Crypto Breaking

Bitcoin slipped to ten-day lows at the opening of Wall Street on Tuesday, extending a broader risk-off move that followed a sharp sell-off in Asia-linked equities. As traders digested renewed pressure on global technology and AI supply chains, BTC trading weakened alongside US market futures before and during the start of US hours.
Crypto positioning also took a hit. Liquidation data indicates long positions were forced out quickly, with CoinGlass reporting more than $510 million wiped out over roughly 24 hours as the decline accelerated. Meanwhile, key benchmarks in semiconductor-heavy markets fell hard—underscoring how strongly crypto is still reacting to traditional market stress.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin’s move to ten-day lows coincided with a US equities sell-off after steep declines in Asian markets.
Semiconductor stocks led the reversal in Asia, with South Korea’s KOSPI closing down 10.8% in a day.
Crypto derivatives liquidations for long positions surpassed $510 million over 24 hours, according to CoinGlass.
BTC/USD dipped below $63,000 for the first time since July 17, setting up fresh levels traders will watch for follow-through.
Analysts point to uncertainty around hyperscaler AI capex returns and intensifying competition from open-source AI.
Semiconductors trigger a wider risk-off swing
Tuesday’s pressure on Bitcoin was not isolated to crypto. Semiconductor losses spilled from Asia into US trading, amplifying the day’s bearish tone. In South Korea, the KOSPI Index finished down 10.8% in the session, with SK Hynix dropping 14.8%—a move that signals how quickly investors are repricing expectations for memory and chip-related demand.
The weakness wasn’t confined to one market. Japan’s Kioxia Holdings fell 18.3% on the day, highlighting a broader reset across parts of the semiconductor supply chain rather than a single company-specific issue.
In the US, the Nasdaq Composite was down more than 1% at the time of writing, as tech exposure dragged. Micron Technologies also reflected the intensity of the sell-off: the stock fell by over 10% at the open, then failed to sustain a rebound and reached its lowest levels since May 22.
AI infrastructure spending meets sharper scrutiny
A core theme behind the equity drawdown appears to be intensifying questions over the durability of hyperscaler capital expenditure. Investors are increasingly focused on whether the economics of large-scale AI infrastructure builds can justify the magnitude and pace of spending.
Coverage cited in the source notes that combined 2026 capex guidance from major hyperscalers—Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta—was tracking toward roughly $725–730 billion, with Wall Street projections suggesting it could rise toward $900 billion in 2027. Additional detail referenced alongside this is that Alphabet reported its first cash burn on record in the second quarter, totaling $5.9 billion, even as its cloud unit posted 82% growth.
For crypto traders, the implication is straightforward: if equities react to doubts about AI spending returns, high-beta assets like Bitcoin can face correlated selling pressure—especially when leverage is already elevated in crypto markets.
At the same time, the competitive narrative around AI is adding another layer of uncertainty. The source points to Moonshot AI’s Kimi K3 open-source model, launched two weeks prior to the report’s timeframe and benchmarked against leading proprietary systems from firms such as Anthropic and OpenAI. The argument being circulated is that if similar model capabilities can be achieved at lower cost, parts of the return assumptions for Western hyperscaler spending may be less certain.
Bitcoin breaks key levels as liquidations mount
Crypto didn’t escape the macro pressure. TradingView data referenced in the source shows BTC/USD dipping below $63,000 for the first time since July 17 as the day’s sell-off expanded into US hours.
As spot price weakness drew in leveraged participants, derivatives flows accelerated. CoinGlass liquidation data cited in the article indicates long liquidations cleared in excess of $510 million over 24 hours—an outcome consistent with sharp downside moves where stop-losses and margin calls cascade quickly.
On the risk side, the source includes commentary from CoinAnk warning of a potential long liquidation cascade below $64,700. CoinAnk noted that “extremely large long liquidity has accumulated below this level,” and added that upward movement may face less immediate resistance, with the $65,800 to $66,200 band described as a “major short liquidation zone.”
This framework matters for market participants because it ties price action to the mechanics of liquidation-driven volatility. When large clusters of orders sit near defined technical levels, the market can shift rapidly—not only because of new information, but because positioning unwinds.
