Crypto Breaking

SafePal, a Binance-backed non-custodial wallet provider, has disclosed a data breach exposing the personal details of 39,798 users, including names, shipping addresses, phone numbers, and purchase data.
According to the company’s announcement, the breach impacted customers who placed orders with SafePal between March 2, 2025, and April 11, 2026. However, SafePal has assured users that private keys, seed phrases, and crypto assets are not compromised.
Crypto Hit By Safepal Breach
SafePal disclosed the flaw on X, attributing it to a flaw in the order-tracking plug-in that exposed the personal details of a small subset of customers. According to the post, the order information of customers who placed orders between March 2, 2025, and April 11, 2026, including names, shipping addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, and purchase details, was compromised.
“Dear community, while your SafePal wallet, seed phrase, and private keys are secure, we identified a flaw in the order-tracking plug-in that led to unauthorized access to information of a subset of customers.”
The company notified the affected users via email and stated that it had identified and fixed a verification defect in the plug-in that allows customers to track their orders. SafePal has also introduced additional security measures and removed over 30 fake websites and phishing links associated with the breach. However, a report by BleepingComputer states that at least one threat actor is selling stolen data from the breach on a cybercrime forum. Additionally, some users have reported phishing attempts as early as May.
Seed Phrases, Private Keys Secure
SafePal confirmed that seed phrases, private keys, wallet passwords, hardware wallets, and crypto assets were not compromised during the breach thanks to its cold storage architecture. Furthermore, the breach did not involve bank details, payment card numbers, or any government-issued identification number. SafePal has set up a dedicated tool for users to check if their details were compromised during the breach.
Implication For Safepal Users
While the breach did not compromise users’ funds or private keys, it exposed crucial personal details tied to users. This puts users at risk of phishing attacks or elaborate social engineering scams. SafePal has warned users to be wary of attempts to access wallet credentials, crypto assets, and other personal information through fraudulent emails, text messages, phone calls, letters, offers, phishing websites, fake firmware update requests, and customer support communication.
SafePal has also issued an advisory stating it would never ask for their recovery phrase, PIN, or private keys. The advisory added that users must move their funds to a new wallet if they had entered a seed phrase or private key on a suspicious website or in response to a suspicious message following the breach.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Safepal Data Breach: Personal Data Of 39,798 Users At Risk on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis Government Solutions has filed a lawsuit against the United States government after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded a sole-source contract to its competitor, TRM Labs.
In a filing made July 27 and posted publicly via CourtListener’s RECAP archive on Sunday, Chainalysis challenged the ICE procurement decision in the US Court of Federal Claims, arguing that the award process and outcome were not justified under federal contracting rules.
Key takeaways
Chainalysis Government Solutions sued ICE in the US Court of Federal Claims over ICE’s sole-source award to TRM Labs.
The contract is valued at about $94.6 million and covers forensic software and support services for Homeland Security Task Force investigations.
Chainalysis says it responded to ICE’s notice of intent with its own capability statement, but the award still went to TRM.
TRM Labs intervened in the case, with government and TRM responses due Friday and oral argument scheduled for Sept. 2.
The procurement dispute and contract scope
The federal award notice listed on SAM.gov values the contract at approximately $94.6 million. It specifies that the agreement covers forensic software and support services tied to Homeland Security Task Force investigations. The one-year performance period runs from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
Both Chainalysis and TRM Labs sell blockchain analytics and investigative tools used by government agencies to trace crypto-related activity and support law enforcement cases. That overlap is central to the dispute: Chainalysis argues the government’s decision to move forward through a sole-source pathway was inconsistent with the procurement approach implied by its earlier submissions.
Chainalysis alleges ICE acted “arbitrarily”
In its motion and related court filings, Chainalysis described ICE’s decision as “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.” The company’s position is that it responded to ICE’s notice of intent to acquire forensic software and support services from TRM by submitting a capability statement.
According to the motion, the case complaint is under seal because it includes Chainalysis’s confidential and proprietary information, including trade secrets. The Court of Federal Claims granted Chainalysis permission to keep the complaint sealed on July 31.
While the public documents indicate the complaint itself remains confidential, the filing also frames the legal challenge around the procurement decision process—suggesting the company believes it had a reasonable basis to compete for the work but was sidelined when ICE proceeded with a sole-source award to TRM.
TRM intervenes as the case moves to scheduled arguments
TRM Labs intervened in the lawsuit on July 28, moving from being the recipient of the contract to an active participant in the court proceedings.
Court scheduling shows that responses from the government and from TRM are set for Friday, and oral argument is scheduled for Sept. 2. The government, according to the docket activity, requested a decision by Sept. 10.
The publicly available filings do not, in the excerpts currently accessible, spell out Chainalysis’s exact objections in granular detail or what specific remedy it seeks. As a result, observers cannot yet determine whether the claim focuses purely on legal grounds for sole-source contracting, on evaluation of capabilities, or on the procedural handling of submissions. The under-seal status also limits what can be confirmed from outside the case record.
What this means for crypto analytics procurement
This dispute highlights a recurring tension in government crypto-investigation technology: blockchain analytics vendors compete on technical capability, but procurement pathways—especially sole-source decisions—can compress or eliminate the opportunity for additional vendors to formally vie for awards. When companies believe they were improperly excluded, bid protests and contract challenges become the primary route to scrutiny.
For investors and builders in the crypto analytics sector, the timing also matters. The contract period begins July 1, 2026, meaning the court’s handling of the challenge could influence whether the award proceeds as planned or whether the government is required to revisit aspects of its procurement approach. Even if the case ultimately does not overturn the contract, litigation can still affect expectations around vendor selection and evaluation standards used by federal agencies for forensic crypto tooling.
At the same time, the lack of publicly detailed objections in the accessible record—and the fact that the complaint remains under seal—means market participants should be cautious about assumptions. The outcome will depend on what the court ultimately reviews in the sealed materials and in the arguments that will be presented at the Sept. 2 hearing.
Calls for comment and current status
TRM Labs declined to comment. Chainalysis and ICE did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
With the government and TRM filings due Friday and oral argument set for Sept. 2, the next public updates from the docket may clarify what specific procurement steps Chainalysis claims were unlawful and whether the company is seeking an injunction, a contract revision, or another form of relief.
If the court’s decision provides more detail about the justification for sole-source contracting in this context, it could offer a broader signal to other analytics vendors about how federal agencies evaluate readiness, performance risk, and competing capability statements during similar procurements.
This article was originally published as Chainalysis Files Suit Against US Over $95M ICE Contract With TRM Labs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis Government Solutions has filed a legal challenge against a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) decision to award a sole-source contract to rival TRM Labs. The dispute centers on ICE’s procurement choice for forensic blockchain analysis tools used in Homeland Security Task Force investigations.
According to CourtListener records, Chainalysis Government Solutions brought the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on July 27. The filing—accessible through CourtListener’s RECAP archive as of Sunday—contests the award as unlawful and seeks court review of the procurement outcome.
Key takeaways
Chainalysis Government Solutions sued the U.S. government after ICE awarded a sole-source contract to TRM Labs for forensic blockchain analytics and support services.
The federal award notice values the contract at about $94.6 million for one year of work covering July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027.
Chainalysis alleges ICE’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable,” arguing it responded to a notice of intent related to TRM.
The complaint is under seal due to confidential and proprietary information, limiting public visibility into the precise arguments and requested remedies.
TRM intervened in the case; government and TRM responses are due Friday, with oral argument scheduled for Sept. 2.
The contract at the center of the lawsuit
The contract described in the award notice is valued at approximately $94.6 million and is intended to provide forensic software and support services for Homeland Security Task Force investigations. The period of performance spans one year, starting July 1, 2026 and ending June 30, 2027.
Chainalysis and TRM both operate in the same government-adjacent niche: they supply blockchain analytics tools that agencies can use to trace cryptocurrency-related activity and support investigations into alleged criminal behavior. This overlap is part of what makes the procurement decision consequential for vendors competing for public-sector work.
Chainalysis claims ICE ignored fair process
In its motion and complaint filings, Chainalysis Government Solutions characterized ICE’s decision as “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.” The filing states that Chainalysis submitted a capability statement after receiving an ICE notice of intent seeking forensic software and support services from TRM.
While the public docket does not spell out Chainalysis’s specific objections in detail—largely because the court allowed the complaint to remain under seal—the company’s challenge indicates it believes the sole-source award did not follow the proper standards for federal procurement decisions.
The sealed nature of the lawsuit is important for readers to understand what is and isn’t yet visible. CourtListener notes that the complaint remains under seal because it contains Chainalysis’ confidential and proprietary information and trade secrets. The Court of Federal Claims granted Chainalysis permission to keep the complaint under seal on July 31.
TRM intervenes as the case moves toward argument
TRM Labs intervened in the case on July 28, according to CourtListener docket activity. Intervention typically means the awarded vendor is directly involved in defending the procurement decision and responding to allegations raised by the plaintiff.
Procedurally, the court has scheduled responses from both the U.S. government and TRM for Friday. Oral argument is set for Sept. 2. The government has requested a decision by Sept. 10, reflecting an expectation that the court can resolve the dispute on a relatively expedited timeline.
However, the public filings do not include detailed information about what remedy Chainalysis is seeking, nor do they lay out the full factual and legal basis of the company’s challenge in the open record.
Why the fight matters for crypto enforcement and vendors
This case sits at the intersection of crypto enforcement needs and federal procurement rules. Government agencies rely on blockchain analytics platforms to identify transaction flows, associate addresses with entities, and produce investigative leads that can be used in broader cases. When contracts are awarded without competitive bidding—sole-source procurement—vendors often scrutinize whether the process complied with procurement requirements and whether the government had a defensible basis for selecting a single provider.
For Chainalysis and TRM, the lawsuit is also a signal of how competition may play out in a market where government contracts can be large and operationally important. Even when both companies sell overlapping toolsets, the legal standards around how agencies choose among vendors can become decisive.
For other firms watching the space, the dispute underscores that procurement decisions in blockchain analytics—particularly for forensic use—can face formal challenges that may affect contract timelines, oversight, and how agencies structure future solicitations.
TRM Labs declined to comment. Chainalysis and ICE did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
As the sealed arguments begin to take shape through upcoming filings and scheduled court responses, investors, builders, and competing vendors will likely watch whether the court focuses on the procurement process itself (such as the justification for a sole-source award) or on more granular disputes tied to the parties’ capability submissions and the standards applied by ICE.
This article was originally published as Chainalysis Files Suit Against US Over $95M ICE Contract With TRM Labs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

With the US Congress entering the final stretch of its legislative calendar, the odds of the proposed CLARITY Act have dropped sharply—according to Galaxy Digital’s Alex Thorn, down to just 10% for passage in 2026 from a much higher estimate in May. The change underscores how fragile the bill’s political pathway has become, and what could follow if lawmakers fail to deliver “rules of the road” for crypto markets.
As the clock tightens, attention is shifting toward regulatory contingency plans. If CLARITY does not advance, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are expected to move independently—while crypto firms and major industry stakeholders continue pushing for coordinated outcomes. Separate threads are also unfolding across cyber defense, prediction-market oversight, Ethereum’s post-quantum roadmap, and stablecoin auditing.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Digital cut its CLARITY Act passage estimate for 2026 to 10%, down from 75% in May, citing unresolved political issues and limited Senate time.
The Senate reconvenes on Sept. 14 with only 14 days in session, making the bill’s timeline dependent on near-immediate procedural momentum after return.
If CLARITY fails, the SEC and CFTC are positioned to issue their own crypto-market frameworks, raising the risk of overlapping or inconsistent rules.
Crypto companies have asked frontier AI labs for earlier access to more capable cybersecurity models for Bitcoin developers, amid continuing wallet breach incidents.
