and other corporate uses of cash, particularly when the equity story is no longer a simple premium-to-NAV loop.
What to watch next for Strategy and other BTC treasuries
Strategy says it intends to resume accumulation later this year, but investors should monitor whether future buying is funded primarily through balance-sheet decisions (including any further BTC sales) or through renewed access to capital markets. More broadly, the sustainability of corporate Bitcoin treasury expansion may increasingly depend on whether share pricing can recover toward—or at least not deeply undercut—BTC net asset values.
This article was originally published as Strategy CEO Says Firm Will Resume Bitcoin Accumulation This Year on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

ARP Digital, a Bahrain-based institutional digital asset infrastructure provider, has obtained a broker-dealer license from Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA). The approval enables the firm to provide regulated conversions between digital assets and the UAE dirham for eligible clients in the United Arab Emirates.
According to ARP Digital, the license is designed for UAE-based corporates, capital markets participants and qualified investors, including conversions involving stablecoins and dirhams. The company also positions the approval as a regulated route for institutions to convert digital asset capital for deployment into local UAE investments.
Key takeaways
ARP Digital secured a VARA broker-dealer license, allowing regulated digital asset-to-dirham conversions in Dubai.
Conversions can include stablecoins and UAE dirhams, targeting corporates, capital markets players and qualified investors.
The license expands ARP Digital’s regulated footprint in the Gulf, following its authorization in Bahrain.
Dubai’s VARA continues expanding its licensed market structure, with additional broker-dealer approvals reported alongside this move.
Broker-dealer approval for regulated UAE conversions
ARP Digital said the VARA broker-dealer license authorizes it to offer regulated “conversions between digital assets and the UAE dirham.” In practical terms, that matters for institutions seeking compliant on-ramps and off-ramps, particularly where stablecoins are used as a bridge asset between fiat and crypto exposure.
The firm’s stated scope includes both sides of the process: converting between stablecoins and dirhams, and providing a structured pathway for institutions to repurpose digital asset capital into investments tied to the local UAE market.
Bahrain license underpins the Gulf expansion
The VARA approval is described by ARP Digital as its second regulated Gulf market access point. In Bahrain, the company says it is licensed by the Central Bank of Bahrain and has handled more than $3.5 billion in processed volume for over 450 institutional and corporate counterparties.
ARP Digital also claims fourfold year-over-year growth in 2025 in its Bahrain operations. While the figures are company-provided, the broader implication for investors and institutions is clear: the firm is leveraging an existing regulated track record to extend similar infrastructure capabilities into Dubai’s expanding regulatory framework.
Institutional infrastructure beyond conversions
ARP Digital’s offering is not limited to fiat-crypto exchange services. The company lists institutional capabilities including:
Over-the-counter (OTC) liquidity for large trades
Cross-border settlement
Fiat on- and off-ramps
Wealth management
This matters because regulated conversion licenses can be a prerequisite for broader institutional workflows—particularly those that involve clearing requirements, risk controls, and compliance-oriented client onboarding. For market participants, the ability to access regulated routes for stablecoin and digital asset exposure can reduce operational friction compared with ad-hoc counterparties.
Dubai’s regulatory momentum and related broker-dealer approvals
The news arrives as Dubai continues to widen the perimeter of its regulated digital asset sector. VARA, established in 2022, regulates the provision, use and exchange of virtual assets in and from Dubai. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that VARA issued its 50th virtual asset service provider license in July.
Competition and market depth are also being shaped by new approvals. On Tuesday, Flowdesk—described as a crypto market maker backed by Coinbase Ventures and BlackRock—received a full VARA broker-dealer license. That authorization enables Flowdesk to serve qualified and institutional investors in and from Dubai.
Taken together, the sequence suggests VARA is not only expanding the number of licensed entities but also deepening the institutional services available under its framework—an important factor for liquidity, pricing efficiency, and the maturation of regulated crypto rails in the UAE.
What to watch next
With ARP Digital now licensed to conduct regulated stablecoin and digital asset conversions into UAE dirhams, institutions active in the region will likely focus on how quickly the firm ramps operational capacity, expands counterparties, and integrates its conversion services with broader OTC and settlement offerings. Observers should also track how VARA continues to scale licensing and enforce requirements as the Dubai market grows more crowded with specialized broker-dealers.
This article was originally published as ARP Digital Wins Dubai VARA License as Broker-Dealer on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FlightAware, the aviation data company behind real-time flight tracking and status updates, has sued Kalshi in New York federal court over Kalshi’s use of FlightAware’s “data and name” to power prediction market contracts tied to flight cancellations. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, accuses Kalshi of continuing to list event contracts using FlightAware’s registered trademark and purportedly “verified” flight-cancellation information despite repeated demands to stop.
The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.
Key takeaways
FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.
Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center
According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.
FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.
“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”
The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.
Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument
While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.
FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.
