Crypto Breaking

A reported “white hat” actor has taken nearly 4,000 Bitcoin worth about $319 million from the Liquid Network, according to an incident update posted by the Blockstream-run sidechain community. Liquid subsequently paused bridge operations and asked exchanges to stop both LBTC deposits and withdrawals while it investigates what went wrong.
Liquid Network says the withdrawal was executed via SideSwap using a Peg-out Authorization Key, while insisting that the key used was not compromised. Still, the federation wallet balance shown in Liquid’s explorer dropped sharply—from roughly 4,200 BTC to about 207.275 BTC—prompting renewed scrutiny of how Liquid’s peg security functions when something unusual bypasses expected controls.
Key takeaways
Liquid says bridge nodes were disabled temporarily, effectively pausing the Liquid sidechain until the issue is resolved.
The incident involved an LBTC peg-out executed through SideSwap, with Liquid stating the Peg-out Authorization Key was not compromised.
Liquid told exchanges to pause LBTC deposits and withdrawals while the team attempts to contact the actor and assess security gaps.
An OP_RETURN message claimed the funds were extracted by “whitehats,” but neither the claim nor the technical details are fully verified publicly.
Liquid freezes bridge activity after a major LBTC outflow
According to the initial reporting in Liquid Network’s incident communications, a “shade under 4000 Bitcoin” worth approximately $319 million was withdrawn from Liquid. Liquid Network also referenced an unverified on-chain message—via OP_RETURN—asserting responsibility and asking to be contacted “on chain.”
In response, Liquid disabled bridge nodes, stating this stops any new transactions from being submitted to the network. The operational consequence is straightforward: without bridge nodes, the sidechain’s peg mechanics can’t continue normally, which is exactly what traders and exchanges need when a suspected peg-out route may be functioning unexpectedly.
“Bridge nodes have been temporarily disabled, so no new transactions can be submitted to the network. Effectively, the Liquid sidechain is paused until this issue is resolved.”
How Liquid’s peg-out is supposed to work—and what the incident challenges
Under standard Liquid mechanics, LBTC is burned on the sidechain before Bitcoin is released on the main chain. The withdrawal flow depends on authorization rules that require a multisignature setup (Liquid describes this as 11-of-15 multisig functionaries) and a whitelist for approvals.
That structure is meant to prevent exactly the kind of unauthorized peg-out that would drain funds from the federation wallet. The incident therefore raises questions that go beyond the size of the withdrawal: it challenges whether the controls around approvals and whitelisting performed as intended, or whether there is an unexpected pathway in the way approvals are generated and executed.
Crypto analyst DBCrypto argued that the behavior appears more consistent with an extraction that leaves funds “sitting on Bitcoin” rather than being rapidly mixed, describing it as potentially closer to “whitehat extraction than theft.” At the same time, DBCrypto said the broader security implications remain serious: either the required signatures and authorization logic were effectively satisfied, or the whitelist/control mechanisms designed to block such events did not hold.
SideSwap role and Liquid’s assertion about key security
Liquid said the withdrawn funds were sent via Sideswap, specifically through the SideSwap PAK (Peg-out Authorization Key). In Liquid’s statement, the PAK used in the transaction was not compromised, and it claimed that no other related keys were compromised either.
Liquid also reported that it had already established how the LBTC involved in the order was created—through a bug in Elements software. While the incident details in the public account focus on the peg-out authorization process and the status of the key, the Elements reference matters because it suggests the failure may have started earlier than the final Bitcoin withdrawal itself.
For market participants, the key implication is practical: if an Elements-level bug can affect how LBTC is created or approved for peg-out, then the operational risk isn’t confined to a single malicious transaction. Instead, it may require a broader review of how sidechain issuance and peg-out eligibility interact, and how those conditions are validated before bridge processing is allowed to resume.
What to watch as Liquid and related operators investigate
Liquid and its ecosystem appear to be working through a familiar incident sequence: identify which steps deviated from expected behavior, confirm whether any authorization keys were actually compromised, and determine what fixes or compensating controls are necessary before restarting bridge functions.
At the time of the provided coverage, Blockstream and Adam Back had not posted public updates on the incident timeline, but Samson Mow (Jan3 CEO) said “everyone is actively working to resolve this.” The immediate items for users and exchanges are likely straightforward—follow Liquid’s instructions to pause LBTC deposits and withdrawals until the bridge is re-enabled and the underlying security question is addressed.
Until Liquid publishes more technical detail on the peg-out authorization flow, the nature of the Elements bug, and why the multisig/whitelist protections were insufficient (or circumvented), the central uncertainty will remain the same: whether this was a one-off exploitation path or a systemic weakness that could reappear in other peg operations. Readers should watch for the moment bridge nodes return and for any concrete post-mortem describing exactly which authorization or validation step failed.
This article was originally published as Hodler’s Digest: White-hat whale moves 4,000 BTC; spot ETFs top 2026 inflows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

XRP climbed roughly 6% in a single trading session, pushing its price back above $1.45. The move followed dovish comments from Federal Reserve officials, and it lifted the broader crypto market with it. Traders now point to $10 as a long-term target for XRP, a figure that seemed unrealistic only weeks ago.
The rally stems from shifting expectations around Fed interest rate policy. Risk assets across markets caught a bid as traders priced in a friendlier rate path ahead. XRP’s 24-hour trading volume held near $4 billion, and its market cap settled around $90.9 billion.
That volume places XRP firmly among the largest cryptocurrencies by market presence. Rate-cut speculation has shifted throughout the week, and that uncertainty spilled directly into XRP price action. An August surge took XRP from $1 to $1.70, a 70% jump, and set the stage for the current rebound.
XRP Faces Key Resistance After Its August Correction
XRP corrected 20% after that August peak, sliding into a $1.35–$1.38 range. That zone has since become the support level bulls are defending. XRP now trades near $1.45, sitting comfortably above that band.
The 200-day exponential moving average sits close behind, between $1.33 and $1.35. That level offers bulls a cushion if selling pressure returns. Trading volume near $5.5 billion suggests real participation rather than a thin, short-lived spike.
Chart patterns still show a descending triangle stretching back to August’s $1.70 high. XRP is bouncing off triangle support, but it hasn’t broken through resistance yet. A hold above $1.34 would set up a retest of the $1.55 level next.
A clean break past resistance could open a path toward $1.60 to $1.90. Alternatively, XRP could consolidate between $1.38 and $1.52 while markets digest new data. A drop below $1.30 would risk a deeper pullback, especially around upcoming jobs figures.
Speculation about a potential XRP ETF continues to feed talk of a $10 price target. That timeline, however, remains unconfirmed and speculative for now. Institutional demand has reportedly grown beneath the surface, adding some support to bullish arguments.
Bitcoin Hyper Presale Draws Attention as XRP Holds Its Range
A 6% to 7% bounce benefits current XRP holders, but scaling further presents a steeper challenge. XRP’s $90 billion market cap means doubling in value requires substantial new capital. That kind of move typically unfolds over months, not days or weeks.
Smaller, early-stage tokens face a different math problem entirely. Bitcoin Hyper (HYPER) has emerged as one project drawing interest in that category. It positions itself as a Bitcoin Layer 2 network with full SVM integration built in.
The project aims for execution speeds faster than Solana while settling transactions back to Bitcoin’s base layer. Its presale has raised $33.1 million so far, with tokens priced at $0.0136857 each. Staking rewards during the presale period are advertised at over 60% annual percentage yield.
The project also highlights a decentralized bridge for moving Bitcoin across networks. Low-latency Layer 2 processing is designed to address Bitcoin’s limited programmability. As with any presale-stage project, these figures come from the project’s own promotional materials and remain unverified by independent audits.
This article was originally published as Xrp Rallies Past $1.45 As Fed Signals Fuel Broad Crypto Gains on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin rewards mined in March 2010—now moving after more than 16 years from long-dormant wallets—have triggered fresh debate over whether the earliest coins could be tied to Satoshi Nakamoto. On Saturday, multiple addresses that together held about 600 BTC (worth roughly $48 million) transferred funds after an inactivity stretch spanning well over a decade and a half, according to onchain data reviewed by Cointelegraph.
The latest movement is getting attention because it falls within the period when Nakamoto was still active in Bitcoin’s early development. But blockchain sleuthing by Whale Alert points to a different conclusion: the company says it found no link between these specific mining blocks and Nakamoto.
Key takeaways
About 600 BTC moved from dormant Bitcoin addresses after more than 16 years, with Cointelegraph tracing the activity to onchain monitoring reports.
Whale Alert attributes the funds to block rewards from March 2010, when the per-block subsidy was 50 BTC.
Whale Alert says its research cannot connect any of the 12 relevant mining blocks to Satoshi Nakamoto.
The same incident builds on Whale Alert’s earlier work that covered seven of the rewards, now expanded to all 12.
Lookonchain previously identified seven miner wallets tied to the March 2010 mining period, reinforcing the timeline.
Whale Alert expands its mapping of the March 2010 rewards
Whale Alert’s follow-up research, as reported to Cointelegraph, identifies all 12 reward events behind the dormant funds. The transfers originate from Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010, when each mined block paid a 50 BTC subsidy. Over time, that subsidy has been reduced through Bitcoin’s scheduled halving process.
Most recently, the subsidy fell in April 2024, when Bitcoin’s block reward decreased from 6.25 BTC to the current 3.125 BTC per block, following Bitcoin’s 2024 halving. While that historical note doesn’t change the origin story of the dormant coins, it helps contextualize why coins mined in early 2010 were so much larger per block than today’s issuance.
Whale Alert previously analyzed only seven of the rewards and said in an X post that those blocks were not mined by Nakamoto. This latest work extends the company’s tracing to the full set of 12 reward blocks connected to Saturday’s wallet activity.
Where the “Satoshi” speculation comes from—and why Whale Alert disputes it
Speculation intensified because the moved coins are “Satoshi-era” rewards—mined while Nakamoto was still participating in Bitcoin communications and development. Nakamoto’s involvement didn’t end abruptly; the individual continued to be present in the project through 2010 and then gradually withdrew. Cointelegraph previously reported that the last known communication dates to April 2011.
However, Whale Alert argues that timing alone is not enough to claim a link to Nakamoto. A Whale Alert spokesperson told Cointelegraph that none of the blocks tied to the 12 rewards can be connected to Satoshi based on its research. In other words, although the coins are old enough to keep the mythic connection alive, Whale Alert’s mapping does not support the origin claim.
For traders and long-term holders, the practical takeaway is that “old coins” and “Satoshi-era” are not the same as “Satoshi coins.” The distinction matters because narratives about Nakamoto-linked holdings often feed into heightened speculation, even when the underlying evidence is absent or inconclusive.
Inactivity broke: test-transaction pattern and wallet behavior
Whale Alert also provided interpretive context for how the transfers unfolded. The company noted that one of the 12 reward payments moved several blocks before most of the others. Whale Alert suggested this sequencing resembles a test transaction—followed by later transfers from the remaining related addresses—rather than a single coordinated sweep.
That behavioral detail matters because it influences how observers read the motive behind dormant-wallet activity. A test transaction implies the sender may have been verifying rules or pathways before moving larger amounts, whereas a single immediate consolidation typically points to a different kind of operational intent. Without access to private keys or additional offchain context, onchain pattern analysis is the closest available lens.