Regulation of prediction markets remains fragmented, with the CFTC pushing back against state restraints while courts and local bodies challenge the boundaries of federal versus state authority.
CLARITY timeline tightens as passage chances fall
Galaxy Digital’s research head Alex Thorn said the probability of the CLARITY Act passing in 2026 is now “just 10%.” In May, Thorn’s estimate was far higher at 75%, reflecting how quickly political momentum has eroded as negotiations encountered unresolved issues.
One core constraint is the Senate calendar. According to the reporting cited in the source, the Senate will have only 14 days in session after reconvening on Sept. 14. That leaves little room for delays unless lawmakers move quickly on procedural steps, including an initial motion to proceed immediately upon return. Thorn’s view, as stated, is that the bill would need to effectively take over the working session to pass within the window.
The stakes are not only legislative but regulatory. If CLARITY does not advance, the SEC and CFTC plan to step in with their own rulemaking for crypto markets—an outcome Thorn and others appear to view as less desirable than a single comprehensive framework. The SEC, for its part, had scheduled an open meeting to outline a path toward clearer “rules of the road,” but the meeting was canceled due to an “unforeseen scheduling issue,” according to the source.
There are also indications of political sensitivity around the sequencing of agency action. The White House was reportedly unhappy that the SEC might effectively go “rogue” on crypto rules, potentially complicating delicate negotiations to get CLARITY over the line.
High-level coordination attempts to keep CLARITY alive
Despite the reduced odds, stakeholders appear to be mobilizing around a final push. The source notes that SEC Chair Paul Atkins, President Donald Trump, and representatives from major crypto-adjacent institutions—including Coinbase, a16z, Ripple, Chainlink, NYSE, and Nasdaq—are expected to meet at the White House on Wednesday to discuss crypto regulation and ways to advance the bill.
The following day, the CFTC is scheduled to convene its new Innovation Advisory Committee to discuss regulation of crypto alongside AI and prediction markets. In practice, these parallel calendars reflect a dual-track posture: one aimed at passing CLARITY, and another preparing for continued regulatory work irrespective of whether Congress succeeds.
For investors and market participants, the immediate question is not whether enforcement will continue, but how predictable it will be. A comprehensive statute could reduce uncertainty around classification and jurisdiction. A patchwork approach—created by separate SEC and CFTC rulemaking—could increase compliance complexity, particularly for businesses straddling securities and commodities characterizations.
Cybersecurity push grows as more AI-enabled threats emerge
Beyond Washington, the crypto ecosystem is responding to evolving threat models—especially those shaped by increasingly capable AI systems. Multiple cryptocurrency firms, including Anchorage Digital, BitGo, Bitwise, Blockstream, Ledger, and Trezor, urged frontier AI labs to provide Bitcoin developers with early access to top-tier models.
The push is described in an open letter published by the Bitcoin Policy Institute. The letter argues that public frontier systems may impose guardrails that restrict defenders, forcing developers to rely on less capable open-weight models rather than tools closer to what attackers can use.
“Without dedicated access programs, defenders may lack the tools needed to keep pace with evolving threats to the infrastructure they maintain.”
The source links this urgency to recent incidents, including a reported $116 million theft from Coldcard hardware wallets, followed by a “Bitcoin Red Team” effort that used AI to identify thousands of potential cybersecurity issues using open-source Chinese models. It also points to ongoing data exposure risks affecting wallet users.
According to the source, Trezor reported a data breach involving personal details of roughly 14,000 users through its shipping provider ShipMonk, with customers at higher risk for phishing attacks if they received products in multiple listed regions between May 10 and Aug. 8. Separately, SafePal disclosed a breach affecting nearly 40,000 users’ order information, including names, addresses, and purchasing data, and reported taking down fraudulent websites and phishing links tied to the incident.
What to watch here is whether the request for AI access translates into concrete programs for defenders—because the gap between attacker capability and defensive tooling can directly affect the speed at which vulnerabilities are identified and mitigated.
Prediction markets face continued federal-state friction
Prediction market regulation remains a live battlefield between federal oversight and state restrictions. The CFTC ordered prediction market platform Kalshi to disregard a restraining order in New York and continue operating normally, calling New York’s enforcement action a “market emergency” because it could prevent Kalshi from operating nationally.
The CFTC’s reasoning, as cited in the source, centers on the view that the Commodity Exchange Act requires a uniform national derivatives market. CFTC Chair Michael Selig said Congress did not intend derivatives exchanges to face a “patchwork” of state gaming laws.
However, the regulatory conflict is far from settled. A Washington state judge later ordered Kalshi to stop operating in Washington and rejected Kalshi’s argument that federal commodities law preempts Washington’s gambling law. The source says Kalshi was ordered to implement IP-address and residency-based geofencing by Aug. 19 and a GeoComply multi-source geofencing system by Sept. 2.
Meanwhile, local-level scrutiny is also growing: the New York City Council launched an investigation into prediction market firms to examine whether influencer-driven marketing uses “false and deceptive” tactics targeting young adults, according to the source.
For platforms, compliance strategy may increasingly hinge less on one-time legal outcomes and more on the operational reality of jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction constraints—especially where geofencing becomes a workaround rather than a definitive legal solution.
Ethereum narrows its post-quantum choices and refocuses Hegotá scope
On the network development front, the Ethereum Foundation is adjusting its post-quantum architecture. Researcher Justin Drake said the foundation is moving away from the Poseidon hash function in its plan, instead leaning on established alternatives such as SHA or BLAKE.
The source frames the rationale around recent progress: Poseidon is designed to work well with zero-knowledge proofs and can help compress post-quantum signature sizes, but Drake argued that developments mean SNARKs can be tailored to work better with existing hash functions.
According to the same reporting, Ethereum is targeting a production-ready “leanVM” for 2027, with deployments across Ethereum’s consensus, data, and execution layers in 2028. Separately, developers are reviewing 66 proposals to narrow scope for the next major upgrade after “Glamsterdam,” referred to as Hegotá.
The source notes that the censorship-resistance proposal FOCIL is currently the only Ethereum Improvement Proposal scheduled for inclusion, with several other EIPs focused on privacy. Developers are aiming to ship Hegotá next year, while Glamsterdam is expected in the coming months.
Tether completes first full financial audit with clean KPMG opinion
In stablecoin auditing, Tether announced it has completed the first full independent audit of its annual financial statements. The source says KPMG US issued a clean opinion on Tether’s 2025 accounts, covering the year ended Dec. 31, 2025, including balance sheet items, income statement figures, cash flows, and the assets purportedly backing issued tokens.
Tether also stated that the audited statements showed reserves exceeding liabilities by $6.814 billion. The source emphasizes that this full audit differs from Tether’s quarterly reserve attestations by subjecting broader financial statements and underlying evidence to independent examination.
For market participants, the practical value is not in the audit’s existence alone but in what an audited process adds to transparency: independent verification of the evidence and the full set of financial statements, rather than periodic reserve-focused attestations.
Looking ahead, the biggest variable remains congressional timing: whether CLARITY can gain enough procedural momentum before the Senate’s short September window closes. At the same time, the regulatory direction agencies choose if Congress falls short—and how quickly firms respond with security and compliance tooling—may matter as much to real-world operations as any eventual statute.
This article was originally published as 54,000 Wallet Records Leaked as CLARITY Odds Drop to 10%: Digest on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coinbase and Ripple executives will join President Donald Trump at the White House next week. The meeting brings together major crypto companies and top financial regulators. It sets the stage for a broader push on digital asset policy.
Brian Armstrong and Brad Garlinghouse Lead the List
Brian Armstrong of Coinbase and Brad Garlinghouse of Ripple top the expected attendee list. Both executives have spent months pushing lawmakers toward clearer crypto rules. Their companies rank among the most vocal supporters of pending legislation.
Semafor first reported the details of the upcoming gathering. The outlet named several firms beyond Coinbase and Ripple as likely participants. Executives from a16z, Chainlink, Paradigm, and Kalshi are expected to attend as well.
The meeting arrives just one day before a separate but related event. Officials will use the gathering as a lead-in to a bigger regulatory session. That timing suggests the administration wants continuity between private talks and public policy work.
Regulators and Prediction Markets Join the Conversation
President Trump plans to attend the meeting alongside two key regulators. CFTC Chair Mike Selig and SEC Chair Paul Atkins are both expected to appear. Their presence signals that regulatory coordination sits high on the agenda.
The gathering also doubles as a kickoff for the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee. That committee holds its first official meeting on August 20. Participants there will cover crypto regulation, artificial intelligence, and prediction markets in one session.
Prediction market platforms have grown increasingly relevant to federal regulators this year. Kalshi’s inclusion in the meeting reflects that shift in focus. Crypto and prediction markets now sit closer together in policy discussions than before.
The full agenda for the White House meeting remains undisclosed. Still, industry context points toward legislative priorities shaping the conversation. Coinbase and Ripple have both pressed the Senate to act quickly.
Clarity Act Odds Continue to Slide
Momentum behind the CLARITY Act has weakened in recent weeks. Polymarket data shows just a 19% chance the bill becomes law this year. That figure marks a renewed drop after previous signs of progress.
Galaxy Research cut its own projection even further, down to 10%. The firm pointed to unresolved legislative issues as a central concern. It also noted the Senate has limited working days before the midterm recess begins.
Armstrong has pushed back against pessimism surrounding the bill’s prospects. He remains confident that lawmakers can still pass the legislation this year. His comments came despite the bill stalling during the Senate’s August break.
Regulatory agencies appear ready to act independently if Congress does not. The SEC and CFTC could offer clarity without new legislation. Both agencies have signalled openness to guidance-based approaches this year.
The SEC recently cancelled a scheduled crypto meeting of its own. It also paused its proposed Innovation Exemption guidance for now. Officials likely want to avoid overlapping with ongoing legislative efforts.
These moves suggest agencies are timing their actions around Congress. Regulators seem to be waiting for legislative clarity before advancing new rules. The coming weeks will show whether that patience produces results.
The White House meeting therefore carries weight beyond a single afternoon. It links private industry input with public regulatory planning. Outcomes from the session could shape crypto policy for months ahead.
This article was originally published as Trump to Host Coinbase, Ripple Chiefs Amid Crypto Rule Push on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum’s core development team is evaluating a large backlog of proposed changes as it prepares the next major network upgrade, Hegotá. Developers say they are currently reviewing 66 proposals, with several focused on adding new on-chain capabilities for privacy-oriented applications.
Among the items being considered are a set of Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIPs) that, if adopted, would add “native privacy” primitives—potentially reducing the need for privacy apps to depend on third-party workarounds. Ethereum Foundation contributor Toni Wahrstätter outlined the case in a Sunday post on X, arguing that proposals could help enable privacy functionality directly at the protocol level.
Key takeaways
Ethereum developers are reviewing 66 proposals for Hegotá, with multiple EIPs tied to privacy enhancements.
FOCIL (EIP-Failed by inclusion list concept) is currently the only EIP explicitly scheduled for Hegotá, according to the discussion referenced in the source.
Additional proposals under consideration—Frame Transactions (EIP-8141), Keyed Nonces (EIP-8250), and Recent Roots for Frame Transactions (EIP-8272)—are framed as components for “native privacy.”
Developers aim to roll out Hegotá next year, while the next core developer call is set for Monday at 2:00 pm UTC.
Separately, the roadmap points to Glamsterdam as a major near-term upgrade, with a mainnet launch expected in the second half of 2026.
Hegotá: a long proposal slate and a privacy push
Hegotá is shaping up to be a consolidation moment for Ethereum development priorities. The source states that developers are actively reviewing 66 proposals to decide which changes should be scoped into the upgrade.