What to watch next
Bitcoin’s next move will likely depend on whether the broader equity stress stabilizes or intensifies, especially as investors continue to reassess hyperscaler spending and AI infrastructure return assumptions. For traders and risk managers, the immediate focus should be on whether BTC can reclaim levels above recent breakdown points or whether liquidation dynamics extend further through the zones highlighted by CoinAnk and the broader long liquidations tracked by CoinGlass.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Slides Below $63K as Asia Chip Selloff Spills Over to U.S. on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Core Scientific has reported a sharp rebound in its second-quarter financial performance as its data-center colocation business—built to support artificial intelligence (AI) and high-performance computing (HPC)—continues to drive results after the miner’s shift away from a Bitcoin-only model.
In earnings released Tuesday, the company said Q2 revenue rose to $164.2 million, compared with $78.6 million in the same quarter a year earlier. Colocation revenue made up the overwhelming majority of that figure, climbing to $136.7 million from $10.6 million, while gross profit increased to $70 million from $5 million.
Key takeaways
Core Scientific’s revenue more than doubled in Q2, with colocation now the dominant earnings engine.
AI- and HPC-oriented infrastructure appears increasingly central to the company’s profit trajectory, as gross profit jumped alongside colocation revenue.
Despite strong topline growth, Core Scientific posted a large net loss driven largely by a non-cash accounting impact tied to warrant valuation.
The company’s newly announced AMD partnership could support up to 2.5 GW of leasable capacity, with initial multi-site agreements beginning in 2027.
Revenue surge driven by colocation, not mining
The company’s results highlight how quickly Core Scientific’s operating profile has changed. According to the earnings figures, colocation revenue—rather than mining-related activity—accounted for $136.7 million of the quarter’s total $164.2 million. In the year-ago period, colocation contributed only $10.6 million, underscoring the scale of the pivot and the speed at which the business ramped.
Gross profit also rose substantially, reaching $70 million from just $5 million. While revenue growth alone can sometimes reflect mix effects or transitional capacity, the gross profit jump suggests Core Scientific’s shift is beginning to translate into a more favorable economics profile for its core infrastructure operations.
Core Scientific is no longer positioning itself as a pure-play Bitcoin miner. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that it generates the bulk of its revenue from colocation services while holding a comparatively small Bitcoin treasury of fewer than 1,000 BTC, based on industry data compiled by bitcointreasuries.net.
The net loss: accounting effects, not necessarily cash stress
Even as revenue and gross profit climbed, Core Scientific still recorded a $1.15 billion net loss. The company attributed the result primarily to a non-cash accounting charge connected to the rising value of outstanding warrants as its share price increased.
This matters for readers because the market often interprets net losses as immediate operational distress. Here, the earnings disclosure frames the loss as largely accounting-driven rather than a direct signal that the business is consuming cash faster than it generates it. In the context of a company transitioning to longer-term infrastructure contracts, that distinction can influence how investors evaluate near-term headlines versus underlying demand and contracted capacity.
Following the earnings release, Core Scientific’s shares reportedly fell by more than 4%, trimming its year-to-date gains—an indication that some investors may have focused on the net loss headline before digging into what drove it.
An AMD deal aims to lock in large-scale AI compute capacity
Alongside its quarterly results, Core Scientific announced a partnership with Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). AMD designs CPUs and AI-oriented graphics processors that compete with other major chip vendors.
The agreement is structured to support up to 2.5 gigawatts of leasable data-center capacity. The initial phase is anchored by 15-year agreements covering 530 megawatts across multiple US sites starting in 2027, with the ability to expand over time.
Core Scientific said the broader AMD partnership could generate more than $14 billion in contracted base revenue. The company also stated that its total leased customer power capacity is now roughly 1.1 GW, representing more than $24 billion in potential contracted revenue.
From an investor perspective, this type of power-and-capacity contracting is often viewed as a way to stabilize revenue in infrastructure businesses, especially when the demand side is tied to large compute requirements from AI training and inference workloads. For traders and equity holders, the key question becomes how quickly these longer-dated commitments translate into actual utilization and incremental margins—especially as the market moves from “plans” to “running load.”
Broader AI data-center competition signals shifting priorities across crypto infrastructure
Core Scientific’s quarter and its AMD partnership arrive as other infrastructure providers tied to the crypto era also expand into AI compute. Earlier this month, IREN disclosed $2.8 billion in cloud contracts with AI developers. Separately, Hut 8 unveiled a $9.8 billion lease agreement with an unnamed customer for capacity at its AI data campus.
Set against those moves, Core Scientific’s results look less like a standalone turnaround story and more like part of a sector-wide reallocation of resources. Bitcoin mining companies that secured data-center assets and power access during the mining buildout are increasingly competing on hosting, leasing, and compute-adjacent services rather than relying solely on block rewards.