Cointelegraph also notes that Lookonchain previously identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after about 16.5 years of inactivity, attributing those wallets to March 2010 mining. Taken together, the overlap in timing supports that the dormant activity is tied to the early mining subsidy period, even if the participants remain anonymous.
What to watch next as “early coins” come back online
These movements are a reminder that Bitcoin’s early distribution still occasionally reappears on public ledgers—sometimes after extraordinary inactivity. Even when those events are not linked to Nakamoto, they can still matter: large-value transfers from long-dormant addresses can shift sentiment around supply dynamics and may drive short-term speculation about whether more old holdings will move.
For now, the key uncertainty is whether additional related wallets—connected to other early mining outputs—will remain silent or follow this pattern. Investors and traders should watch for follow-on transactions from adjacent early-era addresses and for further onchain attribution work that either corroborates or refines the “which blocks were mined by whom” questions.
This article was originally published as Satoshi-Era Bitcoin Moves After 16 Years Dormant, 600 BTC Shift on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coins mined in Bitcoin’s earliest era have finally stirred after more than 16 years of inactivity, prompting fresh speculation that they could be tied to Satoshi Nakamoto. According to on-chain analysis highlighted by Cointelegraph, 12 dormant Bitcoin addresses collectively moved 600 BTC on Saturday—an amount currently valued around $48 million.
While the timing has fueled “Satoshi-era” narratives, Whale Alert’s research claims it found no evidence linking the transactions to Nakamoto. The platform says the moved funds trace back to block rewards earned during March 2010, when Satoshi was still actively involved with the project’s early development and communications—before gradually stepping back.
Key takeaways
On-chain data reviewed by Cointelegraph shows 12 Bitcoin addresses moved a total of 600 BTC after more than 16 years of dormancy.
Whale Alert traced the 600 BTC to mining rewards paid across 12 Bitcoin blocks in March 2010, each originally issued as a 50 BTC subsidy.
Whale Alert says none of those blocks can be connected to Satoshi Nakamoto based on its analysis.
Prior work by Whale Alert covered only seven of the rewards, while Lookonchain had earlier identified seven miner wallets moving 350 BTC.
The fact that the coins were mined while Nakamoto was still involved is driving attention—but “same era” is not the same as “same owner.”
Early blocks, long dormancy, and a sudden wake-up
The renewed activity centers on a cluster of very old wallets that had not shown movement for over a decade and a half. Cointelegraph reports that 12 addresses collectively moved 600 BTC after more than 16 years. Whale Alert, a blockchain transaction tracking platform, said the amount originated from rewards mined across 12 distinct Bitcoin blocks.
For investors and on-chain observers, these kinds of “awakening” events matter because they can create a brief narrative spike: dormant supply can look like potential future sell pressure, even when no immediate market impact is confirmed. In this case, the key question is not just that the coins moved, but where they came from—and who may have controlled them.
Whale Alert told Cointelegraph that its research did not find a link between the mined blocks and Nakamoto. This point is important: speculation often increases when activity occurs during a period associated with Nakamoto’s involvement, but attribution claims require more than chronology.
Whale Alert expands its tracing from seven to twelve rewards
Whale Alert’s updated work reportedly traces all 12 block rewards to Bitcoin blocks mined in March 2010. At that time, the protocol paid a 50 BTC block subsidy per block. Since then, the subsidy has been reduced repeatedly through halvings; the most recent reduction referenced in the report came in April 2024, when the block subsidy fell from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC per block.
The analysis also builds on Whale Alert’s earlier effort. Cointelegraph notes that Whale Alert had previously examined seven of the rewards and said it identified those blocks as not mined by Nakamoto. In the updated accounting, Whale Alert now extends its tracing to cover the remaining five rewards as well.
Independent on-chain analytics had already surfaced part of the story. Cointelegraph says Lookonchain initially identified seven miner wallets that moved 350 BTC after 16.5 years of inactivity, attributing the funds to mining activity in March 2010. Taken together, the different layers of analysis underscore a consistent theme: these were mining rewards from early blocks—not some later token swap or unrelated transfer.
Why “Satoshi-era” is a tempting narrative—and a weak proof
The movement drew attention largely because March 2010 sits squarely in the period when Satoshi Nakamoto was still active in Bitcoin development and communications. Cointelegraph points to Nakamoto’s involvement continuing through 2010, with the last known communication dating to April 2011.
However, the editorial distinction here matters: “mined during the time Nakamoto was around” does not automatically mean “controlled by Nakamoto.” Whale Alert’s spokesperson emphasized that none of the blocks associated with the 12 rewards could be connected to Nakamoto based on its research.
Cointelegraph also reports a behavioral detail that further complicates simple attribution. Whale Alert said one of the rewards moved several blocks before most of the others, suggesting the early transfer pattern could align with a test transaction preceding the rest of the movements. In other words, even if multiple rewards originate from the same month and subsidy era, the way the coins were handled over time may reflect operational behavior rather than a single, easily identifiable owner.
What to watch next after these long-dormant transfers
When ancient Bitcoin moves, the immediate on-chain fact is clear—coins changed hands from addresses that had been silent for years. What remains uncertain is the economic intent behind the transfers: whether these movements represent consolidation, internal housekeeping, or preparations that could later involve liquidation.
For readers monitoring these developments, the most practical next step is to track where the 600 BTC ultimately flows after the initial movement, and whether any portion returns to new dormant addresses or heads toward exchanges. The “Satoshi” question may remain speculative without stronger evidence, but the real signal for market participants will be the downstream path of the coins and how quickly—if at all—the revived supply reaches liquidity.
This article was originally published as Satoshi-Era Bitcoin Reactivates After 16 Years as 600 BTC Moves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Singapore-based Bitcoin mining company BitFuFu has increased its Bitcoin treasury to 1,373 BTC, highlighting a renewed focus on holding the digital asset even as the miner continues to navigate weaker mining economics and pressure on revenue.
The latest accumulation marks a notable shift from periods when the company sold part of its Bitcoin reserves to finance operations and expand mining capacity. BitFuFu’s recent financial performance has underscored the challenges facing miners as Bitcoin prices, network difficulty, and demand for cloud-mining services affect profitability.
Key Takeaways
BitFuFu’s Bitcoin treasury has reached 1,373 BTC.
The company previously used Bitcoin sales to support operations and procure additional mining capacity.
Second-quarter revenue fell 62.9% year over year to $42.8 million.
BitFuFu has been rebuilding its managed hashrate after significantly reducing capacity earlier in the year.
Bitcoin Treasury Takes Greater Importance
BitFuFu’s treasury strategy has evolved alongside its mining operations. In May 2025, the company held 1,709 BTC after selling 178 BTC during Bitcoin’s then-record price levels.
CEO Leo Lu said the sales were part of a broader effort to manage liquidity while maintaining the company’s long-term exposure to Bitcoin.
“With a more constructive Bitcoin market environment and a significantly expanded operating base, we are well positioned to capture improving market opportunities in the months ahead.”
This article was originally published as Singapore’s BitFuFu Accumulates More Bitcoin, Pushing Treasury Holdings to 1,373 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Orionx, a Chilean cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after discovering a custodial shortfall that Orionx says is tied to assets leaving wallets the exchange did not manage. The company said it has started a permanent closure process and is temporarily suspending withdrawals while it works to return funds to clients.
In a statement posted on X, Orionx said a forensic audit found that more than $7 million in custodial assets recorded in the exchange’s systems had moved to wallets not controlled by Orionx. “Our sole priority now is to return as much of our clients’ assets as possible,” the exchange said.
Key takeaways
Orionx began permanent closure after a forensic review identified a custody mismatch involving over $7 million.
Withdrawals are temporarily suspended as the exchange moves to return client assets.
The company did not disclose when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint referenced activity between 2018 and 2021.
Orionx accused former co-founders of alleged access to custody systems and denied wrongdoing by the accused parties.
Tether led Orionx’s Series A in June 2025, underscoring how quickly the fallout can arrive even after major investment.
A custody mismatch triggers a shutdown
Orionx’s announcement did not provide specifics on the timing of the discrepancy or how the issue was first uncovered. However, the exchange said it initiated a permanent closure process following forensic findings that compared Orionx’s internal records with onchain data linked to its custody addresses.
The external audit, according to reporting cited in a criminal complaint, concluded that balances maintained in Orionx’s systems exceeded the assets actually held at the custody addresses for several cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). Orionx said these funds had been moved to wallets it did not manage.
For customers, the practical impact is immediate: withdrawals are currently paused while Orionx attempts to reconcile records and return what it can. The lack of disclosed timing in the company’s public post also leaves outside observers with an incomplete picture of when customers may have been most exposed to the custody gap.
What Orionx says it found, and what remains unclear
According to Orionx and related reporting, the exchange’s review started in the context of compliance efforts tied to Chile’s Fintech Law. Orionx reportedly carried out an internal operational review in 2025 and brought in financial professionals, as described by La Tercera, citing the company’s criminal complaint.
La Tercera reported that on Aug. 27 Orionx’s chief operating officer, Thomas Mac Millan, identified what the complaint describes as a “significant mismatch” between what Orionx’s systems recorded and what was actually held in custody. After that internal review, Orionx commissioned a forensic audit that compared operational records against data verifiable onchain.
The criminal complaint, as reported, alleges that assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts on other crypto platforms. Despite that window being referenced in the complaint, Orionx’s public closure announcement did not confirm when the discrepancy occurred or whether all of the alleged transfers align with the full value of the shortfall ultimately identified.
Criminal complaint against former co-founders
Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz, both described as co-founders who allegedly had access to the custody systems. The company’s allegations center on transfers tied to wallets not controlled by Orionx.
La Tercera reported that the complaint alleges an account associated with Díaz received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. It also reported that another wallet allegedly received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.
Zibert and Díaz denied the accusations. According to La Cuarta, they said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of the asset shortfall remains unclear. The denial adds a key uncertainty for clients and observers: even if custody mismatches are documented, disputes over responsibility and intent can complicate timelines for recovery and any eventual legal resolution.
Tether’s 2025 backing and the speed of disruption
Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform offering crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.
In June 2025, Tether led Orionx’s Series A funding round, described in a Tether announcement that is now available only via an archived link. The exchange’s Series A was positioned by Tether as part of an effort to expand digital-asset adoption in Latin America.
As of publication, Cointelegraph reported that it contacted both Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response.
The episode highlights a broader reality for investors and users: even where a major stablecoin issuer participates in funding, due diligence on operational custody processes must remain a continuous effort rather than a one-time milestone. Orionx’s shutdown, coming only about a year after the Series A, also raises questions about how custody controls evolve after an investment round and what auditing mechanisms—internal or external—are in place during periods of growth.
For clients, the next steps will likely hinge on how Orionx conducts reconciliations and whether it can identify recoverable assets tied to custody mismatches. Readers should watch for updates on the scope of the recovered funds, the timing of the alleged transfers, and how the criminal case progresses—especially given the accused parties’ claim that the root cause of the shortfall is not established.