On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:
“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“
“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“
The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.
Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US
FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.
Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.
Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.
Market dominance and scale add pressure
The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.
At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.
Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation Data on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

eToro has outlined a new step in its push to broaden beyond crypto by announcing plans to acquire US online brokerage TradeZero. The deal is positioned as part of the company’s expansion strategy in the United States, with closing expected in the first half of 2026.
In parallel with the acquisition announcement, eToro’s second-quarter update showed crypto trading and revenues under pressure. The company reported $1.59 billion in total revenue for the quarter, with crypto assets contributing $1.34 billion—down roughly 30% from $1.9 billion in the prior-year comparable quarter. While crypto revenue fell, eToro also reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets, alongside $53.4 million in total net income.
Key takeaways
eToro plans to acquire TradeZero to accelerate its US expansion, targeting closing in the first half of 2026.
In Q2, crypto remained the largest revenue stream for eToro at $1.34 billion, but it fell about 30% year over year.
Crypto net income was positive at $19.7 million for the quarter, even as overall crypto trades and invested amounts declined sharply in July.
The company reported strong cross-asset engagement: many users who traded commodities later traded equities and then crypto on eToro.
TradeZero reportedly generated about $80 million in revenue over the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026, with 81% gross margins.
Why eToro wants TradeZero in its US strategy
The acquisition of TradeZero is framed by eToro as a practical move to become a broader multi-asset platform in the United States. The focus on US brokerage capabilities comes as the firm works to deepen trading relationships across asset classes, rather than relying solely on digital-asset activity.
eToro also previously signaled similar intent in crypto infrastructure: in April, it announced plans to acquire self-custodial wallet provider Zengo. Taken together, the company’s approach appears to combine more traditional brokerage reach (through TradeZero) with continuing investment in crypto custody and user access (through Zengo).
Crypto performance remains the swing factor
Despite the company’s ongoing multi-asset push, crypto continues to dominate the revenue mix. In its second-quarter report, eToro said total revenue came in at $1.59 billion, down from $2 billion in the comparable 2025 period. Of that amount, $1.34 billion was revenue from crypto assets, which the company said was about 30% lower than $1.9 billion in Q2 2025.
eToro reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets. Total net income for the quarter was $53.4 million, indicating that losses or reductions in crypto activity did not fully translate into an overall earnings collapse—though the numbers highlight how sensitive the business remains to the direction of crypto volumes and fees.
The broader trading picture also weakened after the quarter. According to eToro’s disclosures, total cryptocurrency trades on the platform fell to 1.4 million in July, representing a 73% year-on-year decline. The invested amount was down 50% over the same period, reinforcing that reduced trading activity has been affecting both the number of transactions and the size of positions.
Cross-asset engagement and the commodities-to-crypto funnel
Alongside crypto-specific declines, eToro highlighted user behavior that could support its multi-asset thesis. In commentary attributed to its financial leadership, the company said that more than 60% of users who traded commodities during Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 later traded equities in Q2 2026. It added that nearly nine in ten of those users have also traded crypto on eToro.
This matters because it suggests eToro is attempting to build a funnel where initial engagement in one asset category can lead to additional trading across other categories. If TradeZero helps expand access to US equities and other traditional brokerage products, eToro may be betting that increased equity trading will feed back into crypto usage—offsetting parts of the volatility in digital-asset demand.
eToro also reported that equities and commodities-related trading generated $141 million in net income for the platform, providing another anchor outside crypto revenue even as crypto volumes cooled.
Deal economics: TradeZero’s margins and expected earnings impact
From the perspective of deal structure, eToro provided figures intended to show that TradeZero could strengthen the business rather than dilute it. The company stated that TradeZero generated about $80 million of revenue with 81% gross margins in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026.
Looking ahead, eToro said it expects the acquisition to be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year after closing. Closing is expected in the first half of 2026, meaning the earliest period for the claimed benefit would likely follow shortly thereafter.
Market reaction to the announcement appeared cautious. eToro’s Nasdaq-traded shares were down more than 5% in pre-market activity on Tuesday, with the move expected to extend Monday’s decline according to Yahoo Finance data for ETOR.
What to watch next
Investors and users will likely focus on whether the TradeZero acquisition helps stabilize revenues as crypto volumes fluctuate, and on whether eToro can translate its reported cross-asset engagement into sustained trading activity in the US. In the meantime, July’s sharp drop in crypto trades and invested amounts remains a key signal for how quickly digital-asset performance can change the company’s quarterly outlook.
This article was originally published as eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Dubai-based maritime tokenization platform, Shipfinex, has teamed up with Abu Dhabi blockchain network ADI Chain to test how vessel-linked assets could be represented and financed on-chain. The partners say they are tokenizing a pipeline of roughly 35 vessels valued at about $500 million, aiming to create additional funding options for shipowners.