Still, uncertainty remains. While contracted capacity figures and partnership announcements can support a longer-term growth narrative, the market continues to watch for execution details: how fast customers ramp usage, whether contracted power translates into sustained gross margins, and how balance-sheet dynamics—such as the accounting treatment of warrants—can affect headline profitability.
Investors should watch Core Scientific’s next reporting period for two things: whether the revenue mix continues to lean further into colocation and how management’s guidance and utilization metrics evolve as AMD-linked capacity approaches the initial 2027 ramp-up window.
This article was originally published as Core Scientific Revenue Surges to Double in Q2 on AI Colocation Expansion on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japan’s next monetary policy decision is coming into sharper focus as the yen keeps sliding toward fresh 40-year lows against the US dollar. With the Bank of Japan (BoJ) scheduled to meet on July 31, markets are weighing whether policymakers will pause at current levels—or signal further tightening as the currency weakens.
The immediate question for global markets, and particularly for crypto traders, is how much pressure a yen slide can add through “carry trade” dynamics. When Japanese rates stay low and the yen depreciates, borrowing in yen to fund riskier assets can expand. But if conditions shift—especially if the yen moves abruptly—those positions can unwind quickly, tightening liquidity and often hitting highly leveraged markets.
Key takeaways
USD/JPY is nearing new 40-year highs, edging toward the 164 area after last week’s record set, according to TradingView.
The BoJ meets on July 31 with its policy rate currently at 1.0%, the highest since September 1995.
Market pricing points to a hold decision, with prediction markets indicating very high odds of no change.
Yen carry-trade unwinds remain a key risk for crypto liquidity, after the 2024 unwind episode was triggered by yen-related interventions.
Yen weakness puts the BoJ under a global spotlight
On Tuesday, data from TradingView showed USD/JPY approaching 164, just short of the new 40-year highs recorded last week. That level matters not only because it reflects yen depreciation, but because Japan’s currency policy affects far more than domestic pricing.
The yen is widely used as a funding currency. With relatively light capital controls and deep liquidity outside the dollar, a weakening yen can reinforce global carry strategies—positioning that depends on Japanese rates staying low and exchange rates remaining stable enough to avoid forced closures.
Japan’s backdrop has also supported that role for decades: earlier current account and trade surpluses helped underpin the currency’s liquidity profile while low interest rates kept yen funding attractive. However, since inflation picked up in 2022, the balance has been shifting toward the possibility of carry-trade stress—particularly if yen depreciation forces investors to exit leveraged trades faster than they expected.
The BoJ’s July 31 decision comes as the policy rate stands at 1.0%, its highest since September 1995. While most expectations currently point to no change, the forward guidance from earlier in the year has kept attention on the pace and timing of potential further hikes.
Markets expect a hold—BoJ’s guidance still leans toward tightening
On expectations for the upcoming meeting, markets appear aligned around the idea of a pause. The reporting around the decision notes that market-implied probabilities show a rate hold at roughly 98%, following the BoJ’s most recent increase in June.
Prediction service Polymarket similarly priced the odds of no change at 99% as of Tuesday, signaling that traders largely expect policymakers to keep the benchmark rate unchanged at the July meeting.
Still, the June meeting summary referenced conditions that could justify additional tightening later. In its published summary, the BoJ pointed to underlying inflation approaching 2%, accommodative financial conditions, and the appropriateness of continuing to raise the policy rate and adjust the degree of monetary accommodation in response to developments in activity, prices, and financial conditions.
The same BoJ materials also flagged how exchange rate moves can feed into CPI dynamics. According to the BoJ’s Outlook for Economic And Prices issued after its April meeting, firms’ pricing and wage behavior may make exchange rate developments more likely to affect prices than in past regimes—ultimately influencing underlying CPI inflation through changes in inflation expectations. The document explicitly notes that attention should be paid to this mechanism.
Since then, yen weakness has persisted, even after the June rate hike. As earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted, the yen has remained above the key 160 level against the dollar despite a post-hike dip, with the broader trend still pointing toward yen depreciation.
Crypto traders watch carry trade risk as yen moves near highs
For crypto markets, the yen story is not just macro trivia—it is a liquidity channel. The yen carry trade can act as a source of risk capital for assets that trade with high leverage, including cryptocurrencies. But that linkage cuts both ways: if the yen strengthens or begins to move sharply, carry positions can unwind, often transmitting stress into trading venues quickly.