This article was originally published as Tether-backed Orionx Plans Shutdown After $7M Custody Gap Found on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Orionx, a Chile-based cryptocurrency exchange backed by Tether, is shutting down after a forensic review flagged a multimillion-dollar custody discrepancy, according to statements shared by the company on X. The exchange said it is moving into a permanent closure process and has temporarily suspended withdrawals as it works to return client funds.
Orionx said the audit identified more than $7 million in assets recorded in its custodial records that had been transferred to wallets it does not manage. The announcement arrives against a broader backdrop of increased scrutiny around custody controls and regulatory compliance for crypto firms operating in Latin America.
Key takeaways
Orionx is initiating a permanent shutdown after a forensic audit found a custody mismatch involving more than $7 million.
The exchange says withdrawals are temporarily suspended while it prioritizes returning client assets.
Orionx has not disclosed when the transfers occurred, but a criminal complaint alleges outflows from custody between 2018 and 2021.
Former co-founders Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz deny allegations tied to unauthorized access to custody systems.
Tether led Orionx’s Series A in 2025 as part of an expansion push, with the funding announcement later removed from Tether’s website.
A forensic finding triggers a withdrawal pause
Orionx announced that it began the process of permanently closing the platform after uncovering what it described as evidence of a custody-related issue. In its X post, the exchange said withdrawals have been paused in the interim while it attempts to return as much as possible to clients.
At the center of Orionx’s case is the discrepancy identified between the balances shown in its systems and the assets it holds at its custody addresses. Orionx attributed the issue to more than $7 million in custodial assets having moved to wallets the exchange does not manage, according to the company announcement.
While Orionx said it commissioned a forensic audit that compared internal records with verifiable on-chain data, the exchange did not specify in its post when the transfers took place or how the mismatch was first detected. That timing detail is important for investors and users trying to understand exposure windows, but the available reporting points to a longer period of alleged activity.
Timeline and alleged custody gaps cited in a Chilean complaint
According to reporting by Chilean newspaper La Tercera, Orionx undertook internal efforts to comply with Chile’s Fintech Law, conducting a review of its operations in 2025 and bringing in financial professionals. The publication tied Orionx’s actions to a criminal complaint involving former executives.
Reportedly, on Aug. 27, Orionx’s chief operating officer Thomas Mac Millan noticed a “significant mismatch” between the balances recorded in Orionx’s systems and what was actually held in custody, as described in the complaint. Orionx then ran an internal review and later commissioned an external forensic audit that matched its records with data that can be checked on-chain.
The forensic audit findings, as described through the complaint and reported by La Tercera, indicate that balances tracked within Orionx’s systems were higher than the assets held at its custody addresses for Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), XRP, and Polygon (POL). That kind of gap can be especially consequential for users because it suggests the platform’s accounting and custody reality did not align across multiple major assets.
La Tercera further reports that the complaint alleges assets were transferred out of Orionx’s custody between 2018 and 2021, including to accounts hosted on other crypto platforms. Although the exchange’s public announcement did not spell out the period, the complaint points to a multi-year span, which could influence how authorities and affected customers evaluate responsibility and timing.
Criminal complaint targets former co-founders; denials follow
Orionx said it filed a criminal complaint on Wednesday against former executives Roberto Zibert and Joaquín Díaz—both co-founders—whom it alleges had access to the company’s crypto custody systems. In the complaint as reported by La Tercera, an account associated with Díaz allegedly received more than $1.5 million across 14 transfers. The report also cites allegations that another wallet received 187 Ether, more than 4.1 million USDt (USDT), and 200,000 USDC from Orionx.
Zibert and Díaz denied wrongdoing, according to La Cuarta. They said they never acted against customers’ interests and argued that the cause of Orionx’s asset shortfall remains unclear.
For Orionx customers, the competing narratives—Orionx’s custody-mismatch claims versus the co-founders’ denials—are likely to shape what happens next. But the practical impact is immediate: Orionx is prioritizing asset recovery efforts while keeping withdrawals suspended, meaning users cannot rely on normal exchange liquidity during the shutdown process.
Tether’s 2025 backing and the question of what changed
Orionx was founded in Chile in 2017 and expanded from a retail crypto exchange into a broader platform that offered crypto payment and financial services across Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico.
In June 2025, Tether invested in Orionx, exclusively leading Orionx’s Series A round, according to an archived version of Tether’s announcement. That announcement is no longer available on Tether’s website, but the archived copy attributes the investment to Tether’s stated aim of expanding digital-asset adoption across Latin America.
Cointelegraph reported that it contacted Tether and Orionx for comment but had not received a response by publication. The episode raises an investor question that often comes up in crypto custody failures: even when an exchange secures prominent strategic backing, custody controls and operational integrity still require continuous verification, particularly as regulatory expectations rise.
What remains uncertain is how the alleged custody shortfall ties to Orionx’s later operations and compliance efforts. The complaint reporting points to transfers between 2018 and 2021, while Orionx’s public review and forensic steps occurred later. Until more details emerge from the criminal process and the ongoing closure and restitution efforts, the exact mechanics of the gap—along with the responsibility chain—may remain disputed.
Over the coming weeks, clients and observers will likely watch for updates on whether Orionx can identify and recover missing assets from the wallets it says it does not control, as well as what authorities uncover regarding access, internal controls, and the alleged timeline of transfers.
This article was originally published as Tether-Backed Orionx to Shut Down After $7M Custody Gap Found on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Fidelity Digital Assets has cautioned that Bitcoin’s strong August performance does not necessarily mean the cryptocurrency’s broader bear market has ended. While the latest rally has improved market conditions, the firm said investors should still consider the possibility of another market bottom later this year.
Bitcoin posted its strongest monthly gain since late 2024 during August, while Ethereum and other major cryptocurrencies also recorded substantial advances. The move has led some investors to argue that the market may have already established a bottom.
Key Takeaways
Fidelity said Bitcoin’s bear market may not be over despite its strong August recovery.
The four-year cycle model places potential attention on November 2026, although Fidelity stressed that the pattern is not a reliable timing tool.
Bitcoin gained more than 25% during the third week of August, while Ethereum and Solana rose 34.1% and 28%, respectively.
Growing stablecoin activity, real-world asset adoption, institutional participation, and regulatory developments could support a broader recovery.
Four-Year Cycle Keeps November in Focus
Fidelity’s latest digital asset outlook points to Bitcoin’s historical market cycles as one reason investors remain cautious.
Bitcoin’s previous major bear market bottom occurred in November 2022. If the roughly four-year pattern were to repeat, another potential bottom could emerge around November 2026.
However, Fidelity emphasized that investors should not treat the cycle as a precise forecasting model. Bitcoin’s historical cycles have not consistently lasted exactly four years, meaning the market could have already bottomed in July or could experience another decline later in the year.
Chris Kuiper, vice president of research at Fidelity Digital Assets, said the broader significance of the cycle may be connected to how cryptocurrency adoption develops.
“The more important point for investors is that adoption of digital assets has happened in waves, which can perpetuate cycles. In light of this, having a long-term perspective and holding period is what has historically been the most beneficial for investors.” He noted.
August Rally Provides Evidence of a Possible Shift
Fidelity also identified several developments that could support the argument that the market is moving away from its bearish phase.
Bitcoin spent much of the third quarter in relatively subdued trading before volatility increased sharply in late August. During the third week alone, Bitcoin rose more than 25%, while Ethereum gained 34.1% and Solana advanced 28%.
According to Fidelity, previous Bitcoin bear markets have sometimes ended after a period of subdued volatility followed by a sharp expansion in price activity.
Kuiper said the period from June through mid-August showed signs that selling pressure had weakened and that several digital assets were trading toward the lower end of their historical valuation ranges.
The subsequent price expansion therefore represents one factor that could indicate the market is approaching a turning point. Fidelity, however, stopped short of treating the rally as confirmation of a new bull market.
Esewhere, crypto analyst Darkfost described Bitcoin as being at a “tipping point between a genuine bullish recovery and a continuation of the correction.”
According to the analyst, futures activity is currently helping drive market movements while spot demand has declined. Darkfost said speculation can produce short-term price movements, but sustained momentum would require stronger spot buying to develop alongside derivatives activity.
“The balance remains and still leans towards buyers. But the question is, what type of buyers are driving the market? Speculation can trigger movement, but for momentum to become sustainable, spot demand must synchronize,” the analyst noted.
This chart perfectly illustrates the divergence currently at play on BTC today.
We’re paying closer attention to it because everyone knows Bitcoin is now sitting at the tipping point between a genuine bullish recovery and a continuation of the correction.
Right now, it’s… pic.twitter.com/SQUiQd6MGT
— Darkfost (@Darkfost_Coc) September 3, 2026
Regulation and Institutional Demand Remain Important
Fidelity identified regulatory progress, institutional adoption, monetary policy, and new cryptocurrency use cases as potential factors that could influence the next phase of the market.
In the United States, attention remains focused on the CLARITY Act, which seeks to establish clearer regulatory responsibilities for digital assets. The legislation has passed the House and remains under consideration in the Senate.
The SEC has also proposed a new regulatory framework that could provide exemptions from securities registration requirements for certain early-stage crypto asset offerings. The proposal remains subject to public comment.
What to Watch Next
Bitcoin’s August recovery has improved the market’s outlook, but Fidelity’s assessment suggests that investors should not assume the bear market is definitively over.
The next phase will depend on whether higher prices are supported by sustained adoption, institutional participation, and spot market demand rather than short-term volatility alone.
For now, November remains a date watched by investors following the four-year cycle thesis, while Fidelity continues to stress that historical patterns should not be used as a precise method for timing Bitcoin’s market bottom.
This article was originally published as Fidelity Warns Bitcoin’s Bear Market May Not Be Over Despite August Rall on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Chainlink’s LINK token has climbed nearly 50% over the past month, with the latest rally pushing its price above $12 as partnerships with financial institutions and U.S. government entities strengthens the market’s focus on the network’s role in traditional finance.
LINK gained about 8% in 24 hours on September 4, bringing its market capitalization to roughly $9 billion and placing it among the largest crypto assets by market value. The move has coincided with a broader crypto recovery but has also been supported by several developments involving Chainlink’s infrastructure.
Key Takeaways
LINK has gained nearly 50% in one month and recently moved above $12.
Chainlink partnered with Bottomline, which serves more than 600 banks and processes over $16 trillion in annual payments.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is using Chainlink infrastructure to bring selected economic data onchain.
Wyoming has expanded its use of Chainlink for its state-issued stablecoin, while Standard Chartered sees LINK reaching $200 by 2030.
Chainlink Expands Its Connection To Banking Infrastructure
On September 3, when Chainlink announced a strategic partnership with Bottomline, a major provider of payment technology used by hundreds of banks, the news added momentum.
Bottomline’s platforms reportedly process more than $16 trillion in payments each year and serve over 600 banks.
Through the agreement, Chainlink will provide an interoperability layer designed to connect existing payment systems with both public and private blockchains.
Notably, the integration is intended to allow financial institutions to use ISO 20022 messages to interact with blockchain-based payment infrastructure without having to build separate connections for individual networks.
The development adds to Chainlink’s growing involvement in financial infrastructure as banks and other institutions explore blockchain-based settlement and tokenized assets.