In the discussion cited, Wahrstätter argues that more than a single privacy-related mechanism may be needed to achieve the desired outcome: protocol-level privacy that applications can use without having to route around the base layer through intermediaries. This positions privacy not as an optional add-on, but as a likely theme of what gets built into Hegotá.
Why FOCIL and the “frame” privacy primitives matter
At present, the source indicates that FOCIL is the only EIP scheduled for inclusion in Hegotá. FOCIL—standing for Fork-choice enforced inclusion lists—is intended to let a committee of validators force pending transactions into blocks. The stated goal is to strengthen censorship resistance by limiting the ability for blocks to exclude particular transactions.
The privacy-oriented proposals appear to complement that effort by introducing protocol building blocks tailored for privacy applications:
Frame Transactions (EIP-8141)
Keyed Nonces (EIP-8250)
Recent Roots for Frame Transactions (EIP-8272)
According to the X post cited in the source, these EIPs should be considered so that privacy apps can operate using native protocol features instead of relying on intermediaries. The practical implication for builders and users is that privacy might become easier to integrate—potentially reducing complexity, reducing reliance on external systems, and aligning privacy behavior more closely with Ethereum’s core execution and verification model.
Upgrade timing and what happens if proposals miss Hegotá
Ethereum’s core developers are targeting a Hegotá release next year, but the exact scope will be determined through ongoing engineering review. The source also notes that the next Ethereum core developer calls are expected to influence a major portion of the development trajectory for 2027.
Importantly, the source adds that proposals not selected for Hegotá could be reconsidered for later upgrades. That means the current review process is not just about choosing immediate inclusions—it also affects how privacy-related design work and other protocol changes may be phased across multiple release cycles.
The next Ethereum developer call is scheduled for Monday at 2:00 pm UTC, a meeting that will likely clarify which proposals advance and how developers think about scoping.
What else is coming: Glamsterdam’s scalability and usability goals
While attention is on Hegotá, Ethereum developers are also moving toward a major earlier milestone: Glamsterdam. The source characterizes Glamsterdam as one of the “most consequential upgrades” this year, emphasizing three themes: improved scalability, layer-1 hardening, and making the network easier to use.
According to Ethereum’s public roadmap as referenced in the source, a mainnet launch is expected in the second half of 2026. That timeframe matters for market participants and developers because it suggests a near-term sequence: first implement the Glamsterdam improvements on mainnet, then continue scoping Hegotá’s longer-term protocol changes.
The source also references earlier reporting from Cointelegraph on Glamsterdam milestones and newly named protocol leads, reinforcing that this upgrade is already in an advanced planning and execution phase.
Closing perspective
With 66 proposals under review and a core developer call set for Monday at 2:00 pm UTC, the next steps for Hegotá will help determine how quickly Ethereum can move from privacy concepts to usable protocol primitives. Readers should watch which privacy-related EIPs advance beyond review and how developers weigh them against other constraints in the scoping process.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Developers to Trim 66 Hegotá Upgrade Proposals on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum core developers are narrowing down a broad set of proposals for the next major upgrade, dubbed “Hegotá,” as they work toward shipping a package intended to improve the network’s robustness and expand what privacy-focused applications can do on-chain. The review process covers 66 proposals in total, with several of them centered on adding privacy-related capabilities to Ethereum.
According to a Sunday post on X by Ethereum Foundation contributor Toni Wahrstätter, the only Ethereum Improvement Proposal (EIP) currently scheduled for Hegotá is FOCIL (Fork-choice enforced inclusion lists). Wahrstätter also argued that additional privacy-adjacent EIPs—Frame Transactions (EIP-8141), Keyed Nonces (EIP-8250), and Recent Roots for Frame Transactions (EIP-8272)—should be considered alongside FOCIL to “unlock native privacy,” enabling privacy applications to function without depending on intermediaries.
Key takeaways
Ethereum developers are reviewing 66 proposals to define the scope of the Hegotá upgrade.
FOCIL is the only EIP currently slated for Hegotá, aiming to strengthen censorship resistance via inclusion enforced by a committee of validators.
Additional privacy-oriented EIPs—EIP-8141, EIP-8250, and EIP-8272—have been proposed as candidates to expand “native privacy” primitives.
Core developers are targeting Hegotá for release next year, while proposals not included may be reconsidered later.
Hegotá scope review: from 66 ideas to a deliverable upgrade
The Hegotá upgrade is shaping up as a multi-threaded effort: developers must balance near-term implementation constraints with longer-term architectural goals. The latest round of work involves evaluating 66 proposals to decide which changes should be bundled into the next major upgrade.
As the proposal list is narrowed, attention is increasingly turning to privacy-related building blocks. Wahrstätter’s commentary frames the argument around reducing reliance on outside systems: rather than leaving privacy applications to coordinate with intermediaries, he suggests Hegotá should adopt protocol-level primitives that privacy apps can use directly.
What FOCIL would change for censorship resistance
FOCIL—Fork-choice enforced inclusion lists—is intended to affect how Ethereum handles transactions that are pending when block building occurs. In Wahrstätter’s description, the mechanism would allow a committee of validators to enforce the inclusion of pending transactions into blocks. The goal is to strengthen censorship resistance, making it harder for certain transactions to be consistently excluded under adverse conditions.
While FOCIL is currently the only EIP scheduled for Hegotá, its inclusion signals that the upgrade’s scope is not limited to privacy: developers are also prioritizing changes that can influence transaction inclusion behavior at the protocol level.
Privacy primitives under consideration for native application use
The other proposals discussed in the same context focus on enabling privacy features more directly within the protocol itself. While they are not currently scheduled for Hegotá, they are specifically named as candidates that—if adopted—could help achieve the “native privacy” outcome Wahrstätter is advocating.
In particular, Frame Transactions (EIP-8141) and Recent Roots for Frame Transactions (EIP-8272) are positioned as components that would support how privacy-related transactions can be framed and validated over time, while Keyed Nonces (EIP-8250) is described as part of the supporting machinery needed for privacy-oriented operation.
The practical implication for builders is straightforward: protocol-level privacy primitives can reduce the need for custom workarounds and third-party coordination. Instead of privacy applications relying on intermediaries to bridge gaps in current Ethereum capabilities, these applications could potentially interact with privacy features that are more consistently available at the base layer.
Timing, governance, and what happens to proposals that don’t make Hegotá
Developers are aiming to ship Hegotá next year. The process matters because the decisions being made through Ethereum’s core development channels shape Ethereum’s roadmap well beyond a single upgrade.
In parallel, the upcoming next Ethereum core developer call is scheduled for Monday at 2:00 pm UTC. That call is expected to influence the development trajectory for the year 2027, according to the article’s framing. The practical reason for that timing is that proposals that do not make the cut for Hegotá are not necessarily dead—they could be reconsidered in a later upgrade cycle.
This “triage” dynamic is a familiar pattern in large network upgrades: early inclusion decisions determine which parts of the ecosystem get access to new protocol capabilities sooner, and which builders may have to wait longer. For privacy-focused developers and researchers, the outcome will depend not only on technical merit but also on whether the proposed privacy primitives can fit into Hegotá’s scope constraints.
Glamsterdam first: scalability and usability improvements in 2026
While Hegotá is still in the planning and selection phase, Ethereum developers are also preparing to ship Glamsterdam, described as one of the most consequential upgrades planned for 2026. Glamsterdam is intended to improve scalability, harden the layer-1, and make the network easier to use.
Ethereum’s public roadmap anticipates a mainnet launch sometime in the second half of 2026. For readers tracking Ethereum’s long-term direction, this matters because it outlines the sequencing: improvements aimed at capacity and usability are expected first, while privacy and other larger architectural shifts continue to be evaluated for subsequent upgrades.
Next, developers will use the upcoming core developer call and ongoing proposal review to decide which EIPs enter Hegotá and which are deferred. The key uncertainty for investors and builders is whether the privacy-oriented proposals highlighted by Wahrstätter will move from “should be considered” to actual inclusion—an outcome that could meaningfully change what kinds of privacy applications are practical on Ethereum without relying on external intermediaries.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Developers Propose Cutting 66 Hegotâ Upgrade Items on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized stock products are gaining traction as interest spreads beyond the first wave of private-market hype. Data from RWA.xyz shows the number of tokenized stock holders has surged to 1.31 million—more than doubling over the past month.
The activity metrics are moving with the same momentum. Monthly transfer volume climbed nearly 180% to $23.13 billion, while monthly active addresses rose 34.62% to roughly 572,000. Across the market, the total distributed value of tokenized stocks increased 5.9% to $2.38 billion, according to RWA.xyz’s tracking.
Key takeaways
Tokenized stock holders hit 1.31 million, up from a month ago, per RWA.xyz.
Monthly transfer volume jumped to $23.13 billion, nearly doubling (+180%).
Total distributed value rose to $2.38 billion, with monthly active addresses approaching 572,000.
Ondo remains the top issuer by distributed value, but Kraken and Binance are close behind.
SpaceX-related tokenized exposure has continued to grow after pre-IPO campaigns were canceled and refunded.
Holder growth accelerates alongside transfer volume
RWA.xyz attributes the rapid expansion to both broader participation and increased on-chain movement. With holders more than doubling to 1.31 million, the market appears to be transitioning from early adoption into a more mainstream user base. This is reflected in transfer volume growth: monthly transfers surged to $23.13 billion, a pace far outstripping the distributed-value increase.
That mismatch—transfer activity rising faster than distributed value—can be consistent with a market that is seeing more frequent rotation among tokenized products, not just long-term accumulation. Meanwhile, monthly active addresses increased to nearly 572,000, indicating that the growth is not limited to a small set of wallets.
For investors and traders, the practical takeaway is that liquidity and participation are likely improving, but it also suggests that demand may be tactical as well as allocative. Watching transfer volume alongside distributed value can help distinguish between “churn” and genuine expansion in underlying demand.
Top issuers hold their positions—Ondo leads
At the time of writing, distributed value is still concentrated among a handful of issuers. RWA.xyz places Ondo at the top with about $872 million in distributed value. Kraken’s xStocks follows with $557.8 million, while Binance’s bStocks sits at $521.8 million.
Binance’s bStocks, launched in June, has been catching up quickly. RWA.xyz reports that bStocks is roughly $36 million behind xStocks in distributed value, despite being a later entrant. The “gap” shrinking is one of the clearest signals in the dataset that competition for tokenized stock mindshare is intensifying.
RWA.xyz also highlights which underlying assets attract the most distribution. The largest individual tokenized holdings by distributed value include Securitize at $145.2 million, Strategy PP Variable xStock at $135.6 million, and Ondo’s tokenized Circle shares at $99.7 million.
Private-market tokenization keeps expanding—despite SpaceX setbacks
The growth in tokenized equities follows a broader push by crypto platforms toward private-market and pre-IPO products earlier this year. Multiple exchanges launched offerings tied to SpaceX ahead of its June 12 public-market debut. Products ranged from tokenized pre-IPO exposure to derivatives-like structures and proxy tokens.
RWA.xyz’s figures suggest the “SpaceX moment” did not fade after the listing. Even though parts of the rollout ran into problems, tokenized SpaceX exposure in distributed value has continued to grow.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Binance, Bybit, and Bitget Wallet canceled their tokenized SpaceX IPO campaigns after xStocks failed to secure enough underlying shares to satisfy demand, resulting in refunds for subscribers. Despite that disruption, RWA.xyz reports that tokenized SpaceX exposure via Binance’s bStocks stands at $67.9 million in distributed value since the company’s June 12 listing—ranking seventh among the tokenized assets tracked.
This sequence matters for market credibility. Cancellations and refunds are usually viewed as setbacks, yet the remaining distributed-value growth implies that users were willing to stay in tokenized products once the underlying asset picture became clearer. It also underscores a key distinction: promotional pre-IPO products may be fragile, while ongoing post-listing or continuously available tokenized exposure can sustain demand.