The concept centers on placing the vessels into separate special-purpose vehicles (SPVs). Tokens would then be issued to reflect economic exposure to each ship—potentially structured as vessel-backed credit, charter-related income, or other rights tied to the underlying assets. ADI Chain is expected to handle the distribution and settlement layer, with primary allocations and distributions planned to use stablecoins denominated in UAE dirham, US dollars, and other currencies.
Key takeaways
Shipfinex and ADI Chain are piloting tokenization of a vessel pipeline worth about $500 million across around 35 ships.
The structure uses separate SPVs per vessel, with tokens representing ship-specific economic interests such as credit or charter income.
ADI Chain will provide the stablecoin-oriented distribution and settlement infrastructure for the pilot.
The project is still in an operational readiness stage, with no Maritime Asset Tokens publicly issued yet and the regulated issuance route still being finalized.
The announcement aligns with broader growth forecasts for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), including Standard Chartered’s estimate that the sector could reach $4 trillion by end-2028.
How the pilot is structured: SPVs and ship-linked tokens
Tokenizing shipping assets is notoriously complex, largely because the industry is fragmented and ship-level cash flows can vary widely depending on charter terms, routes, and financing arrangements. Shipfinex’s approach, as described in the announcement, attempts to translate that complexity into a modular on-chain wrapper: each vessel is moved into its own SPV, and tokens are intended to map to the economics of that specific vehicle.
That could matter for investors and lenders because it potentially enables more granular exposure than traditional fund structures—at least in theory—letting market participants choose how they want to participate in a given ship’s revenue stream or credit profile. The partners have also framed the tokens as potentially representing vessel-backed credit, charter-linked income, or other interests, suggesting room for multiple payoff designs depending on the underlying deal economics.
Stablecoin settlement: why ADI Chain’s role matters
ADI Chain, based in Abu Dhabi, is described as the partner providing distribution and settlement infrastructure. The planned use of currency-denominated stablecoins—specifically UAE dirham- and US dollar-linked assets, plus additional denominations—signals that the settlement model is being built to reduce friction in cross-currency payments, which is a common challenge in international shipping finance.
For market participants, stablecoin settlement can also influence how quickly transactions clear and how tokenized positions can be serviced operationally. Even so, the project’s success will likely depend on the operational details of issuance, custody, and investor onboarding, especially given the regulatory process the partners say remains unfinished.
Still in a pilot: issuance route not finalized
While the partnership outlines a significant vessel pipeline, it is important that the project is not yet live in terms of publicly issued tokens. The arrangement is described as being in a pilot and operational-readiness phase. The partners state that Maritime Asset Tokens have not been publicly issued and that the regulated issuance pathway is still being finalized.
This staging matters because tokenization efforts in RWAs can fail at different points: legal structuring, regulatory approvals, or the practical ability to support ongoing distributions and compliance. By highlighting that the regulated issuance route is still under development, Shipfinex and ADI Chain appear to be treating the first phase as a test of readiness rather than an immediate launch of investable tokens.
Investors watching similar initiatives may therefore want to track what changes next—particularly whether the pilot culminates in a formally approved issuance structure, and how ongoing payments tied to charter activity or credit terms are operationalized.
RWA tokenization momentum: from shipping to broader forecasts
The shipping pilot comes as tokenized RWAs continue to attract attention across traditional finance and crypto-native infrastructure. RWA.xyz data cited in the report indicates that assets tracked on its platform totaled about $38.1 billion as of Aug. 9. Within that figure, US Treasury debt accounts for roughly $16.2 billion and commodities about $4.9 billion.
Standard Chartered’s outlook also points to continued expansion. In a report released Monday, the bank forecast that tokenized RWAs could reach $4 trillion by the end of 2028, according to Geoff Kendrick, the global head of digital asset research at the bank. The scale of that projection suggests that the market is expected to grow beyond early niches—though it also underlines the difference between long-term forecasts and near-term, pilot-stage delivery.
In shipping specifically, the scale remains small relative to the total addressable market. The announcement cites Clarksons Research data valuing the world fleet and orderbook at about $2.1 trillion at the start of 2026. Compared with that estimate, the $500 million vessel pipeline represents a limited slice—meaning this pilot is likely best viewed as a proof-of-process and market test rather than a near-term transformation of shipping finance.
Still, even incremental moves can be significant in RWAs if they demonstrate repeatable mechanics: asset segregation, token-to-cashflow mapping, stablecoin-based settlement, and the ability to maintain compliance over time. That is precisely where pilots tend to earn or lose momentum.
For readers, the key next indicators to watch are whether Shipfinex and ADI Chain progress from operational readiness to a clearly defined regulated issuance route, and how they handle the practicalities of ongoing distributions tied to ship-level economics—especially once any tokens transition from closed testing to broader market participation.
This article was originally published as ADI Chain and Shipfinex Partner to Tokenize $500M Vessel Pipeline on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.