“Bottomline moves more than $16 trillion in payments annually across its platforms. Through the partnership, Chainlink is providing the secure interop and orchestration layer connecting Bottomline’s existing payment infrastructure to public and private blockchains.” Chainlink tweeted.
NEW: Top-three Swift service provider, Bottomline, has entered a strategic partnership with Chainlink to unlock cross-chain, cross-border payments for its 600+ bank customers.
Bottomline moves more than $16 trillion in payments annually across its platforms.
Through the… pic.twitter.com/jnpgCdoSCs
— Chainlink (@chainlink) September 3, 2026
U.S. Government Data Moves Toward The Blockchain
Chainlink has also gained exposure to a U.S. government initiative. On September 1, the project announced that the Department of Commerce would use its infrastructure to make selected economic data available onchain.
The data includes real gross domestic product, the personal consumption expenditures price index and actual final sales to domestic private domestic buyers.
The initiative could allow blockchain applications connected to Chainlink’s infrastructure to access updated government economic data, creating another potential use case for decentralized data delivery.
The U.S. Department of Commerce is leveraging Chainlink to bring key government macroeconomic data onchain:
• Real GDP
• PCE Price Index
• Real Final Sales to Private Domestic Purchasers
Chainlink @CommerceGov pic.twitter.com/rxxNdGmeoA
— Chainlink (@chainlink) September 1, 2026
Wyoming Deepens Chainlink Stablecoin Integration
Moreover, Wyoming has also
This article was originally published as Link Nears 50% Monthly Gain After Major Banking And Government Deals on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Cardano founder Charles Hoskinson has warned that crypto executives closely associated with the Trump administration could face greater political scrutiny if Democrats make significant gains in the 2026 U.S. midterm elections.
Hoskinson made the comments after being questioned over his absence from a recent White House meeting attended by several prominent figures from the cryptocurrency industry. The gathering focused on digital asset policy and efforts to advance U.S. crypto legislation, including the CLARITY Act.
Key Takeaways
Charles Hoskinson warned that some crypto executives could face investigations if Democrats gain power after the 2026 midterms.
His comments followed criticism that the Cardano founder was not included in a recent White House crypto gathering.
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse and other major industry figures attended the meeting with Trump administration officials.
President Donald Trump has continued to position the U.S. as a global center for financial innovation while his administration has moved to reverse policies that the crypto industry viewed as restrictive.
Hoskinson Responds to Criticism Over White House Absence
The controversy began after a user commented that Hoskinson appeared to have been left out of the White House gathering.
The comment followed a September 3 post from CFTC Chairman Mike Selig, who shared photographs from the meeting and highlighted the administration’s efforts to develop the digital asset industry in the United States.
Notably, the gathering brought together several prominent figures from the crypto and financial sectors, including Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, Kraken co-CEO Arjun Sethi, Gemini co-founders Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, and Chainlink co-founder Sergey Nazarov.
Hoskinson responded with a warning about what could happen if political control changes after the midterms.
“I’ll sit this one out and pick up the pieces after the Republicans get destroyed in the Midterms and half the people in that picture are being investigated by the newly empowered Democrats”
I'll sit this one out and pick up the pieces after the Republicans get destroyed in the Midterms and half the people in that picture are being investigated by the newly empowered Democrats
— Charles Hoskinson (@IOHK_Charles) September 3, 2026
Crypto’s Relationship With Trump Remains Politically Significant
Hoskinson’s comments come as the cryptocurrency industry has developed a significantly closer relationship with the Trump administration.
Trump has repeatedly pledged to make the United States a leading destination for financial and digital asset innovation. His administration has also pursued policies intended to move away from what the industry viewed as aggressive regulatory pressure under the previous administration.
One notable area has been the administration’s response to Operation Choke Point 2.0, a term widely used by crypto companies and industry advocates to describe alleged efforts by financial regulators to discourage banks from providing services to digital asset businesses.
The Trump administration has positioned itself as opposing such restrictions and has said it wants to ensure financial institutions do not improperly deny access to banking services based on lawful business activities.
That policy direction has helped strengthen ties between Washington and major crypto companies.
Hoskinson Remains Critical of the CLARITY Act
Meanwhile, despite the industry’s closer relationship with the administration, Hoskinson has remained critical of parts of the Republican-led approach to crypto legislation.
The Cardano founder has repeatedly expressed concerns about the CLARITY Act and the political divisions surrounding digital asset regulation. He has argued that crypto should not become identified exclusively with one political party.
That concern is particularly relevant as several of the industry’s most recognizable executives have become increasingly visible alongside Republican officials.
Hoskinson has previously argued that political association could create problems for the broader industry if control of Congress changes.
Trump Continues to Promote Financial Innovation
The political divide comes as Trump continues to promote the United States as a hub for financial innovation.
In May, the White House announced measures aimed at strengthening the financial system while also emphasizing America’s role in financial innovation. The administration said its policies were intended to preserve U.S. leadership in emerging financial technologies.
The White House has also sought to reverse regulatory approaches that crypto advocates described as hostile to the industry, including policies associated with
This article was originally published as Cardano Founder Warns Trump-Linked Crypto Executives May Come Under Scrutiny After Midterms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s latest recovery is encountering increased profit-taking activity as short-term holders have transferred approximately 467,000 BTC, worth about $35.4 billion, to exchanges since August 17.
The shift comes as Bitcoin recently tested the $82,000 level while institutional demand through spot ETFs remains strong.
Bitcoin climbed roughly 4% over the course of September 3–4 before pulling back. At the time of writing, the cryptocurrency was trading around $79,673, reflecting a 0.41% drop over the past 24 hours.
Key Takeaways
Short-term holders have sent approximately 467,000 BTC worth $35.4 billion to exchanges since August 17.
The share of profitable Bitcoin exchange inflows increased from 35% to 92% after August 20.
Short-term holders are currently depositing around 27,500 BTC per day, about 29% above the previous three-month average.
Bitcoin ETF demand remains a counterweight, with approximately $730 million flowing into spot Bitcoin ETFs during the latest trading session.
Bitcoin Tests $82,000 as Selling Activity Changes
Bitcoin’s recent move higher has brought the cryptocurrency back toward levels last seen earlier in the year. The asset tested $82,000 between September 3 and 4 before giving up part of the advance.
The move occurred alongside a significant increase in demand for U.S.-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs. The products attracted approximately $730 million during the previous trading session, according to the market data cited in recent coverage.
However, the on-chain picture suggests that the rally is also giving some investors an opportunity to lock in profits.
CryptoQuant said short-term holders have moved from a period of capitulation toward profit-taking as Bitcoin recovered from its recent weakness.
“Bitcoin Short-Term Holders (STH) flipped from Capitulation to Profit-Taking. Since August 17, Short-Term Holders sent ~467K BTC ($35.4B) to exchanges. The key shift: profitable coins now dominate these flows.”
Bitcoin Short-Term Holders (STH) flipped from Capitulation to Profit-Taking.
Since August 17, Short-Term Holders sent ~467K BTC ($35.4B) to exchanges.
The key shift: profitable coins now dominate these flows. pic.twitter.com/WUZAsFxDWw
— CryptoQuant.com (@cryptoquant_com) September 4, 2026
The distinction is important because exchange deposits can reflect different market conditions depending on whether the coins are being transferred at a profit or a loss.
Profitable Exchange Inflows Rise Sharply
CryptoQuant’s data shows a substantial change in the profitability of Bitcoin entering exchanges.
When Bitcoin was trading below the short-term holder realized price, only around 35% of exchange inflows were in profit. Since August 20, that proportion has climbed to approximately 92%.
This suggests that the current wave of exchange transfers is being driven predominantly by holders who acquired Bitcoin at lower prices and are now sitting on unrealized gains.
The shift followed Bitcoin’s recovery above the short-term holder realized price of approximately $67,600. CryptoQuant said the cost basis for this group subsequently increased to around $70,600 within 15 days.
As newer market participants entered at progressively higher prices, their unrealized gains increased alongside Bitcoin’s recovery.
Daily Bitcoin Deposits Remain Above Average
The increase in profit-taking is also reflected in daily exchange activity.
CryptoQuant estimates that short-term holders are currently sending approximately 27,500 BTC to exchanges each day, representing around $2.2 billion based on the firm’s calculations.
That daily flow is approximately 29% higher than the previous three-month average, indicating that short-term holder activity has become more pronounced during the recovery.
Despite the elevated deposits, Bitcoin has continued to trade at higher levels. This suggests that demand has so far been sufficient to absorb much of the Bitcoin being transferred toward exchanges.
CryptoQuant also placed the short-term holder MVRV ratio at 1.15, meaning the average investor within this group has an estimated unrealized profit of about 15%. Historically, the firm has observed that readings above 1.19 have accompanied more durable rallies, while levels below 1.12 have tended to coincide with shorter-lived moves.
ETF Demand Provides a Counterweight
The increase in short-term holder selling is occurring alongside strong demand from spot Bitcoin ETFs.
The approximately $730 million recorded during the latest trading session represents a significant inflow and provides an important source of demand while other market participants are realizing gains.
This creates a contrasting flow pattern.
Source: SosoValue
Short-term holders are moving profitable Bitcoin toward exchanges, potentially increasing available supply, while ETF investors are directing fresh capital into Bitcoin exposure.
The ability of demand to absorb these coins has so far allowed the market to maintain its recovery.
What to Watch Next as Profit-Taking Increases
The key question is whether Bitcoin can continue absorbing elevated exchange deposits if short-term holders maintain their current pace of profit-taking.
The latest CryptoQuant data does not establish that the rally has ended. Instead, it shows that the character of selling has changed from capitulation toward profit realization.
Investors will likely watch short-term holder exchange flows, the $70,600 realized-price level, and continued ETF demand for indications of how the balance between available supply and new buying develops.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Rally Faces Profit-Taking Pressure as Short-Term Holders Deposit 467,000 BTC to Exchanges on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Poland’s lawmakers have again fallen short of the supermajority required to overturn President Karol Nawrocki’s veto of a bill intended to tighten crypto oversight. On Friday, the Sejm voted 241-198 to override the veto, but with three abstentions the measure missed the 266 votes needed by 25—marking yet another failed push to set a national framework for applying the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA).
The renewed vote comes as Poland grapples with fallout from the Zondacrypto scandal. The case has widened amid bankruptcy proceedings against Zondacrypto’s Estonian operator and references by Prime Minister Donald Tusk to testimony alleging improper attempts to influence political figures.
Key takeaways
The Sejm’s override attempt failed 25 votes short of the 266 needed for passage, leaving Nawrocki’s veto in place.
The bill would have assigned crypto market supervision to Poland’s Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) as MiCA applies across the EU.
KNF has said Poland still lacks a designated authority responsible for supervising cryptoassets, despite MiCA already taking effect in the EU.
Meanwhile, prosecutors are investigating alleged fraud and money laundering tied to Zondacrypto, with losses previously estimated at no less than 350 million PLN.
Zondacrypto’s operator, BB Trade Estonia, was declared bankrupt by an Estonian court, according to the public notice released in August.