Real-world asset tokenization remains a growth thesis
Tokenized equities are expanding in the context of a wider real-world asset (RWA) tokenization trend. Standard Chartered has forecast that tokenized RWAs could grow into a $4 trillion market by the end of 2028, a projection referenced in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
While forecasts are not outcomes, the RWA.xyz metrics provide a concrete snapshot of current momentum within one segment—tokenized stocks. The combination of rapidly increasing holders, higher transfer volume, and a growing distributed-value base suggests that tokenization products are becoming an established category rather than a purely experimental feature.
Still, the data also highlights what investors should monitor closely: whether distributed value keeps rising at a steady rate, and whether activity growth translates into durable allocation. The market can look “hot” on transfer metrics even when underlying distributed value grows more slowly.
Going forward, readers should watch whether the competitive gap between issuers continues to narrow—especially between Binance’s bStocks and Kraken’s xStocks—and whether post-listing tokenized exposure maintains traction after earlier pre-IPO campaigns were disrupted.
This article was originally published as Tokenized Stock Holders Rise 2× as Monthly Trading Volume Jumps on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized stocks are seeing a rapid rise in participation and liquidity, according to new on-chain market tracking from RWA.xyz. The number of tokenized stock holders has more than doubled over the past month to 1.31 million.
RWA.xyz also reports that monthly transfer volume climbed nearly 180% to $23.13 billion, while monthly active addresses increased 34.62% to just under 572,000. The total distributed value of tokenized stocks rose 5.9% to $2.38 billion.
Key takeaways
Tokenized stock holders grew to 1.31 million—more than double month-over-month, per RWA.xyz.
Monthly transfer volume surged to $23.13 billion (+~180%), suggesting stronger usage beyond just new wallets.
Total distributed value increased to $2.38 billion (+5.9%), even as the sector remains competitive.
Ondo leads by distributed value at about $872 million, followed by Kraken’s xStocks and Binance’s bStocks.
SpaceX tokenization saw heightened activity around its June 12 public listing, despite earlier campaign issues.
Growth metrics: more holders, higher activity, rising value
The latest RWA.xyz figures point to broad-based momentum rather than a narrow spike in one product. Alongside the sharp jump in holders, the increase in monthly active addresses indicates that more participants are actively transacting during the period, not merely registering.
Liquidity also appears to be strengthening. With monthly transfer volume up by nearly 180% to $23.13 billion, tokenized equities are generating materially more on-chain movement than they did just a month prior. At the same time, total distributed value rose 5.9% to $2.38 billion, reflecting a net expansion in the value of tokenized stock instruments distributed through the ecosystem tracked by RWA.xyz.
In terms of market leadership, Ondo remains the largest issuer by distributed value, sitting at roughly $872 million. Kraken’s xStocks follows with about $557.8 million, and Binance’s bStocks is close behind at $521.8 million.
Who’s leading: Ondo, xStocks, and bStocks close the gap
RWA.xyz’s distribution rankings show a fairly tight race among the largest tokenized stock programs. While Ondo holds a clear lead, Binance’s bStocks has moved into the same competitive tier as Kraken’s xStocks.
bStocks launched in June and is already within approximately $36 million of xStocks in distributed value, according to RWA.xyz. That proximity matters for investors and market participants because it suggests the category’s growth is not confined to one dominant issuer; multiple providers are attracting demand quickly enough to reduce relative gaps.
RWA.xyz also lists several of the largest underlying tokenized assets by distributed value. Among them are Securitize at $145.2 million, Strategy PP Variable xStock at $135.6 million, and Ondo’s tokenized Circle shares at $99.7 million.
Private-market demand and the SpaceX test
The current expansion in tokenized equities aligns with a broader push by crypto platforms into private-market and pre-IPO products earlier this year, with attention particularly focused on SpaceX. In the months leading up to SpaceX’s June 12 public-market debut, multiple platforms—including Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bybit, Bitget, and Blockchain.com—rolled out products tied to SpaceX. These ranged from tokenized pre-IPO exposure to perpetual futures and proxy-style tokens.
Some of the activity was clearly driven by substantial investor interest. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that a Binance campaign drew about $557 million ahead of the listing, highlighting strong demand for exposure to the pre-IPO and transition period.
However, not all parts of these efforts worked smoothly. Cointelegraph previously reported that Binance, Bybit, and Bitget Wallet canceled their tokenized SpaceX IPO campaigns after xStocks failed to secure enough underlying shares to satisfy demand. Refunds were issued to subscribers, underscoring how tokenization outcomes can be constrained by real-world share availability and allocation mechanics—despite high on-chain interest.
Still, even after the campaign cancellations, tokenized SpaceX exposure persisted. RWA.xyz data shows that tokenized SpaceX exposure via Binance’s bStocks has grown to $67.9 million in distributed value since the June 12 listing, placing it seventh among individual tokenized assets tracked by RWA.xyz.
What it may mean for the real-world assets market
The rapid increase in holders, activity, and distributed value suggests tokenized stocks are becoming a more established on-ramp into real-world assets for crypto users—especially when packaged as liquid, transferable tokens.
This momentum also fits into larger industry forecasts. Standard Chartered has projected that tokenization could reach a $4 trillion market by the end of 2028, as highlighted in earlier Cointelegraph reporting. While forecasts don’t guarantee outcomes, the recent performance tracked by RWA.xyz indicates that at least one segment of real-world assets—tokenized equities—is gaining measurable traction.
For market watchers, the key question is whether the growth is durable beyond short-term thematic surges. SpaceX-related campaigns illustrate both the appetite for tokenized exposure and the operational friction that can occur when real-world supply (like underlying shares) doesn’t match token demand. Going forward, investors may want to monitor whether issuers improve allocation reliability and whether new launches can sustain user activity once the initial hype around major corporate events fades.
Next, readers should watch how quickly distributed value and active address growth sustain over subsequent months, and whether new tokenized stock launches narrow the gap between the top issuers—or trigger renewed allocation challenges when demand spikes around real-world listings.
This article was originally published as Tokenized Stock Holders More Than Double as Monthly Volume Rises on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s next major move could be shaped by a seasonal pattern, according to Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten. Speaking to Cointelegraph, Klippsten suggested that BTC may form a bottom in October before staging a recovery toward roughly $130,000 ahead of the 2028 halving.
Klippsten’s framing also includes a potentially painful downside scenario: in his view, Bitcoin could drop to the $57,000 area—or even as low as $53,000—before any rebound. At the same time, other market analysts are watching for signs of an earlier bear-market bottom, pointing to an August threshold based on monthly closes.
Key takeaways
Klippsten expects Bitcoin could bottom in October after a peak above $126,000 in early October 2025, then recover toward about $130,000 before the 2028 halving.
In his downside scenario, BTC may fall to around $57,000 or even $53,000 before a “quick recovery.”
Klippsten argues long-term holder accumulation could shift timing earlier than past cycles, referencing a record share of supply held by long-term investors.
Markus Thielen of 10x Research says a bear-market bottom could be confirmed in August if Bitcoin posts a monthly close above $63,000.
Klippsten believes altcoins are unlikely to compete with Bitcoin as “money,” while noting that centralized crypto firms may ultimately be pulled under traditional finance regulation.
Why October is on the table for Bitcoin’s “cycle bottom”
Klippsten’s October call is rooted in what he says is a recurring timeline across prior bull-market peaks. He argued that Bitcoin has tended to bottom roughly 12 months after each previous bull-market top. However, he also warned that relying on only a handful of completed cycles is risky—implying investors should treat this as a hypothesis rather than a guaranteed schedule.
The timing he referenced is anchored to BTC’s performance in early October 2025, when Bitcoin reportedly peaked above $126,000. From that peak, Klippsten’s expectation is that the market should bottom in October, followed by recovery into the next phase of the broader cycle.
Importantly, Klippsten’s view is not simply “up from here.” He also pointed to a possible deeper drawdown before a rebound, saying Bitcoin could fall to about $57,000 or potentially $53,000—suggesting that any October bottom would likely arrive after further weakness rather than immediately.
Holder accumulation and the possibility of earlier bottoms
Klippsten’s September-to-October thesis builds on an earlier argument he made in a June conversation with Cointelegraph. In that earlier interview, he suggested BTC might bottom earlier than in past cycles if long-term holders continue accumulating record levels of supply.
Cointelegraph previously reported that Klippsten tied the idea to “record” long-term holder participation, citing 14.7 million BTC as a share held by long-term investors. In the latest discussion, he maintained the idea that accumulation could influence the timing of a bottom—one reason why other analysts may be looking at earlier confirmations than October.
The practical takeaway for market participants is that timing indicators may depend on whether distribution versus accumulation dominates during the downturn. If long-term holders continue to absorb supply, the market could transition faster than a strict historical average would suggest—though Klippsten’s range still includes a potential late-cycle risk floor around the low-$50,000s.
Other analysts target August with a simple monthly signal
While Klippsten focused on October, not every analyst agrees on the month. Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin could confirm a bear-market bottom in August if BTC achieves a monthly close above $63,000.
Thielen’s argument is tied to how certain cycle indicators react to key trend confirmations. According to Cointelegraph, a successful August close above $63,000 would turn several of 10x Research’s indicators bullish—essentially framing $63,000 not just as a number to watch, but as a trigger that could change the model’s stance on the market’s trend.
For investors, the difference between “October likely” and “August possible” is more than calendar trivia. It can affect how people manage exposure during drawdowns, how they interpret risk levels, and how quickly they expect liquidity to return. Until BTC clarifies its direction through those month-end thresholds, any month-by-month bottom narrative remains conditional.
Klippsten’s take on altcoins: fewer bets, more regulation
Beyond timing, Klippsten argued that altcoins are losing their credibility as alternatives to Bitcoin as a medium of value. He described them as “basically dead” as competitors to Bitcoin as money and said the “best outcome” for crypto and decentralized finance would be integration into traditional finance—what he referred to as “TradFi.”
Asked about altcoins that may still outperform, he pointed to Hyperliquid as an example of a centralized business that could eventually be treated like part of the traditional financial system. In a quote carried by Cointelegraph, Klippsten said that if a centralized business has a token, regulators and traditional finance may eventually absorb it, viewing it as an exchange and a bank.
That view aligns with how some market observers are interpreting institutional involvement: regulatory pressure and compliance frameworks could determine which crypto products survive and how tokens are structured. Even when an altcoin sees strong traction, the question becomes whether it can evolve into something that fits existing regulatory categories.
Hyperliquid has recently attracted measurable attention on-chain and in DeFi revenue rankings. Cointelegraph cited DefiLlama data showing Hyperliquid generated $5.9 million in revenue during the past week and ranked as the industry’s fifth-largest DeFi protocol by weekly revenue. Cointelegraph also reported that the Hyperliquid HYPE token was up 130% year-to-date, while Bitcoin fell 28% over the same period, according to TradingView.
At the same time, Cointelegraph included a separate perspective from market maker Wintermute. In a July report, Wintermute argued that institutional participation has narrowed altcoin rallies. The firm said liquidity tends to concentrate in assets that institutions favor, while activity across crypto’s “long tail” weakens—suggesting that “altseason” dynamics may be changing from broad-based rotations into more selective bursts.
What to watch next: bottoms versus triggers, not narratives
Whether Bitcoin bottoms in August or October, the most actionable signal may be confirmation through month-end levels and follow-through after sharp selloffs—especially if long-term holder accumulation continues to provide structural support. Separately, Klippsten’s warnings about altcoins “as money” raise a distinct question for traders and builders: will performance continue to be driven by liquidity and token incentives, or will regulation and institutional frameworks progressively reshape what survives in practice?