A veto override misses the threshold again
Friday’s parliamentary vote was the latest attempt to advance Poland’s crypto regulatory plan after Nawrocki vetoed related legislation three times, arguing the rules would overregulate the industry. The president has said he supports regulating crypto but believes the bill’s approach goes too far, including concerns about compliance costs and the authorities’ ability to block websites.
In the Sejm’s vote, lawmakers backed the override 241-198, with three abstentions. The constitutional requirement of a three-fifths majority was therefore not met, preventing the bill from moving forward despite parliamentary support.
For market participants, the repeated vetoes underline a central uncertainty: while MiCA is the EU-wide backbone, domestic legislation is still needed to determine who will supervise crypto activity and enforce the rules in practice. Without that clarity, firms may face continued regulatory ambiguity around licensing, oversight procedures, and enforcement coordination.
Poland still has no designated crypto supervisor under MiCA
At the heart of the dispute is how MiCA should be implemented in Poland. The vetoed legislation aimed to establish Poland’s national framework for applying MiCA, including placing oversight of the crypto market under the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF).
KNF said Friday that Poland still lacks a designated authority responsible for supervising the cryptoasset market, despite MiCA already applying across the European Union. The statement is significant because MiCA’s effectiveness for businesses depends not only on EU-level rules but also on national enforcement structures and supervisory responsibilities.
Nawrocki’s position contrasts with the urgency emphasized by regulators and government stakeholders. While the president does not oppose crypto oversight outright, his vetoes repeatedly cite concerns that the proposed Polish framework would impose excessive burdens or grant powers he views as too broad.
Investors and crypto firms watching Poland should pay attention to how this supervisory gap is handled in the absence of an operational national regime. The longer Poland remains without a designated supervisor, the more likely it becomes that compliance and enforcement decisions could be delayed or fragmented compared with other EU member states that have already implemented their supervisory arrangements.
Zondacrypto investigation expands as operator heads to bankruptcy
Friday’s parliamentary vote took place against the backdrop of a deepening criminal investigation linked to the failed crypto exchange Zondacrypto. Prime Minister Donald Tusk disclosed excerpts from what he described as testimony from a key witness, alleging payments and attempts to influence politicians connected to Poland’s previous government.
Tusk said the witness alleged a 2 million Polish zloty ($550,000) payment arrangement involving a foundation linked to former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. In separate testimony cited by Tusk, the witness alleged an unnamed person promised to secure a presidential pardon if the witness were convicted.
Polish prosecutors are investigating suspected fraud and money laundering connected to Zondacrypto. Earlier in the process, prosecutors merged the Zondacrypto case with a probe into the 2022 disappearance of Sylwester Suszek, founder of BitBay, which was later renamed Zondacrypto.
Prosecutors in April estimated that losses linked to Zondacrypto were no less than 350 million PLN ($95 million). Such figures are likely to keep pressure on policymakers to strengthen oversight and enforcement mechanisms—particularly around exchanges and custody-related risks.
In parallel with the criminal investigations, the exchange’s operator, BB Trade Estonia, has been pushed toward formal insolvency. An Estonian court declared the company bankrupt in August, with the first creditors’ meeting scheduled for Sept. 17, according to a public notice.
For users and creditors, bankruptcy can shift priorities from tracing wrongdoing toward asset recovery and claims verification. For regulators and legislators, the Zondacrypto episode adds urgency to establishing clear oversight structures—especially if supervisory authorities are expected to monitor compliance risks that failed entities allegedly exploited.
Why the regulatory fight matters beyond one country
Poland’s standoff is not just a domestic political contest. It highlights a broader tension in the EU’s post-MiCA transition: even when the rulebook is defined at the European level, member states still control the speed and structure of enforcement through domestic legislation and supervisory mandates.
With KNF previously stating that a designated authority for supervising cryptoassets is still missing, the impact is practical. Firms aiming to comply with MiCA may find it difficult to map responsibilities when the supervisor’s role is uncertain, while regulators may face challenges coordinating enforcement without a clear institutional lead.
The Zondacrypto case also raises the political salience of crypto oversight. As criminal investigations expand and insolvency proceedings develop, policymakers may come under increased pressure to align regulatory authority, investigative capacity, and compliance requirements—particularly for platforms operating at the center of investor funds and custody arrangements.
What readers should watch next is whether lawmakers attempt another override vote or if the government and regulators pursue an alternative path to assign supervisory responsibility. The key uncertainty remains who will ultimately supervise cryptoassets in Poland as MiCA obligations move from EU law into day-to-day enforcement.
This article was originally published as Poland Rejects Crypto Bill Veto as Zondacrypto Scandal Expands on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Poland’s lawmakers have once again fallen short of the supermajority needed to overturn President Karol Nawrocki’s veto of a bill intended to tighten oversight of the country’s crypto market. On Friday, the Sejm voted 241–198 in favor of overriding the veto, with three abstentions, leaving the proposal 25 votes short of the 266 required for passage.
The vote was the latest attempt to move the legislation forward after Nawrocki vetoed similar crypto rules three separate times, arguing the draft would impose excessive constraints on the industry. The renewed push comes as Prime Minister Donald Tusk highlights an expanding criminal investigation tied to the defunct exchange Zondacrypto—an issue that has added urgency for regulators and lawmakers to formalize a clearer supervisory framework.
Key takeaways
The Sejm’s 241–198 vote confirms support for overriding the president, but it still missed the three-fifths threshold by 25 votes.
Poland still does not have a designated national supervisor for cryptoassets under the proposed framework, despite the EU’s MiCA regime already applying across member states.
Nawrocki’s vetoes rest on concerns about regulatory overreach, including compliance costs and powers that could be used to block websites.
Tusk’s renewed statements tie the oversight debate to the continuing Zondacrypto scandal, including alleged political influence and financial arrangements.
A failed veto override keeps Poland’s crypto oversight in limbo
The bill at the center of Friday’s vote is designed to establish Poland’s national approach for applying the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). The proposal would place supervision of the cryptoasset market under the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF), giving domestic regulators a clear mandate to enforce relevant rules.
Even though MiCA is already in force across the EU, Poland’s legislative process has not yet delivered the required national structure. KNF said on Friday that the country still lacks an authority responsible for supervising the cryptoasset market, a gap that matters for market participants because enforcement and supervision responsibilities must be assigned domestically rather than handled only at the EU level.
KNF warns of a missing supervisor as MiCA already applies
KNF’s statement underscores a practical problem: MiCA sets the framework, but supervision in each jurisdiction depends on the domestic rules and institutions that implement and enforce it. Without a properly designated national regulator, compliance questions can become harder for businesses, and regulatory clarity for users can remain incomplete.
That regulatory vacuum is exactly what the vetoed legislation attempted to fix—by anchoring crypto supervision within KNF. By failing to reach the vote threshold required to overturn Nawrocki, Poland remains without that assigned authority, leaving the market awaiting a clearer chain of responsibility.
Why Nawrocki continues to veto: costs and enforcement powers
Nawrocki has repeatedly argued that the draft goes too far. In earlier coverage of the president’s second and third vetoes, the president’s concerns were described as including regulatory costs for the industry and provisions that could grant authorities powers to block websites.
Supporters of the override, meanwhile, appear to treat the bill as necessary not only for compliance with MiCA but also for protecting consumers and improving oversight—especially in the wake of high-profile failures in the crypto sector.
Zondacrypto pressures the debate as prosecutors expand investigations
The political conflict over crypto regulation is playing out alongside the Zondacrypto fallout. Tusk has urged tighter oversight by citing what he described as testimony from a key witness connected to the investigation, including claims about payments and attempted influence reaching into Poland’s previous government.
In excerpts Tusk disclosed ahead of Friday’s vote, he alleged that the witness described a 2 million Polish zloty (about $550,000) payment arrangement involving a foundation linked to former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro. Tusk also cited other testimony in which an unnamed person allegedly promised a presidential pardon in exchange for the witness’s conviction outcome.
Meanwhile, prosecutors are investigating suspected fraud and money laundering related to Zondacrypto. In July, they merged the case with an inquiry tied to the 2022 disappearance of Sylwester Suszek, the founder of BitBay—later renamed Zondacrypto—according to a Polish government disclosure referenced in the reporting.
Loss estimates cited by prosecutors place damages linked to Zondacrypto at no less than 350 million Polish zlotys (about $95 million), reflecting the scale of the case that regulators say should heighten the need for effective oversight.
Bankruptcy proceedings begin, but political scrutiny continues
Zondacrypto’s operator, BB Trade Estonia, was declared bankrupt by an Estonian court in August, with the first creditors’ meeting scheduled for Sept. 17. The bankruptcy adds another layer to the oversight debate: as insolvency processes unfold, creditors and affected users typically look for clearer accountability and stronger regulatory barriers to reduce the risk of similar failures.
Yet the veto override failure suggests that even in the face of an escalating investigation and a visible market fallout, political agreement in Poland remains difficult—particularly when the president argues that the proposed rules would be overly burdensome or grant enforcement powers he considers too sweeping.
Next, Poland’s lawmakers will likely have to decide whether to revisit the same bill with changes that address the veto concerns while still meeting the core need identified by KNF: assigning a domestic authority to supervise cryptoassets under MiCA. Readers should watch whether future Sejm attempts can reach the three-fifths threshold—and how the Zondacrypto investigation developments shape the urgency of the legislation.
This article was originally published as Poland Keeps Crypto Bill Veto as Zondacrypto Probe Expands on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) extended a late-summer demand surge, logging their strongest three-week stretch of 2026. The rebound coincided with Bitcoin trading around the $80,000 level, with weekly inflows accelerating into the week ending Friday.
SoSoValue data shows the funds pulled in $986.9 million during the week ending Friday. That pushed cumulative net inflows over the past three weeks to $3.8 billion. Total net assets across the suite were $101.3 billion on Friday, after rising to $103.3 billion the prior day. Since inception, cumulative net inflows reached $55.6 billion.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs attracted $986.9 million in the week ending Friday, lifting three-week net inflows to $3.8 billion.
Friday’s total net inflow was $174.6 million, down from a much larger Thursday surge of nearly $731 million.
BlackRock’s IBIT led demand with $117.4 million on Friday, about 67% of that day’s inflows, per Farside Investors.
Bitcoin ETF momentum is improving versus the prior week, but year-to-date flows remain about $1 billion negative, reflecting lingering uncertainty from earlier 2026 outflows.
While Bitcoin inflows strengthened, spot Ether and XRP ETF flows fell sharply on a weekly basis.
Three-week rebound highlights a demand shift
The latest inflow sequence represents a significant improvement from earlier in 2026, when spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced heavy outflows. The contrast matters for market participants tracking whether institutional demand is broadening or simply reacting to short-term price moves.
According to SoSoValue, the three-week net inflow total of $3.8 billion is far more consistent than the earlier part of the year. Still, the broader picture remains mixed: year-to-date net flows are reported to be roughly $1 billion negative. That implies the ETF complex is recovering, but not fully reversing the cumulative drain from prior months.
Net asset values also underline the pace of the recovery. Total net assets across the US-listed spot Bitcoin ETFs stood at $101.3 billion on Friday, following a brief bump to $103.3 billion on Thursday.