This article was originally published as Swan CEO: Bitcoin May Bottom in October as Altcoins Languish on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Predictions that Bitcoin could hit $1 million by 2030 are drawing fresh skepticism from industry research chief Markus Thielen, head of research at 10x Research. In an interview with Cointelegraph, Thielen argued that the forecast is not just ambitious—it is mathematically inconsistent with how much capital markets would need to add in a short time to lift Bitcoin’s price to that level.
Thielen’s core claim is straightforward: the capital inflows required to support a $1 million per-coin target would need to be far larger than anything Bitcoin has historically attracted during comparable periods. He also warned that even if Bitcoin continues to rebound from cycle lows, investors may be underestimating how much time and liquidity it typically takes to push prices to new highs once the asset’s market capitalization grows.
Key takeaways
Markus Thielen says a $1 million Bitcoin by 2030 “doesn’t add up” mathematically, based on historical capital inflow comparisons.
He estimates Bitcoin would need roughly $15 trillion in additional capital to reach a $1 million price per BTC, assuming current supply and valuation logic.
Thielen argues that because Bitcoin is already valued at over $1 trillion, major price moves require “trillions” rather than smaller inflow waves.
He cautions that retail investors’ expectations may be distorted by round-number narratives—and that a rapid return to extreme highs may be unlikely.
Industry figures including Brian Armstrong, Jack Dorsey, and Cathie Wood have publicly endorsed $1 million-style targets, which Thielen views as media-friendly but potentially harmful.
Why Thielen challenges the $1 million-by-2030 math
Thielen’s argument begins with the relationship between Bitcoin’s market value and the scale of new money needed to change its price meaningfully. At the time of the interview, Bitcoin’s market capitalization was around $1.28 trillion, with the BTC price reported at $63,868, according to CoinMarketCap.
Against that baseline, Thielen estimated that achieving a $1 million per Bitcoin outcome would require another approximately $15 trillion in capital entering Bitcoin. In his view, that total is not a minor extension of prior years’ trends, but a large step beyond what has historically been seen.
He referenced Bitcoin’s earlier development period as context, noting that inflows large enough to lift the overall market capitalization by orders of magnitude have still fallen far short of what would be necessary for the next phase of growth implied by a $1 million target. Thielen summarized the difference as a gap between what the asset has historically attracted and what would be required over roughly the next four years to reach the per-coin valuation that the prediction implies.
Thielen described the resulting conclusion in absolute terms: reaching that price level, in his assessment, is “mathematically impossible.” While he did not claim a regulatory or technical barrier, his reasoning hinges on liquidity and capital requirements—how much incremental demand must show up for a large, already-established asset to move much higher.
“It would require trillions”: market cap and the liquidity problem
A key part of Thielen’s critique is about scale. As Bitcoin’s market capitalization increases, the same size of purchasing does not translate to the same percentage price move. In the interview, he argued that materially higher prices generally require materially larger inflows—especially once the market is already measured in trillions.
That is why, in his view, claims that Bitcoin can simply “continue its trajectory” underestimate the money needed at higher levels. Thielen’s framing suggests that even if investors remain bullish over the long run, the pace may look different than optimistic price charts imply.
He also tied the expected difficulty of sustained upside to investor psychology. Thielen said that as Bitcoin’s price rises, retail sentiment can weaken because many buyers appear to prefer owning a whole unit of Bitcoin rather than fractions. He described a scenario where some people reconsider participation when they feel the effort required to buy even one BTC becomes comparable to other life goals—such as saving for a car—rather than remaining a straightforward investment purchase.
In that sense, Thielen is not arguing that adoption disappears. He is pointing to a specific friction: the higher Bitcoin goes, the more the “one Bitcoin” mental benchmark can become a psychological barrier, potentially dampening some marginal retail demand.
Cycle expectations: don’t assume next year will rewrite the record
Thielen urged Bitcoiners not to treat previous cycle rebounds as a guarantee of similarly fast upside after major highs. He argued that in earlier cycles, price recovery took time partly because Bitcoin reached a higher market capitalization than before—meaning pushing it higher becomes increasingly capital-intensive.
He suggested investors should not assume that new all-time highs will arrive immediately. While he did not rule out strong performance, he implied that the timeline may stretch longer than those expecting a fast re-test of the peak would like.
Thielen specifically cautioned that the $126,000 all-time high may not reappear quickly. Asked about the possibility of reaching $100,000, he characterized a move back to that level as a “big, big achievement,” even if it does not necessarily equate to a full cycle of record-breaking behavior.
The underlying message is that while Bitcoin historically has recovered after declines, the effort required to reach substantially higher valuations changes as the asset’s size increases—both in terms of liquidity and market dynamics.
The executives behind $1 million: attention versus outcomes
The $1 million prediction has not been limited to anonymous online commentary. Thielen pointed to public forecasts made by prominent industry figures, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood.
Thielen’s critique focused on the incentives behind such statements. He argued that round numbers—especially large targets that attract media coverage—are more likely to be quoted widely. He characterized these forecasts as an easy way for executives to generate attention, even if the implied assumptions about future liquidity are unrealistic.
According to Thielen, the harm is not limited to academic debate. He warned that aggressive price targets can influence retail behavior by encouraging expectations of large, quick profits. In his view, if even a forecast is “halfway right,” some participants may assume the upside automatically translates into exceptional gains—an assumption he said can lead to disappointment or overconfidence.
Thielen did not present his stance as a call for pessimism. He argued that sentiment has often already become optimistic early in the year, while a more conservative approach can be the better strategy for risk management and expectation-setting. When Cointelegraph asked him what year Bitcoiners might reasonably expect $1 million, he avoided a direct prediction but reiterated that the number is extremely high.
“It would require, you know, a major credit event, implosion of everything.”
For readers following Bitcoin’s longer-term narrative, that quote points to Thielen’s view that a $1 million scenario likely depends on extraordinary macro conditions rather than “business as usual.”
For the market, the key question now is whether the next phase of Bitcoin growth is driven by sustained, large-scale capital inflows—or whether Thielen’s liquidity-based critique better reflects how price responds as Bitcoin’s valuation grows. Investors watching this debate should focus less on attention-grabbing round numbers and more on the pace and magnitude of new demand relative to Bitcoin’s already-large market capitalization.
This article was originally published as Markus Thielen Says Bitcoin’s $1M Target by 2030 Is Unfeasible on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Morgan Stanley’s latest US SEC 13F filing shows the bank increased its crypto-linked exposure in the second quarter, with the biggest lift coming from additional shares of BlackRock’s Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT). The update comes as the value of those holdings shifted with underlying market moves during the quarter.
According to Morgan Stanley’s Q2 13F filing, its reported IBIT share count rose to around 16.5 million shares from 13.4 million—an increase of roughly 23%. At the same time, the dollar value of the position fell, reflecting declines in Bitcoin over the period covered by the filing.
Key takeaways
Morgan Stanley increased its IBIT holdings by more than 3 million shares, but the reported value of the position dropped about 18% to $549 million.
The bank also reported new exposure to its own spot Bitcoin product, the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), which began trading in April.
Ether-related ETF exposure expanded as well, including a roughly 202% increase in iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) shares to 4.6 million.
Not all crypto positions rose: Morgan Stanley reduced several holdings tied to exchanges, mining, and infrastructure.
Stablecoin issuer Circle also gained from the bank’s broader Q2 reallocation, with USDC-related holdings jumping significantly.
IBIT share growth, but lower reported value
Morgan Stanley’s filing points to a clear volume increase in BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF. The bank reported IBIT holdings rising by about 3.04 million shares to approximately 16.5 million. However, the reported value declined to about $549 million from roughly $667 million, a drop of around 18%—consistent with the broader move in Bitcoin prices during the second quarter.
The filing described increases across several other Bitcoin ETF positions as well. Morgan Stanley added to smaller spot Bitcoin ETF exposures including the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (BTC) and Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB), while its Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) holding rose nearly 38%.
Ether exposure expands alongside Bitcoin
Beyond Bitcoin, Morgan Stanley also increased its Ether-related ETF positions. The bank reported expanding its iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) stake by about 202% to 4.6 million shares. It also raised its Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (ETH) position by roughly 26% to about 5.1 million shares.
In addition, Morgan Stanley initiated exposure to Solana-related products. The filing showed new positions in the Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (GSOL) and Fidelity Solana Fund (FSOL), reported at about $4.25 million and $2.26 million, respectively. That combination of more traditional large-cap exposures and smaller add-ons suggests a continued effort to broaden multi-asset crypto exposure rather than concentrating exclusively on Bitcoin.
New MSBT position and Circle’s USDC-linked holdings
Morgan Stanley’s own crypto product also entered the picture more clearly in the second quarter. The filing reported about 2.57 million shares of Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), a fund that began trading in April. While the filing’s share increase reflects new participation, it also underscores how quickly large financial institutions are building internal product lines around spot crypto access.
Separately, Morgan Stanley increased its reported stake in Circle Internet Group (CRCL)—the company behind the USDC stablecoin. According to the filing, Circle holdings rose from approximately 1.46 million shares to about 8.32 million shares. That is a substantial shift and stands out because it targets the stablecoin ecosystem rather than only spot-crypto ETF wrappers.
Mining and infrastructure gains—while some equity exposure falls
While Morgan Stanley grew several crypto-adjacent positions, the filing also showed reductions in some prominent holdings. The bank reported additions to multiple Bitcoin mining and infrastructure companies, including Cipher Digital (CIFR), Core Scientific (CORZ), Hut 8 (HUT), and Bitdeer Technologies (BTDR). These increases suggest the institution was willing to add risk to parts of the sector that often move with both network economics and equity sentiment.
At the same time, not every position improved. Morgan Stanley reported cutting its Coinbase (COIN) shares by roughly 550,000. It also reduced its CleanSpark (CLSK) position by more than 3.1 million shares and fully exited a roughly 8 million-share position in Bitfarms (BITF). In other words, the second quarter did not follow a single-direction strategy across the crypto equity complex—adjustments appear to have been more selective.
Overall, the mix of increases in major ETF exposure, expanded Ether allocations, a new MSBT position, and a large rise in Circle shares—paired with declines in specific exchange and mining names—indicates Morgan Stanley used the quarter to rebalance across the crypto value chain rather than simply adding net exposure everywhere.
Investors watching this data should focus on whether the pattern continues in subsequent 13F updates: specifically, whether Morgan Stanley sustains its share accumulation in spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs while keeping selective pressure on certain crypto equities, or whether new reallocations emerge as Bitcoin and Ether prices move and as the ETF and stablecoin ecosystem evolves.
This article was originally published as Morgan Stanley Data Shows BlackRock Bitcoin ETF Holdings Up 23% in Q2 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A $116 million hardware wallet exploit has reignited an old Bitcoin question: what is the real risk trade-off between self-custody and using regulated products? The debate is heating up as US spot Bitcoin ETFs post strong inflows, suggesting institutional capital may be finding ways to participate in Bitcoin without directly taking on custody and operational risk.
Meanwhile, major companies across the sector are making moves that underline how intertwined Bitcoin, corporate balance sheets, and emerging AI compute demand are becoming. Strategy is preparing to resume Bitcoin purchases after a rare period of selling, Riot Platforms is reportedly pursuing a large AI-focused compute arrangement tied to its mining footprint, and Trump Media says it will rethink its crypto treasury approach after a sizable quarterly loss.
Key takeaways
A Coldcard-linked hardware wallet exploit drained about $116 million in Bitcoin, adding fresh fuel to the self-custody versus custody-by-others debate.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs reportedly saw roughly $1 billion in net inflows for the week, with Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas calling it one of the strongest periods since October.
Strategy CEO Phong Le said the firm plans to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year after selling in multiple quarters to support shareholder-related obligations.
Riot Platforms is reportedly arranging 191 megawatts of compute capacity for a “leading frontier AI” project at its Texas campus, highlighting the economic pull of power availability.
Trump Media is revising its digital asset treasury strategy after recording large unrealized losses and reshaping how it funds and manages its Bitcoin exposure.
Strategy signals a return to net buying
Strategy CEO Phong Le said the company plans to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year, aiming to reinforce its long-term position after a stretch of smaller sales drew criticism against its earlier messaging. The firm has been publicly associated with a “never sell” posture, and the shift in behavior has become a key talking point for investors tracking whether the company remains purely acquisition-led.
According to Le, Strategy bought roughly 175,000 BTC and sold about 7,000 BTC this year, a ratio that indicates it remains net-buying in magnitude even if it has been selling at notable times. Strategy currently holds more than 840,000 BTC, making it the largest institutional Bitcoin holder.
Le also pointed to a pattern of discrete sell events. The company has reportedly sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, most recently unloading 1,690 BTC to fund preferred dividends, buybacks, and a dollar reserve. That detail matters because it shows the tension between corporate treasury behavior and a strict “hold only” narrative: shareholders still require liquidity, while Bitcoin’s role in the treasury can put firms in a position where capital needs must be balanced against accumulation targets.
Third-party analysis referenced in the report suggests this model becomes harder when companies trade below their Bitcoin net asset value, because capital raises can be more dilutive and ongoing financing may be more difficult to sustain. For Strategy, that context helps explain why investors are watching not only the size of purchases, but the timing and stated intent around future net buying.
ETF inflows rise as self-custody concerns resurface
US spot Bitcoin ETFs are reportedly seeing renewed demand even while Bitcoin’s price action remains subdued. For the week, the ETFs attracted about $1 billion in net inflows, according to the report cited, marking the third-best week since October—an interval Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas described as Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
The “silent IPO” framing refers to the idea that early holders or initial investors may sell into a rising stream of institutional buying via ETFs, helping explain why new capital can flow in without immediately lifting prices. In that sense, the ETF rebound becomes more than a headline number: it’s a reminder that ETF demand can coexist with supply dynamics that keep the market from moving as fast as some observers expect.
The timing of this demand rebound is also notable given the hardware wallet incident. Earlier coverage highlighted a Coldcard exploit tied to faulty key generation that reportedly drained around $116 million worth of Bitcoin. Balchunas said the episode could ultimately improve ETFs’ attractiveness for investors who worry about self-custody risks—though he emphasized that the relationship may be correlative rather than causal.
He cautioned against assuming causation from any single data point, but suggested that “long-term” some investors may migrate toward ETF structures if self-custody concerns persist. For market participants, the practical takeaway is that custody risk is now part of the investor conversation—not just a technical footnote. If institutional investors continue to treat ETFs as the most operationally straightforward exposure route, demand could remain resilient even when broader confidence fluctuates due to security headlines.
Riot taps power for AI compute partnerships
Riot Platforms is reportedly working on a large compute arrangement tied to Bitcoin mining infrastructure. According to the report, Anthropic struck a $9 billion deal with Riot for 191 megawatts of capacity from Riot’s Texas campus, underscoring how access to reliable power is increasingly valuable as AI data center buildouts hit constraints.
Riot said it secured a 20-year agreement to supply 191 megawatts from its Rockdale campus to a “leading frontier AI” company, with Bloomberg identifying the counterparty as Anthropic. The announcement follows Anthropic’s reported $19 billion data center lease with TeraWulf, reinforcing the broader trend of AI firms seeking additional compute capacity and predictable energy sourcing.
The report places Riot among a growing set of miners expanding toward AI-adjacent strategies, naming Bitdeer, CleanSpark, MARA Holdings, Core Scientific, Hut 8, and IREN as other examples. While Bitcoin mining remains the original mission for these companies, the convergence with AI is shifting how investors think about their long-term asset value: power availability and grid agreements can become a “platform” for multiple high-demand workloads.
The cited discussion also notes that research from Bernstein has suggested partnerships between AI companies and miners could help alleviate power bottlenecks that restrict data center expansion. Even if the details of each company’s arrangement differ, the key point for crypto investors is that miners’ balance sheets and future cash flows may increasingly depend on energy leverage rather than solely on Bitcoin’s mining economics.
Trump Media revises its crypto treasury after large losses
Trump Media says it will revamp its digital asset treasury strategy after a $238 million second-quarter net loss, pointing to balance-sheet risks created by corporate holdings of crypto and crypto-adjacent securities. The company attributes part of the loss to unrealized mark-to-market swings across its digital assets and securities.
In its quarterly reporting, Trump Media reported $190.4 million in unrealized losses across its digital assets. The company also pledged digital assets and equity securities during the second quarter, reflecting how its treasury exposure is constrained by collateral requirements and counterparty structures.
Bitcoin holdings also changed over the quarter. Trump Media reported holding 9,477.16 BTC as of June 30, down from 9,542.16 BTC in the previous quarter. In July, it sold $159.6 million in Bitcoin-related securities and used the proceeds to buy more Bitcoin, increasing holdings to about 14,139 BTC worth $890.5 million by July 31.
Management warned that generating additional income from its Bitcoin holdings could expose the company to counterparty risk—particularly if a partner were to default or become insolvent. It also noted the possibility that, in some cases, it could be unable to recover Bitcoin committed under unsecured arrangements.
The company said it plans to direct more resources toward Truth Social, Truth+ and other media operations as part of a broader shift in capital allocation. For readers, this is a reminder that corporate crypto strategies are not purely about directional exposure; they also involve liquidity management, collateral frameworks, and the operational risks of funding structures that can carry different outcomes than spot holding alone.
Going forward, the market will likely watch whether ETF inflow strength persists as more security-related events test investor comfort with self-custody. At the same time, corporate decisions—whether Strategy’s stated intent translates into consistent net buying, and how companies like Riot and Trump Media manage compute demand or custody-related risk—will continue to shape how Bitcoin is absorbed beyond crypto-native participants.
This article was originally published as $116M Bitcoin Wallet Exploit Spurs Self-Custody Scrutiny as ETF Inflows Rise on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Israel’s Bank Leumi has teamed up with Galaxy Digital to bring cryptocurrency trading to its mobile banking ecosystem, with an anticipated launch in early 2027. The deal would allow eligible customers to buy, hold, and sell Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana via Leumi’s existing trading interface.
Leumi said customers of the bank and its mobile banking arm, Pepper, will be able to access the service through a dedicated area in the Leumi Trade app. If the timeline holds, Leumi would become the first Israeli bank to offer direct digital asset trading to customers through its platform.
Key takeaways
Bank Leumi plans to enable cryptocurrency trading for Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana through the Leumi Trade app.
The service is expected to launch in early 2027 for Leumi and Pepper customers.
Galaxy Digital will provide trading via GalaxyOne Institutional, while its custody infrastructure platform (formerly GK8) will support Leumi’s digital asset infrastructure.
Galaxy’s wider performance has included a recent quarter with a reported $85 million net loss, though its digital assets segment still posted adjusted gross profit growth.
Leumi Trade expands into digital assets
The partnership centers on integrating crypto trading directly into Leumi’s customer experience. Under the agreement, Leumi customers will be able to access the purchase, holding, and sale of three major cryptocurrencies—Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Solana (SOL)—through a dedicated section of the Leumi Trade app.
Leumi’s announcement frames the offering as a broad retail and business upgrade: the bank said it serves millions of customers across its retail and commercial operations. For users, the main practical difference is convenience—rather than routing activity through separate crypto platforms, customers would be interacting with crypto functions inside a familiar banking app.
Galaxy Digital’s infrastructure powers the rollout
Leumi said it will use GalaxyOne Institutional for trading and related services. On the custody side, Galaxy will support the bank’s digital asset infrastructure using its custody infrastructure platform, previously known as GK8.
This division of responsibilities matters because crypto trading at banks typically depends on two pillars: reliable execution and secure asset management. By separating trading services from custody infrastructure within Galaxy’s stack, the partnership is set up to cover both areas that often determine whether institutional-grade crypto operations can be scaled for retail clients.
At the same time, the early-2027 schedule underscores that such integrations can be complex—especially when the goal is to connect consumer-facing banking workflows with digital asset custody and market-facing trading systems.
Why the timing and “first” claim are meaningful
Leumi’s statement that it would become the first Israeli bank to offer digital asset trading services to customers positions the move as a potential competitive inflection point. If it delivers, Leumi would be attempting to translate the broader growth of crypto into a regulated banking distribution channel.
However, readers should note that the claim is specific: the “first” status is tied to offering trading services to customers through the bank’s own platform. That doesn’t preclude other routes to crypto access in Israel, but it does highlight the bank-distribution angle—bringing trading capability into mainstream financial UX.
From an investor and market structure perspective, bank-led distribution can change how crypto products are packaged and who bears operational friction. It may also affect liquidity flows by concentrating customer activity into regulated intermediaries rather than purely crypto-native venues, though the exact market impact will depend on how volumes scale after launch.
Galaxy’s financial backdrop and what to watch
The Leumi partnership follows Galaxy Digital’s previously reported struggles in the broader market environment. Earlier coverage noted that Galaxy reported an $85 million net loss in the second quarter, which the company said was largely linked to declining digital asset prices. Even so, Galaxy stated its digital assets business generated $66 million in adjusted gross profit, up 34% from the prior quarter.
Galaxy Digital is led by Mike Novogratz and began trading on the Nasdaq in May 2025 under the ticker GLXY, according to an investor release from the company. Earlier company coverage described its listing plans, and Yahoo Finance shows GLXY trading at $21.38 on Friday morning, up about 2% on the day but down roughly 25% over the past year, based on the data cited.
For Leumi customers, these numbers are not directly determinative of whether the crypto app launches smoothly. But for the broader market, they offer context: Galaxy is taking on a new banking integration while working through the volatility and drawdowns that have characterized parts of the crypto cycle.
What to watch next will likely include whether Galaxy’s institutional services and custody infrastructure are able to support a consumer-facing launch on schedule, and how Leumi structures the customer experience once the service goes live. Since the expected launch is still more than a year away, the next concrete signals for users and industry observers will be product rollouts, regulatory readiness, and any beta phases or phased feature releases inside Leumi Trade.
Until then, the partnership is best understood as a forward-looking bet on mainstream distribution: if Leumi Trade’s crypto access launches as planned, it could mark a meaningful step toward bringing large-bank channels into the day-to-day tooling of crypto buyers and sellers in Israel.
This article was originally published as Israel’s top bank partners with Galaxy for Bitcoin, Ether, Solana trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

UK Reform leader Nigel Farage is set to face renewed scrutiny from the UK Parliament’s standards watchdog after the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards reopened an investigation into whether he properly disclosed certain financial interests.
According to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ public register, Farage is currently under investigation for “failure to register an interest” tied to donations and benefits reportedly connected to the crypto industry, after an earlier pause followed his resignation from Parliament and later resumption after he returned as an MP.
Key takeaways
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards says Farage is under investigation for “failure to register an interest” involving crypto-linked donations and gifts.
The probe was paused when Farage resigned as an MP and resumed after he was reelected in the Clacton by-election.
Coverage of the matter points to claimed gifts reportedly funded by Christopher Harborne and staff/security arrangements involving George Cottrell.
If the commissioner finds a breach of parliamentary rules, Farage could face suspension, potentially triggering another by-election.
Parliamentary standards watchdog restarts Farage probe
As of Friday, the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards website lists Farage as “currently under investigation” for failing to register an interest. The issue relates to alleged benefits and donations described as running into the millions of dollars and connected to two individuals tied to the crypto sector.