Friday inflows cool after Thursday’s spike
Demand didn’t maintain Thursday’s intensity. US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $174.6 million in net inflows on Friday, according to the reporting in the week’s flow recap. That figure was a sharp drop from the nearly $731 million recorded a day earlier, as referenced by earlier market coverage linked in the source.
Within the broader total, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) remained the dominant driver. Farside Investors data cited in the source shows IBIT received $117.4 million on Friday, contributing about 67% of the day’s net inflows.
Elsewhere, Fidelity’s Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) was the only other fund to post net inflows, attracting $57.2 million. All other US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded no net flows for the day, highlighting how concentrated inflow activity can be even in a strong overall period.
Price action also provides context for the flow pattern. Bitcoin slid from around $81,200 to briefly under $79,000 on Friday. At the time of publication, Bitcoin traded at $79,716, up about 2.6% over the prior seven days, based on CoinGecko data included in the source.
Rotation away from Ether and XRP ETFs
The rebound in Bitcoin ETF inflows came alongside a noticeable weakening in other crypto-asset ETF demand. Compared with the previous week, Bitcoin ETF inflows were up by about 7%, while flows into US spot Ether and XRP ETFs fell by roughly 74% and 83%, respectively, based on SoSoValue figures.
SoSoValue shows spot Ether ETF inflows dropped to $218.4 million from $824.4 million a week earlier. For XRP, inflows declined to $19 million from $110.5 million over the same comparison period.
Despite the weekly pullback, both Ether and XRP ETF products remain net positive for the year. SoSoValue data cited in the source indicates US spot Ether ETFs have recorded about $863 million in net inflows year-to-date, while XRP ETFs have attracted roughly $515 million.
This divergence is a useful signal for investors: even when institutional allocation preferences shift, it often happens unevenly across asset classes rather than uniformly. For traders and allocators, the key is whether the Bitcoin-specific demand trend continues long enough to further erode earlier negative year-to-date positioning.
What to watch next as flows become the focus
With Bitcoin ETF inflows showing resilience after earlier outflows, the next question is whether the complex can sustain inflow momentum beyond this three-week window—especially given Friday’s cooling versus Thursday’s outsized day. Investors should watch for whether IBIT and FBTC continue to concentrate the bulk of inflows, and whether Ether and XRP ETFs remain under pressure or stabilize after their recent weekly declines.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Spot ETF Inflows Reach $3.8B in Peak Three-Week Run of 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron has publicly challenged Robinhood’s tokenized stock offerings, calling them “outrageous” and stating AMC has no affiliation with the platform’s products. Aron said Robinhood will face an investigation by outside securities counsel.
Aron’s comments add to a growing wave of attention directed at tokenized stock products—blockchain-based instruments designed to track the value of traditional equities. The dispute arrives amid earlier disruptions where crypto platforms pulled back from tokenized IPO campaigns, underscoring how legal and operational questions continue to surround the sector.
Key takeaways
Adam Aron says AMC has no affiliation with Robinhood’s tokenized stock offerings and called them “outrageous.”
Aron said Robinhood will request scrutiny from its outside securities counsel and suggested restrictions may apply to US and other investors.
Robinhood’s tokenized stock offerings are described as not registered under US securities laws, according to Aron’s remarks.
The broader scrutiny of tokenized stocks follows recent cancellations tied to tokenized IPO access, including SpaceX-related campaigns.
Aron challenges Robinhood’s tokenized AMC exposure
In a Friday post on X, Adam Aron criticized Robinhood’s tokenized stock offering that provides economic exposure to AMC shares. Aron said the company has “no affiliation” with the product and characterized the offering as “outrageous.” He added that Robinhood’s outside securities counsel would investigate the matter.
Aron also indicated that the tokens may not be available to US investors and that they are subject to restrictions in other jurisdictions, citing Canada, Switzerland and the UK.
The remarks are notable not only for their directness, but because they frame the dispute as a regulatory and compliance issue rather than a simple branding or commercial disagreement. If tokenized securities are marketed or structured in ways that investors perceive as linked to the underlying issuer, those concerns can quickly escalate.
For context, tokenized stock products typically aim to mirror the price movement of conventional equities through blockchain-based representations. However, Aron’s comments highlight how questions about registration status, investor eligibility, and issuer affiliation can become central to the legality and reputational impact of these offerings.
Robinhood responds by seeking specifics
Robinhood co-founder and CEO Vlad Tenev responded on X, asking Aron to share his exact concerns tied to the tokenized offering. The platform did not issue a broader public statement in response to the criticism.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Robinhood for comment regarding both Aron’s claims and the regulatory status of its tokenized stock offerings.
That back-and-forth illustrates a recurring tension in tokenized securities: traditional executives may view such instruments as potentially misleading or insufficiently authorized, while token issuers and platforms often argue they are structured under specific legal frameworks. The next step—whether Aron’s concerns translate into formal findings or enforcement action—will likely determine how far this dispute spreads.
Tokenized stock scrutiny follows past operational pullbacks
The Aron–Robinhood episode arrives as tokenized stocks have faced renewed scrutiny in the wake of earlier market disruptions. Earlier in June, some crypto exchanges canceled their tokenized SpaceX IPO allocations and promised refunds.
According to Cointelegraph reporting referenced in the article, platforms including Bybit, Binance, Bitget Wallet and MEXC canceled their tokenized SpaceX IPO campaigns after SpaceX went public on the Nasdaq. Several participants blamed the inability of Kraken-owned xStocks to deliver the underlying assets.
While that SpaceX incident was framed around delivery and execution—rather than issuer affiliation—the underlying theme is similar: tokenized offerings depend on complex relationships between blockchain intermediaries and traditional market infrastructure. When any link breaks, user trust and regulatory scrutiny tend to intensify.
In that light, Aron’s insistence on no affiliation and his emphasis on securities counsel investigation reflect how tokenized products can trigger fast-moving reactions from the companies whose stock they reference, even if platforms believe the economic exposure is properly handled.
Robinhood’s tokenization push has expanded beyond debt-like instruments
Robinhood’s tokenized equities initiative did not appear overnight. The first generation of Robinhood stock tokens launched in July 2026 as tokenized debt securities issued by Jersey-based Robinhood Assets, distributed as ERC-20 tokens. Those tokens were designed to provide economic exposure to underlying assets such as US stocks and exchange-traded funds.
Robinhood has also been building infrastructure to support tokenized assets. In February, the company launched a public testnet for Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum layer-2 network built using Arbitrum technology intended to host tokenized assets.
Further expansion has been reported in prior coverage. In October 2025, Robinhood shared plans to tokenize nearly 500 US stocks and ETFs on Arbitrum. And in July 2026, Bernstein analysts raised their price target on Robinhood Markets, arguing that a next phase of growth would be driven by tokenized equities and prediction markets rather than traditional crypto trading.
Taken together, the sector-wide moment suggests that tokenized securities are moving from experimental phases toward broader rollout—while regulators, issuers, and exchanges continue to test how these products should be structured, marketed, and delivered.
For investors and market participants, Aron’s comments serve as a reminder that tokenization does not eliminate the legal and compliance layers that govern securities markets. Even if a platform believes a product is compliant under one framework, issuer objections can still raise practical questions about authorization, disclosures, and eligibility for different investor regions.
Readers should watch whether Robinhood clarifies the precise legal basis for its tokenized stock offerings, and whether Aron’s complaint leads to formal regulatory engagement or other enforcement steps. Just as importantly, the industry will be looking for whether prior delivery-related issues in tokenized IPO campaigns repeat in other tokenized equity products—or whether platforms tighten operational and compliance controls to reduce the risk of abrupt cancellations.
This article was originally published as AMC CEO Slams Robinhood’s Tokenized Stocks as Unregulated, to Seek Probe on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) has outlined a three-phase plan to build the legal and technical foundation for issuing tokenized securities covering assets such as stocks, bonds, and funds. The roadmap is designed to bring tokenization into the country’s existing capital markets framework rather than treating it as a separate, unregulated activity.
In a press release published Friday, the FSC said tokenized securities will gain formal legal recognition as digitized forms of securities once an update to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds takes effect on Feb. 4, 2027. The implementation schedule is closely tied to a broader roll-out of amended capital markets and electronic securities laws.
Key takeaways
Legal status begins Feb. 4, 2027, when an amendment to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds takes effect for tokenized securities.
Phase 1 (from recognition) covers institutional money market funds, bonds, unlisted stocks, and fractional investment securities.
Phase 2 broadens scope by extending tokenization to all publicly offered securities.
Phase 3 targets onchain settlement by pursuing onchain payments linked to stablecoins.
The FSC will coordinate with the Korea Securities Depository (KSD) to build the necessary tokenization infrastructure.
What South Korea’s FSC is changing in 2027
The FSC’s roadmap hinges on a legal shift: tokenized securities will be treated as digitized versions of traditional securities under South Korea’s electronic registration framework. According to the FSC, the change is expected to take effect on Feb. 4, 2027, after the relevant statutory update becomes operational.
Once this happens, tokenized instruments will not merely be “technology-layered securities.” Instead, they will be recognized within the legal system governing stock and bond registration—an important distinction for issuers, investors, and intermediaries who need clarity on rights, governance, and compliance.
For market participants, legal recognition is often the prerequisite for scalable issuance and broader participation. Without it, tokenized products typically face uncertainty around transferability, custody, and the enforcement of investor protections. The FSC’s plan aims to close those gaps by integrating tokenized securities into the capital markets regime.
Phase 1: recognition for a limited set of products
In the first stage, the FSC said tokenized securities will receive legal recognition across several categories, including institutional money market funds, bonds, unlisted stocks, and fractional investment securities. This sequencing matters because it starts with markets where regulators can more directly define operational boundaries while the infrastructure and oversight processes are still being established.
The FSC also tied the roadmap to the planned implementation of two legislative components: an amended Capital Markets Act and an Electronic Securities Act, which together form what the FSC describes as the country’s first tokenized securities framework. Earlier in the process, the FSC had indicated it was preparing detailed tokenized securities rules aimed at bringing tokenized securities under South Korea’s capital markets framework in 2027, an approach noted in earlier reporting (see Cointelegraph coverage of the regulator’s May statements).
The practical question for Phase 1 participants will be how tokenization is handled end-to-end—issuance, registration, transfers, and custody—especially for instruments like fractional investment securities where the unit of ownership may differ from legacy models.
Phase 2 and Phase 3: expanding issuance and testing new payment rails
Phase two of the FSC roadmap is set to expand tokenization to all publicly offered securities. This is a significant step up from the Phase 1 list because it implies broader availability of tokenized products to retail and institutional participants under the same umbrella rules.
However, the FSC did not assign a specific public date for the transition to Phase 2 in the press release. Instead, it said it will determine the timing after submitting and refining subordinate regulations.
The third phase introduces an additional technological ambition: onchain payments linked to stablecoins. In other words, the FSC is not only aiming to tokenize the asset layer (securities issuance and ownership records), but also to modernize parts of the settlement process. Stablecoins are referenced here as the linkage for onchain payment settlement, reflecting the regulator’s attempt to align tokenized securities workflows with digital payment mechanisms.