The investigation had been temporarily halted in July after Farage stepped down from Parliament, but it restarted once he regained a seat. Earlier coverage highlighted that Farage resigned as an MP amid the controversy surrounding crypto donations, then later returned to Parliament following his reelection in Clacton.
What the standards probe is expected to examine
The commission is expected to look at whether Farage complied with UK parliamentary disclosure obligations regarding financial interests and benefits received in the relevant period.
In the commissioner’s listing, the scrutiny centers on Farage receiving gifts reportedly involving Christopher Harborne, described in reporting as a crypto billionaire, who was said to have given Farage $6.7 million. The listing also points to arrangements supporting Farage’s staff and security being funded by George Cottrell, described in reporting as a convicted fraudster linked to a crypto casino.
Under UK rules, new MPs must register financial interests within a month of their election, and they must also disclose relevant benefits received in the preceding 12 months. The rules are aimed at ensuring that Parliament can assess any potential conflicts of interest as soon as lawmakers take office.
Why the disclosure question matters politically and procedurally
Farage’s probe could carry real procedural consequences. If the standards investigation concludes that he violated parliamentary regulations, the commissioner’s findings could lead to suspension from Parliament. That, in turn, can open the door to another by-election.
The by-election that brought Farage back to the Commons followed his earlier resignation. In that contest, he won with 63% of the vote, according to BBC coverage, defeating satirical candidate Count Binface, who received 27%. None of the other major parties took part, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer—then still Labour’s leader—criticized Farage’s approach as a “desperate stunt.”
While Farage has previously characterized the donations as rewards or gifts given “on an unconditional basis,” the parliamentary process is likely to focus less on labels and more on whether the benefits were disclosed according to the letter of the rules.
Broader debate over crypto-linked political donations
The Farage controversy has also fed into a wider discussion in the UK political sphere about whether donations with crypto connections create opportunities for undue influence.
Reporting on the parliamentary fallout said Labour lawmakers proposed making a moratorium on crypto donations—implemented in March—permanent. That push is framed around concerns about potential influence from foreign actors.
According to the International Bar Association, unincorporated associations in the UK are allowed to give more than $675 directly to politicians. The same analysis warns that this structure can create loopholes where funds may operate as a “conduit” for “foreign or dark money.” The tension here is straightforward: even if individual payments are not formally prohibited, disclosure gaps and complex funding channels can make it difficult for voters and regulators to understand who is truly behind political support.
What to watch next
For investors, traders, and builders who pay attention to how regulation and political risk intersect with crypto, the immediate question is whether the commissioner’s review results in a finding of non-compliance—and, if so, what sanctions Parliament ultimately applies. The next milestone will be how the standards investigation substantiates the disclosure timeline and whether the alleged benefits are treated as registrable financial interests under UK rules.
This article was originally published as UK Investigators Extend Probe Into Nigel Farage’s Crypto Gifts on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance Research says Gen Z traders on the exchange are steadily shifting a larger share of their equity-related activity toward exchange-traded funds (ETFs), while direct stock trading is taking up less of the cohort’s overall flow. The trend stands out across Binance’s coverage of direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals.
In early August, Binance Research reported that ETFs made up 25% of Gen Z trading volume within its analysis group. The same study found that ETFs accounted for 21.9% of Gen Z net equity inflows in July, up from 18.5% in June, as the share routed to individual stocks fell to 74.2% from 77%.
Key takeaways
ETF demand is rising: Gen Z’s ETF share of trading volume reached 25% in early August, and ETF net inflows climbed to 21.9% in July.
Direct stocks lose share: the portion of Gen Z net equity inflows going to individual stocks dropped to 74.2% from 77%.
Gen Z trades less often: in TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades versus 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
Fewer sell orders among Gen Z: 22% of Gen Z direct-equity accounts had never placed a sell order, compared with 19% for Gen X and 9% for Baby Boomers.
Limited appetite for leverage: 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in leveraged or inverse ETFs.
Gen Z’s ETF shift: what the Binance Research data shows
The Binance Research analysis compared Gen Z accounts with older working-age generations (Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers) across several measures, including trading frequency, net inflows, and the use of leverage. The study looks at activity spanning direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals.
Within that framework, the ETF share of Gen Z activity increased in a stepwise pattern. Binance Research pointed to July as a key month: ETF net inflows for Gen Z rose to 21.9%, up from 18.5% in June. Over the same period, the allocation to individual stocks declined, falling to 74.2% from 77%.
While the figures describe allocation, they also hint at how younger participants may be approaching equity exposure on exchange venues that offer both spot-like instruments and ETF wrappers. For investors, that matters because a growing preference for ETFs can mean broader diversification and potentially different risk profiles compared with concentrated single-stock positioning.
Trading behavior differences: frequency, “buy-only” accounts, and leverage use
Binance Research also reported behavioral differences in how often Gen Z engages with these products. Across all three categories examined, Gen Z traded less frequently than other working-age cohorts. In TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades—below Millennials at 17 and Gen X at 16.5.
The study further found a notable skew in sell-order behavior among younger users. For Gen Z direct-equity accounts, 22% had never placed a sell order. By comparison, 19% of Gen X accounts and 9% of Baby Boomer accounts showed the same “buy-only” pattern. Millennials, meanwhile, had the highest share of buy-only accounts at 30%.
Among the Gen Z buy-only accounts, Binance Research cited cumulative purchases that included Broadcom and Tesla, as well as the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF—suggesting that even when participants primarily buy, their preference can extend to ETF exposure rather than only individual stocks.
On leverage, Gen Z also appeared more cautious in Binance Research’s view. The share of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts with no activity in leveraged and inverse ETFs was 88.2%. That compares with 84.5% for Millennials and 85.9% for Gen X.
Tokenized stocks: bStocks briefly passes xStocks as the market keeps expanding
Separately from the generational ETF flow data, Binance-related tokenized equities saw a brief ranking change this week. Binance’s bStocks temporarily overtook Kraken’s xStocks as the second-largest tokenized stock issuer, according to Token Terminal.
As of Tuesday, Token Terminal data showed bStocks at $610.6 million in tokenized stock value, versus xStocks at $601.2 million. By Friday, the positions reversed: xStocks were at $610.7 million while bStocks stood at $579.6 million. In that snapshot, xStocks represented 22.3% of the roughly $2.7 billion tokenized stock market, while bStocks accounted for 21.2%.
Ondo Finance remained the largest issuer in that period, with $971.8 million in tokenized stock value. Token Terminal also tracked broader growth across the sector, with RWA.xyz reporting distributed value for its tokenized stocks page at $2.43 billion as of Friday—about 5% higher over the previous 30 days.
For market observers, the rapid flip between bStocks and xStocks underscores how quickly tokenized equity rankings can change in a still-expanding segment—especially when issuance is relatively concentrated among a few providers. It also reinforces why investors tracking tokenized assets often monitor issuer shares as a proxy for where capital is flowing within the broader regulated-assets trend.
What to watch next: early-stage data limits and evolving allocation
Binance Research cautioned that its direct-equities product only reached meaningful scale in June, creating a relatively short window to draw longer-term conclusions. Even so, the direction of travel—more ETF allocation among Gen Z and reduced share for individual stocks in inflows—offers a signal worth monitoring as the data window expands.
Investors and traders should watch whether the ETF share in Gen Z activity continues to rise beyond early August and whether tokenized stock issuance rankings stabilize or remain volatile as additional capital enters the market.
This article was originally published as Binance Data: Gen Z Builds ETF-Heavy Portfolios, Trades Less on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

SpaceX has closed its $60 billion all-stock acquisition of Anysphere, the company behind the coding tool Cursor. The company confirmed the merger in a securities filing dated August 14. Cursor now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary under the SpaceX corporate structure.
Merger Terms Take Effect
SpaceX’s subsidiary, X67 Inc., merged directly with Anysphere to complete the transaction. This structure allowed Cursor to convert into a fully owned unit without a lengthy transition period. The filing outlines exact share conversion figures tied to the deal.
Cursor’s common and preferred stock converted into roughly 389.3 million shares of SpaceX stock. That figure reflects the $60 billion valuation set when the deal was first announced in June. SpaceX based the conversion on its average closing price over seven trading days before the merger closed.
Additional equity awards moved through the same process without exception. Vested restricted stock units converted into about 1.75 million shares of Class A common stock. Unvested awards converted into 29.1 million restricted units and 44.4 million stock options for future exercise.
Cursor Moves Under SpaceXAI
Cursor announced the completed deal directly on social media platform X. The company stated it will join the SpaceXAI division going forward. Its stated goal is to strengthen several existing products across the platform.
Those products include Grok Build, Grok Bot, the Grok application programming interface, and Cursor itself. SpaceX intends to fold these tools into a broader development ecosystem. The move follows closely behind the recent release of Grok 4.6.
Analysts see the timing as deliberate rather than coincidental. Grok 4.6 launched just before the merger reached completion. Company leadership positioned that release as an early signal of what a combined engineering team can produce.
Stock Slips Despite Recent Gains
SpaceX shares fell more than 2% at Thursday’s market open. The stock traded near $137 shortly after the opening bell. That dip followed a five-day run in which shares climbed over 23%.
Market watchers linked the earlier rally to anticipation of the merger’s completion. Grok 4.6’s release also contributed to the upward momentum during that stretch. The pullback on merger day reflects a common pattern after major corporate news breaks.
Morgan Stanley issued a bullish note on SpaceX earlier in the week. Analyst Adam Jones set a bull-case price target of $600 per share. He pointed to Cursor as a major driver behind that projected upside.
Jones also highlighted the coding tool’s position in a shifting software market. Code generation continues moving toward automated and commoditised workflows. Cursor, he noted, already holds a dominant position within that specific segment.
The completed deal marks one of the largest technology acquisitions of the year. SpaceX now controls a coding platform used widely across the software industry. How the integration performs will shape the next phase of the company’s expansion into artificial intelligence.
This article was originally published as SpaceX Finalises $60 Billion Purchase of Cursor Maker Anysphere on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance Research says Gen Z traders using the exchange’s ecosystem are increasingly treating exchange-traded funds as a core part of their equity exposure. In early August, ETFs made up 25% of the cohort’s equity trading volume—an increase from earlier months—while interest in single-company stocks has eased.
The findings, based on activity across direct equities, tokenized stocks and traditional finance perpetual contracts, also highlight behavioral differences between younger traders and older generations, including how often they trade, whether they place sell orders, and the extent to which they use leveraged or inverse ETF products.
Key takeaways
According to Binance Research, ETFs accounted for 25% of Gen Z equity trading volume in early August, up from 21.9% in July and 18.5% in June.
Gen Z direct-equity accounts increasingly skew toward buy-only behavior, with 22% never placing a sell order—compared with 19% for Gen X and 9% for Baby Boomers.
Gen Z traded less frequently than other working-age generations across TradFi perpetuals, averaging 13 monthly trades versus 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
Leveraged and inverse ETFs appear to have limited pull among Gen Z: 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in those products.
Gen Z tilts equity activity toward ETFs
Binance’s analysis focused on how different generations allocate trading activity across three equity-related categories: direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals. It compared account behavior across Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers using metrics such as trading frequency, net flows and leverage use.
Within that framework, ETFs gained share among Gen Z. In July, ETFs represented 21.9% of Gen Z net equity inflows. That compares with 18.5% in June, suggesting an accelerating preference for fund-based exposure rather than a rotation toward individual companies. Over the same period, the portion of Gen Z inflows allocated to individual stocks declined to 74.2% from 77%.
Binance Research did not frame this as a single-driver story, but the pattern is notable for traders deciding where to deploy capital: ETFs can offer diversified exposure, while direct equity allocation depends more heavily on idiosyncratic company performance.
Trading frequency and sell-order behavior differ by age
The report also points to structural differences in how Gen Z participates compared with older cohorts. Binance Research said Gen Z traded less frequently across all three equity products. For TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades, compared with 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
Account behavior provides another window into how Gen Z approaches positioning. Among Gen Z direct-equity accounts, 22% had never placed a sell order. The share was lower for older groups—19% for Gen X and just 9% for Baby Boomers—while Millennials showed the highest level of buy-only behavior at 30%.
For Gen Z buy-only accounts, Binance reported that the most purchased assets by cumulative buying included Broadcom, Tesla and the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF. The inclusion of a dividend-focused ETF among top cumulative buys aligns with the broader trend toward fund exposure rather than single-stock selection.
Binance also noted a key limitation for interpreting longer-term trends: its direct-equities offering only reached “meaningful scale” in June, leaving a comparatively short window to observe multi-month behavior changes.
Low use of leveraged and inverse ETF products
Beyond what Gen Z is buying, the report examines what it is avoiding—particularly in more complex ETF structures. Binance Research said Gen Z showed relatively little appetite for leveraged and inverse ETFs within TradFi perpetuals. Specifically, 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in leveraged or inverse ETFs.
For context, the no-activity shares were 84.5% for Millennials and 85.9% for Gen X, meaning Gen Z’s participation in these higher-risk product types appears modest relative to other cohorts. For traders, that matters because leveraged and inverse exposure can amplify volatility and risk management complexity, affecting how portfolios behave during market stress.
While the report does not provide breakdowns on whether the remaining Gen Z accounts used these products heavily or lightly, the headline takeaway is clear: for most Gen Z participants, ETF exposure—at least within these categories—has been largely non-leveraged.
Tokenized stocks: bStocks briefly overtake xStocks
Separately from the Gen Z cohort analysis, tokenized equities market data suggests shifting competitive dynamics among issuers. Binance’s bStocks briefly overtook Kraken’s xStocks as the second-largest tokenized stock issuer this week, according to Token Terminal data cited in the source.
As of Tuesday, bStocks held $610.6 million in tokenized stock value, compared with $601.2 million for xStocks. By Friday, the positions reversed: Token Terminal showed xStocks at $610.7 million and bStocks at $579.6 million. The report described these levels as about 22.3% and 21.2% of the roughly $2.7 billion tokenized stock market, respectively. Ondo Finance remained the largest issuer with $971.8 million.
Looking at the market as a whole, the source also pointed to continued expansion in distributed value tracked by RWA.xyz, which reported $2.43 billion in distributed value as of Friday—about 5% higher than over the previous 30 days. For investors, the issuer “leadership” flip between bStocks and xStocks underlines how quickly tokenized-stock balances can shift as flows move across platforms and products, even while the top issuer maintains its position.
That fast-moving ranking is also a reminder that tokenized equities remain a developing segment: total market growth is measurable, but individual issuers can move up or down quickly as their tokenized exposure rises and falls.
Going forward, traders should watch whether Gen Z’s ETF share continues to rise beyond the current early post-scale window for Binance direct equities, and whether the limited leveraged/inverse activity persists as more participants enter. In parallel, the tokenized-stock rankings may remain fluid—so changes in issuer balances could be as important as the broader market growth trend.
This article was originally published as Binance Study: Gen Z Prefers ETFs and Lowers Crypto Trading Frequency on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The activity of Ethereum whales has not shown any clear trend in the last seven days, although there is high volatility, meaning whales are very much in action. In a recent analysis, no dominant buying or selling bias was seen despite the high activity.
One question that needs to be answered is whether the whales are moving their wealth into stablecoins or whether the reverse is the case. This will give us an idea of the dominant sentiment among large buyers who hold a significant portion of the market value.
We analyzed data sourced from Dune Analytics for USDT and USDC, the top two stablecoins, on decentralized exchanges (DEXs) for the last seven days and found that there is only a slight difference favoring stablecoins against Ethereum.
However, something more interesting could be going on, as USDC is also clearly preferred over USDT. We dug deeper to uncover the reason for this preference.
Whales Show Slight Bias Toward Stablecoins Against Ethereum
Just like there is no significant bias toward buying or selling of ETH on DEXs as revealed by the last study, whales seem to be buying a little more stablecoins than ETH. ETH to stablecoin transactions had a volume of $184 million, while stablecoin to ETH had $170 million. This shows a difference of roughly $14 million in favor of stablecoins.
However, the relatively small imbalance suggests cautious positioning rather than a decisive exit from ETH. A significant difference in volume would have suggested that large buyers are exiting ETH, which would raise concerns about a potential worsening of the bearish trend, but that is not the case at the moment.
Large buyers show slight bias towards stablecoins. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author
Large Buyers Prefer USDC Over USDT
The data further revealed that large buyers are not just slightly flowing into stablecoins, but they prefer USDC by a wide margin. Of the roughly $162 million stablecoin volume traded over the last seven days, over $120 million was in USDC, while USDT only accounted for about $41 million.
Two scenarios are possible here. The first is that large buyers genuinely prefer USDC to USDT for different reasons ranging from security to fees. Secondly, the data may be showing pseudo bias toward USDC because most DEXs offered trades in USDC more than USDT, but that seems to be the case.
Large buyers prefer USDC over USDT. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author
We analyzed the trading volume by trading platforms to see how the two stablecoins performed on platforms offering both options. Interestingly, Uniswap was the leading platform of choice, accounting for $135 million in volume (over 83%) of the total of $162 million, and offers both USDC and USDT.
USDC still outperformed USDT, accounting for over 77% of the Uniswap-bound stablecoin volume, worth over $104 million. This shows that large traders truly prefer USDC over USDT, which only had a little over $30 million in volume.
USDC volumes are significantly higher on Uniswap. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author
Conclusion
Large buyers showing bias toward USDC could be for a number of reasons. First, it could be that USDC has deeper liquidity than USDT. This allows large traders to execute large trades running into millions with as little slippage as possible, which can save them thousands of dollars.
USDC is also commonly used as a dollar-denominated asset throughout DeFi, which is seeing significant growth, resulting in the higher volume relative to USDT.
In conclusion, large buyers are not exiting ETH. The difference in flow direction is marginal, suggesting cautious positioning rather than an outright bearish bias, despite ETH’s price decline. This is good news for retail traders, especially as we already established that the decline is not linked to whale activity.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Whales Prefer Usdc as $13.8M Shift Toward Stablecoins on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

JPMorgan’s latest US securities disclosure shows a notable build-up in its reported positions tied to major US crypto exchange-traded funds. In a Form 13F filing covering holdings as of June 30, the bank reported that its exposure to BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF rose by roughly a quarter during the second quarter, while its reported holdings in an Ether ETF more than quadrupled.
The filing, submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday, aggregates positions across JPMorgan entities and also lists 17 other investment managers covered by the same disclosure. That structure makes it hard for outside observers to separate long-term investment convictions from other uses of ETF holdings such as client-related activity or internal inventory management.
Key takeaways
JPMorgan reported an increase in its BlackRock Bitcoin ETF exposure, rising from about 8.3 million shares in Q1 to about 10.4 million shares in Q2.
Its reported position in BlackRock’s Ether ETF (iShares Ethereum Trust) climbed from roughly 267,000 shares to about 1.17 million shares—more than a fourfold jump.
Smaller reported holdings in XRP-related products reappeared after JPMorgan showed no XRP positions in the prior quarter.
Analysts caution that 13F data may reflect multiple operational drivers and cannot show short positions, so it does not necessarily equal JPMorgan’s net market view.
Bitcoin ETF holdings rise in JPMorgan’s disclosure
According to the Form 13F, JPMorgan reported about 10.4 million shares of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) in Q2. In Q1, the same disclosure listed about 8.3 million shares. The filing corresponded to a reported value of roughly $356 million in Q2.
While the increase is significant in percentage terms, a 13F filing is not designed to communicate directional trading strategies. As PrimeXBT senior market analyst Jonatan Randin explained to Cointelegraph, these reports can combine holdings from different parts of an institution, including positions linked to client flows and other internal uses. That limits how confidently readers can interpret the update as a clear bet on future price movement.
Randin also noted a structural limitation of 13Fs: they exclude short positions. As a result, the reported long holdings do not reveal net exposure after offsets, meaning the filing is best viewed as a snapshot of disclosed long positions rather than a full picture of risk.
Ether ETF position expands more dramatically
JPMorgan’s Ether-related exposure rose even faster. In the same filing, its holdings in the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) increased to about 1.17 million shares in Q2 from roughly 267,000 shares in Q1. This represents more than a fourfold increase.
The reported change suggests that, at least in terms of disclosed holdings, JPMorgan’s balance-sheet linkage to Ether-linked investment products expanded more quickly than its Bitcoin-related exposure during the same quarter.
As with the Bitcoin ETF position, the interpretation remains constrained by the nature of Form 13F reporting. Investors should view the figures as evidence of increased disclosed holdings rather than direct proof of a strategic shift toward a particular crypto asset’s price direction—especially because 13F submissions do not convey the full context of derivatives, hedges, or other trading that might be used to manage risk.
XRP-linked holdings appear after a blank prior quarter
Beyond Bitcoin and Ether, Randin pointed to small but notable positions tied to XRP investment products. In Q2, JPMorgan reported 181 shares of Grayscale’s XRP product valued at about $3,763 and 113 shares of Bitwise’s XRP ETF valued at about $1,356.
In Q1, JPMorgan showed no reported positions in either of those XRP-related vehicles. Randin connected the timing to the broader regulatory environment for XRP and to the emergence of spot XRP investment products in the United States.
“From my point of view this adds credibility to the regulatory improvements surrounding XRP,” Randin said, highlighting how the appearance of XRP-linked fund holdings can be interpreted as a sign of improving market accessibility. Still, the quantities reported are relatively small, so readers should avoid assuming the position signals a major reallocation toward XRP without additional supporting data.
Why 13F snapshots matter—and what they can’t tell
JPMorgan’s filing illustrates both the usefulness and the limitations of 13F disclosures for crypto-focused investors. On one hand, the report provides a recurring, regulator-filed window into how large institutions allocate capital or align exposure with crypto-linked exchange-traded products. On the other hand, it does not capture the full trading picture.
In particular, Randin’s explanation underscores three key points investors typically need to keep in mind when reading 13Fs:
Multiple internal sources: An institution’s holdings can reflect a mix of business units, including client activity and inventory management.
No netting of shorts: 13F reports do not show short positions, so the disclosure is not a complete net exposure measure.
Quarterly timing: Changes reflect holdings as of a specific reporting date, not necessarily when a purchase or sale occurred.
This means the reported increases in Bitcoin and Ether ETF shares should be interpreted as movement in disclosed long holdings rather than a definitive statement about future market direction.
Reductions in miner positions also signal shifting proxies
Randin also highlighted that JPMorgan trimmed positions in several Bitcoin miners. He argued that miner equities can be a less reliable proxy for Bitcoin exposure as some miners expand into artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, potentially diversifying away from straightforward Bitcoin linkage.
“If that was the reason for holding them, trimming that part of the portfolio makes a lot of sense regardless of your view of the future direction of price,” Randin said.
For crypto investors, this is a useful reminder that institutional disclosures may reflect not only bullish or bearish expectations, but also a re-evaluation of what different crypto-adjacent asset categories are actually expressing—whether that’s direct token exposure through ETFs or more complex business exposure through mining-related equity.
Going forward, traders and long-term investors may want to watch whether JPMorgan’s ETF-related positions continue to trend upward or stabilize in subsequent filings, and whether additional disclosures show further expansion—or rebalancing—across Bitcoin, Ether, and smaller altcoin-linked products as regulatory conditions evolve.
This article was originally published as JPMorgan Q2 Filing Highlights Higher Bitcoin and Ether ETF Exposure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.