That said, major implementation details—such as which stablecoin frameworks (if any) would be considered, how payment flows would be controlled, and what oversight would apply—are not specified in the release. Market watchers will likely focus on the subordinate rule revisions that the FSC plans to propose after consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Regulatory coordination and what investors should monitor next
The FSC said it will work with the Korea Securities Depository (KSD) to develop the necessary tokenization infrastructure before the roadmap’s initiation. That coordination is a practical signal: tokenized securities can only scale if the core market plumbing—especially registration and transfer processes—is adapted to handle tokenized formats reliably.
Following the roadmap announcement, the FSC also indicated it plans to propose revisions to relevant subordinate regulations by the end of September and then decide the timeline for phases two and three. For investors and platform builders, that regulatory and technical rulemaking period is likely to be the most consequential window for understanding how compliance will work in practice.
It’s also worth placing the roadmap in the context of South Korea’s wider regulatory movement around tokenized assets. In May, the FSC said it would release detailed tokenized securities rules in 2027 to bring tokenized securities under the capital markets framework, according to earlier coverage (see Cointelegraph). Separately, in April, South Korea’s Ministry of Economy and Finance announced a pilot project involving tokenized deposits to execute government operational spending, with a full rollout targeted for the fourth quarter of 2026 (see Cointelegraph).
Taken together, the developments point to a regulator that is treating tokenization as a structured modernization of finance—starting with legal recognition, then expanding product coverage, and finally testing settlement innovations that could connect onchain activity with regulated payment processes.
For now, the key watchpoints are the end-of-September subordinate regulation revisions, the precise operational requirements that will govern tokenization infrastructure with KSD, and how Phase 3 will handle stablecoin-linked onchain payments in a way that preserves investor protections and settlement finality.
This article was originally published as South Korea Regulators Publish Roadmap for Tokenized Securities on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) has withdrawn its earlier opposition to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, saying in a Thursday letter that its stance is now “neutral.” The development comes ahead of a potential Senate vote later this month when Congress returns to session.
In the letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the NSA pointed to the complexity of the legislative process and the “significant work undertaken” by lawmakers, the Administration, and stakeholders to address “legal, regulatory, and enforcement considerations” tied to the bill. NSA leadership said the group believes it is more constructive to let the legislative process continue as Congress seeks to build a clearer regulatory structure for digital assets.
Key takeaways
The NSA has changed its position on the CLARITY Act from opposition to “neutral,” signaling less resistance to the bill’s advancement.
The association’s earlier concern centered on amendments that would exempt crypto mixers from multiple registration requirements.
House passage in July 2025 has been followed by multiple Senate hurdles, including committee progress and continued debate among lawmakers and stakeholders.
Senate leaders have taken procedural steps toward a vote, with Thune filing a motion to hold cloture after senators return.
NSA shifts from opposition to neutrality
The NSA’s updated position was articulated by NSA president Troy Wellman alongside CEO and executive director Justin Smith. They said the association is no longer pushing against the measure at this stage, arguing that the most appropriate path is to “step back” and allow Congress to proceed to establish “a clear, effective, and much needed regulatory framework.”
This change represents a notable recalibration from the NSA’s earlier messaging. Previously, the group had expressed “significant concerns” about specific CLARITY provisions—particularly amendments involving crypto mixers and how they could affect registration obligations.
What the NSA previously objected to: crypto mixer exemptions
According to the NSA’s earlier letter, the association’s opposition was driven by provisions it believed could limit law enforcement tools used to trace illicit activity and recover victims’ funds. In that prior stance, the NSA argued that exempting crypto mixers from many registration requirements could “[impair] law enforcement’s ability to trace transactions and digital assets, and recover victims’ money.”
In July, Sheriff Jim Skinner—speaking in a video posted by the NSA—also criticized the framing of the bill, stating, “The CLARITY Act protects the crypto industry, not the public.” Earlier coverage and the Senate Banking Committee correspondence cited by the NSA indicate that mixer-related language was at the heart of the dispute.
While the Thursday letter does not detail which provisions have been addressed or how the group views the bill’s current draft, the shift to neutrality suggests the NSA is at least willing to allow continued consideration rather than maintain active resistance.
CLARITY’s path through Congress remains contested
The CLARITY Act passed the US House of Representatives in July 2025 and has encountered obstacles since being sent to the Senate. While Senate committees—including the agriculture and banking committees—passed versions of the bill in 2026, the measure has continued to face pushback and uncertainty from multiple groups and lawmakers.
Debates described around the legislation have reportedly included issues beyond enforcement logistics, such as stablecoin-related rewards, tokenized equities, and concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving President Donald Trump and his family. These sticking points have kept the bill from reaching a final, unified Senate outcome even after committee progress.
As Congress nears its return to session, procedural moves have also signaled an effort to bring the bill to the floor. Before going on break, Thune reportedly filed a motion to hold a cloture vote on the measure on Sept. 15 once senators return from state work periods—an action that typically aims to limit extended debate and move legislation forward.
Regulators signal they could act even without legislation
Even as CLARITY awaits a Senate path to final passage, US regulators have indicated that crypto oversight may not wait indefinitely for congressional action. Earlier reporting noted that Trump publicly pushed for passage alongside the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as representatives from digital asset companies.
According to earlier coverage, SEC Chair Paul Atkins and CFTC Chair Michael Selig—both nominated by Trump—have signaled that their agencies would continue efforts to address crypto regulation if Congress is unable to pass a market structure bill.
This matters for market participants because it reframes timing and certainty. A shift in the NSA’s position reduces one vocal source of resistance, but it does not remove other policy debates reportedly surrounding stablecoin rewards, tokenized assets, and broader governance concerns. Meanwhile, regulator willingness to proceed without CLARITY could mean the industry faces parallel developments: legislative negotiations in the Senate alongside rulemaking and enforcement direction from the agencies.
As the Senate calendar firms up, readers should watch whether the bill’s most contested provisions—particularly those tied to enforcement and registration—change between committee language and the final text heading to a vote, and whether additional stakeholders follow the NSA’s example by shifting their stance ahead of the chamber’s next steps.
This article was originally published as U.S. Law Enforcement Group Shifts to Neutral on CLARITY Act on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

QuFi Network says it has launched a post-quantum verification platform aimed at protecting digital assets from future quantum-computing threats—without forcing existing blockchain settlement layers to undergo immediate upgrades. The core idea is to add a separate verification step that can use post-quantum cryptography while leaving the underlying networks to continue settling transactions in their current forms.
Alongside the platform, QuFi introduced uBTC, a proof-of-concept applying the verification approach to Bitcoin. In the implementation described by QuFi, uBTC runs on Bitcoin Testnet, verifies BTC collateral, and produces cryptographic proofs that govern how value moves between settlement environments, with final redemptions settling as standard Bitcoin transactions.
Key takeaways
QuFi’s platform separates transaction verification from on-chain settlement, using a dedicated network of nodes for post-quantum checks.
The uBTC proof-of-concept applies the verification layer to Bitcoin Testnet while keeping ultimate redemptions compatible with normal Bitcoin transaction settlement.
QuFi reports using three post-quantum cryptographic standards—ML-DSA-65, SLH-DSA, and ML-KEM-1024—for signatures and key exchange.
The announcement adds to a broader push across the ecosystem to prepare for quantum risks through methods that avoid immediate hard forks or chain-wide rewrites.
A verification layer built to avoid chain migrations
According to QuFi, the platform is designed to reduce some of the practical friction that can come with adopting post-quantum cryptography directly at the blockchain protocol level. QuFi’s stated motivation is that larger post-quantum signatures and related cryptographic operations can increase storage, bandwidth, and computation requirements when deployed inside individual blockchains.
Instead of changing how settlement networks validate transactions at the base layer, QuFi says it “separates verification from settlement.” The company describes a decentralized set of verification nodes that validates transactions using post-quantum cryptography before those transactions are settled on existing blockchain networks. For users and integrators, the practical implication is that post-quantum protections could be introduced as an additional infrastructure component rather than as a sudden protocol overhaul.
QuFi also positioned the platform around a concrete cryptographic toolbox: ML-DSA-65 and SLH-DSA for digital signatures, and ML-KEM-1024 for secure key exchange. The use of multiple standards suggests QuFi is aiming for flexibility in how verification and key establishment work across different flows, though the performance and operational trade-offs of each element are not detailed in the announcement.
uBTC: post-quantum checks for Bitcoin collateral (test environment)
QuFi’s uBTC system is a proof-of-concept that takes the verification approach and tests it against Bitcoin’s asset layer. The described design is relatively specific: uBTC verifies BTC collateral and generates cryptographic proofs that define how value can move between settlement environments. Redemptions, QuFi says, ultimately settle as standard Bitcoin transactions.
Operating on Bitcoin Testnet4 means the work is currently in a test stage rather than live production settlement. For investors and builders, the key reason to watch this kind of design is that it targets compatibility—by generating proofs for movement rules, rather than requiring Bitcoin itself to immediately adopt a new post-quantum signature scheme. However, the real-world effectiveness will depend on how the proof system behaves under realistic load, how verification nodes are governed and secured, and whether the proof workflow can be made robust for everyday wallet and custody operations.
Quantum defenses are spreading—sometimes with clear trade-offs
QuFi’s announcement lands in the middle of a wider industry campaign to harden blockchains against quantum-era threats. Recent efforts show a pattern: many teams are trying to prepare without forcing disruptive upgrades, but each approach comes with costs.
Earlier in August, StarkWare tested a quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction on mainnet without requiring a fork. According to reporting from Cointelegraph, the experiment ran for hours, cost roughly $150 to $200, and produced a nonstandard transaction format that required direct submission to a miner. That experience illustrates one of the practical barriers to immediate post-quantum adoption at the settlement-layer level: even when a scheme works, it can be expensive and operationally awkward.
The same month, a pilot involving banks and regulators across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia tested post-quantum wallets and onchain transfers using ML-DSA-65, a standard that QuFi also lists among its cryptographic choices. In parallel, the Ethereum Foundation reportedly removed the Poseidon hash function from its planned post-quantum architecture in favor of established alternatives such as SHA or BLAKE. Together, those moves underline how the search for “quantum readiness” is not just about adding new cryptography, but also about selecting components that are mature, implementable, and safe under realistic engineering constraints.
Bitcoin developers have also been exploring protocol-level mechanisms. Cointelegraph previously covered work from Blockstream researchers around a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal for SHRINCS, an experimental post-quantum signature scheme intended to reduce the size and performance costs of quantum-resistant signatures. The same coverage highlighted important trade-offs: SHRINCS uses stateful signatures to keep signatures smaller, which requires wallets to track previously used signing keys. It also remains in an early stage without a completed security proof and introduces complexity that could create user failure modes.
Why QuFi’s approach matters—and what to watch next
The main difference in QuFi’s pitch is architectural. By placing post-quantum verification in an external layer and keeping settlement tied to existing blockchain networks, QuFi is aiming to avoid the immediate overheads and interoperability friction that can arise when chains are forced to adopt larger post-quantum primitives all at once.
That said, a verification layer introduces its own questions that the market will likely evaluate over time: how decentralized and credible the verification network is, how proofs are generated and validated end-to-end, and whether operational requirements for key management and custody remain manageable. For Bitcoin-related use cases, particular attention will be on how uBTC’s testnet results translate to real wallet and exchange integration patterns—especially if the goal is to support production redemptions without requiring nonstandard transaction formats or special miner submission paths.
Readers should watch for updates that move beyond testnet demonstrations—particularly performance metrics, security assumptions for the verification network, and any clarity on how this approach could interoperate with broader custody, compliance, and wallet tooling as quantum transition planning accelerates across the ecosystem.
This article was originally published as QuFi Unveils Post-Quantum Verification for Bitcoin Testnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto’s August rebound has shifted attention away from the sector’s AI-era pivot and back toward balance-sheet and settlement plays. Bitcoin-linked exposure is again paying off for miners and corporate treasuries, while traditional finance is moving in parallel—planning stablecoin infrastructure aimed at cross-border payments.
At the same time, accumulation strategies are pushing into new concentration milestones. Bitmine’s long Ether buying streak is nearing its own goal of owning 5% of Ethereum’s circulating supply, even as the firm remains deeply underwater on unrealized gains.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin’s late-August rally lifted mining stocks sharply, reversing a period when AI and high-performance computing narratives were outperforming.
Strive and Strategy both added large amounts of Bitcoin to their treasuries in the final week of August, reinforcing the “buy-the-ticker” corporate approach.
A consortium of 21 major financial institutions plans to launch a G7 stablecoin venture in 2027, starting with a US dollar-denominated product.
Bitmine’s 65-week Ether buying streak has brought it close to owning 5% of Ethereum’s circulating supply, despite significant unrealized losses.
Why Bitcoin’s rebound pulled miners back into focus
Bitcoin’s August rally had an outsized effect on mining equities. According to BlocksBridge Consulting, Bitcoin rose about 23% in late August, and that move outpaced performance among many AI-linked infrastructure stocks. BlocksBridge reported that Canaan, American Bitcoin, and Cango gained roughly between 41% and 67%, while several AI-exposed names were less responsive—CoreWeave gained about 21%, Nebius about 17%, and IREN about 15%.
The relative swing matters because it suggests the market is once again willing to treat miners primarily as leveraged exposure to Bitcoin rather than as diversified AI infrastructure plays. BlocksBridge linked the move to three catalysts: expanded US Treasury liquidity-supporting buybacks, regulatory optimism following a White House crypto meeting, and a short squeeze that liquidated more than $1.6 billion in positions.
Still, the re-pricing comes with a familiar caveat. Miners face high capital intensity—especially where AI and data-center build-outs are concerned. Investors may be rewarding BTC beta in the short run, but the longer-term question is whether those AI-capex plans can be scaled economically through cycles, not just during recoveries.
For context on how sentiment changed, earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted the broader “AI pivot” narrative among miners and how the late-August rally disrupted that preference. The current pattern reinforces that crypto equity performance remains tightly coupled to BTC market conditions.
Corporate treasuries add BTC again: Strive and Strategy’s purchases
While miners re-embraced Bitcoin sensitivity, corporate buyers also returned to the market. In the final week of August, Strive and Strategy each increased their holdings of Bitcoin through large block purchases, according to earlier Cointelegraph reporting on their respective acquisitions (links included in the source material).
Strive bought 1,800 BTC for approximately $143 million between Aug. 24 and Aug. 28, pushing its holdings to 23,156 BTC. The company reportedly paid an average of $79,431 per BTC (including fees and expenses). In the prior week, Strive had purchased 1,110 BTC at an average price of $73,409—suggesting the company continued to buy even as prices increased.
Strategy, meanwhile, resumed acquisitions and reportedly added 4,603 BTC at an average price of $80,318. Those buys lifted its holdings to above 845,000 BTC after four sales since May.
Cointelegraph’s source material also ties these purchases to a broader digital asset recovery that began Aug. 19, after the US Treasury announced plans to double certain long-term bond buybacks. In practice, this underscores how traditional macro liquidity expectations can quickly flow through to risk assets, prompting both equities and corporate treasuries to lean back into crypto exposure.
A stablecoin push aimed at 2027 goes beyond retail hype
Beyond Bitcoin-specific demand, mainstream finance is continuing to build stablecoin plans with a focus on institutional settlement. A consortium of 21 major financial institutions—including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and Citi—intends to establish a new company to develop and issue stablecoins, according to earlier Cointelegraph coverage of the initiative.
The venture is designed to launch a US dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027, with an expansion to other G7 currencies afterward. The next planned rollout would reportedly be a euro-denominated offering. The stablecoin is intended to serve wholesale, institutional, and retail markets for cross-border payments and digital asset settlement.
The consortium also appears to be positioning the project for regulatory compliance. The source material states that the group plans to align with the US GENIUS Act and the EU’s MiCA regulation, building on an earlier October initiative in which 10 banks explored a 1:1 reserve-backed model using public blockchains.
What’s notable for investors and builders is the shift from isolated pilots to a coordinated, multi-institution structure. Even if timelines move, the direction is clear: stablecoin rails are being treated as part of payments infrastructure rather than a speculative side industry.
Bitmine nears a 5% Ether concentration target—after 65 weeks
Ether accumulation is continuing at a pace that brings Bitmine closer to a major supply-concentration milestone. Bitmine extended its ETH buying streak to 65 consecutive weeks by adding 53,501 ETH, as described in earlier Cointelegraph coverage of the firm’s accumulation track.
The latest purchase reportedly brings Bitmine’s holdings to more than 5.9 million ETH. Based on an ETH price of $2,511 as of Sunday (as cited in the source material), those holdings were valued at roughly $14.8 billion. The company’s position is described as 4.9% of Ethereum’s 120.7 million circulating supply, placing it near its stated 5% goal.
Bitmine chairman Tom Lee said Ether, Bitcoin, and Solana have been the three best-performing major assets since June 30, with ETH leading gains. In the same remarks, Lee argued that outperformance versus other macro assets could encourage institutions to add to crypto holdings.
However, the concentration story comes with a sobering balance-sheet reality: DropsTab data cited in the source material indicates Bitmine is still sitting on about $5.1 billion in unrealized losses on its Ether holdings. That figure reflects continued buying through the downturn that began in late 2022, not a strategy that depends on an immediate price recovery.
For market participants, this creates an asymmetry worth watching. Concentration can strengthen influence over liquidity and market optics, but it also means that investor confidence may ultimately hinge on how quickly—or slowly—unrealized losses convert back into gains during future drawdowns.
Across these developments, the next thing readers should watch is whether the market’s renewed preference for BTC-linked exposure persists beyond the August rebound—while stablecoin plans in 2027 advance from framework discussions into concrete licensing, reserves, and issuance mechanics, and Ether accumulators like Bitmine approach (or revise) their 5% supply target.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s Rise Leaves AI-Focused Crypto Trading in the Background on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Pineapple Financial says it has migrated more than $1 billion of residential mortgage records onto Injective, marking a significant step in its plan to move a large portion of its funded loan portfolio onchain.
Injective announced Friday that Pineapple expects to eventually migrate over 29,000 funded mortgages worth more than $10 billion to the network. The approach is designed to keep each mortgage tied to its underlying loan file through an onchain record, rather than repackaging loans into a new mortgage security.
Key takeaways
Pineapple Financial reports moving more than $1 billion in mortgage records onto Injective as part of an onchain migration of its existing portfolio.
Injective says Pineapple plans to bring over 29,000 funded mortgages worth more than $10 billion onto the network.
Each mortgage is represented by an onchain record with more than 500 data points to support verification, audit trails, and risk analysis.
Token Terminal data indicates the PAPL0 asset market cap is about $1.1 billion, reflecting mortgage-record tokens rather than direct ownership of the underlying loans.
How Pineapple is tokenizing mortgages on Injective
Injective’s update frames the migration as a way to digitize and operationalize mortgage data on a layer-1 network built for financial applications. According to the company, Pineapple’s onchain records are linked to the underlying loan file, aiming to avoid creating a wholly new mortgage instrument in the process.
Each mortgage record includes more than 500 data points. Injective characterizes the dataset as intended for verification and audit workflows, as well as risk analysis that depends on having granular, loan-level information available in a consistent format.
Pineapple’s own dashboard, referenced by Injective, shows the initiative has expanded since it began in December 2025. The migration now includes 2,079 mortgage records, up from 1,259 at the time the effort launched.
What PAPL0 represents and why the structure matters
Token Terminal tracks PAPL0 as an asset associated with the mortgage records on Injective. The data cited in the announcement places PAPL0’s asset market cap at about $1.1 billion, up 48.2% over the past nine months, according to Token Terminal figures.
Crucially, Token Terminal’s project framing (as described in the original material) indicates that the tokens are meant to represent mortgage records, not ownership of the underlying loans themselves. That distinction is important for investors and counterparties trying to understand what is actually being transferred or referenced when token balances change—particularly in real-world asset (RWA) systems where legal ownership, servicing rights, and data integrity may not always map neatly onto token mechanics.
For market participants evaluating RWAs, this record-based model may also influence how due diligence is performed. Instead of relying on tokens as a proxy for the full legal construct of a mortgage, the onchain record is positioned as a structured data layer—potentially improving traceability and audit readiness.
Pineapple’s broader Injective ties and onchain treasury
The mortgage-record migration is part of a wider relationship between Pineapple and Injective. The material also points to a separate digital asset treasury connected to Injective’s native token, INJ, with Pineapple described as having a $100 million Injective treasury.
As part of that setup, Pineapple stakes INJ from the treasury. Kraken is named as a primary validator for the holdings, tying the arrangement to established institutional infrastructure for validating network activity.
Real estate tokenization continues, but remains small
The move sits within a broader push to bring real estate and other traditionally illiquid assets onto blockchains. Tokenization is often marketed as a way to divide interests, improve transferability, and broaden access—but the pace of adoption still varies widely by asset type and jurisdiction.
Earlier this year, several major finance players were highlighted in connection with tokenized real estate fund structures. In June, Apex Group joined other firms—including Goldman Sachs, Archax, and LRC Group—in a tokenized real estate fund effort where fund shares are issued as digital tokens through Goldman Sachs’ Digital Asset Platform. In that structure, blockchain-based ownership is used for the fund shares themselves, rather than simply recording property-related information onchain.
Dubai has also expanded its tokenized real estate initiatives. The reporting referenced that in February, the Dubai Land Department launched a second phase of a pilot after roughly $5 million in property had been tokenized, with transactions recorded on the XRP Ledger.
Still, despite recurring announcements, tokenized real estate appears to be only a small slice of the overall RWA ecosystem. The figures cited in the source state that the sector has about $226.5 million in distributed value, up 11.7% over the past 30 days. This is contrasted with approximately $38.8 billion across tokenized RWAs tracked by RWA.xyz.
What to watch next
With Pineapple increasing the number of onchain mortgage records and Injective targeting a scale-up to more than 29,000 mortgages worth over $10 billion, the key question for the next phase is how this record-based model performs in practice—especially around verification workflows, auditing, and how market participants interpret the relationship between tokenized records and the legal rights attached to the underlying loans.
This article was originally published as Pineapple Financial Plans $10B On-Chain Mortgage Records on Injective on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.