Cointelegraph previously reported that interventions in August 2024 triggered a snap “unwinding” of the carry trade, which was accompanied by a rapid negative impact on Bitcoin and altcoins. That episode matters because it illustrates how quickly a trade can reverse when currency moves overwhelm the assumptions that initially made it profitable.
With USD/JPY building on new 40-year highs, concerns about a repeat have resurfaced. Analyst Ricky Ho highlighted in an X post on Monday that the carry trade works only if two conditions remain intact: Japanese interest rates stay exceptionally low and the yen remains broadly stable or continues depreciating. Ho also argued that unwinds are rarely gradual, citing leverage levels that can force faster exits than markets may expect.
Ho went further, suggesting that investors may be focusing too narrowly on the specific months of future BoJ hikes. In his view, the more important issue is that the policy direction has already fundamentally changed—meaning that the risk is tied to the trajectory of policy rather than the calendar.
That framing is particularly relevant given the uncertainty around how much of the yen’s weakness the BoJ is willing to tolerate, and whether further tightening might be used to influence currency stabilization indirectly. If the BoJ’s stance shifts from slow, incremental normalization toward a more hawkish path, it could affect expectations around the yen—either helping prevent disorderly moves or raising the chance of abrupt repricing if markets believe the currency will recover too quickly.
What to monitor before and after July 31
With the BoJ meeting on July 31 and expectations currently centered on a hold, traders and investors will likely focus less on the decision itself and more on the details that follow: any changes in language about the yen’s impact on CPI, how the BoJ balances financial conditions with inflation and growth, and whether guidance implies additional hikes sooner than markets are currently pricing.
Even if the rate is left unchanged, the market’s sensitivity to the yen’s trajectory remains high. The question for the next phase of both macro and crypto liquidity is whether USD/JPY stabilizes—or whether yen moves accelerate in a way that forces leveraged positioning to adjust rapidly.
This article was originally published as Markets Watch BoJ Meeting as Yen Holds Near 40-Year Lows vs USD on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Decentralized finance is shedding projects again. DeFi dashboard Zapper announced it will shut down after nearly seven years, adding to a wave of closures and wind-downs that have marked 2026 across multiple segments of the industry.
Earlier this year, Bitcoin DeFi platform Botanix, Solana portfolio tracker Step Finance, DeFi analytics platform Parsec, and DEX aggregator Odos Protocol also moved toward shutdown or completion of operations. RootData has tracked 101 “dead” crypto projects in 2026 as of July 26, and observers say DeFi accounts for more than half of those failures.
Key takeaways
DeFi closures in 2026 aren’t explained solely by “bear market blues.” Analysts argue capital has shifted to different parts of the ecosystem rather than disappearing.
Concentration may be easing, not intensifying. Artemis data cited in the report suggests leading protocols hold smaller shares than they did two years ago.
Fees and revenue matter more than TVL for diagnosing which DeFi models are economically viable today.
Capital is reportedly more selective. Investors are less likely to chase short-term token incentives without a proven distribution or track record.
Infrastructure is consolidating while experimentation moves upward. New products increasingly build on existing DeFi rails rather than recreating core protocols.
A “death list” trend that still raises strategic questions
The visible pattern—multiple DeFi products shutting their doors—naturally invites a simple narrative: the 2026 environment is harsher, and only the strongest teams survive. Zapper’s decision follows a broader sequence of winding downs that includes tools across trading, analytics, and Bitcoin-focused DeFi.
Botanix’s founders, in earlier coverage, pointed to weak demand as a key factor behind its closure. In June, they told Cointelegraph that onchain activity consolidating around a smaller set of venues—such as Hyperliquid and large centralized exchanges—helped hasten Botanix’s decline. That framing fits a common industry complaint: liquidity is concentrating into fewer places.
But Artemis Research’s Alex Weseley argues the “concentration is increasing” storyline doesn’t match DeFi data. In the report, Weseley states that the prevailing narrative suggests DeFi is becoming more centralized due to exploits and capital rotation into “Lindy” protocols—while his analysis says the opposite.
Artemis: concentration drifted lower, but economics rotated
According to the Artemis data cited, concentration across tracked DeFi protocols has drifted lower since 2024. Even though major categories retain dominant incumbents—Uniswap in decentralized exchanges, Aave in lending, and Jupiter in perpetuals by locked capital—each leader reportedly holds a smaller share of its sector than it did two years ago.
Weseley’s larger point is that capital and usage may be moving into adjacent parts of the crypto economy rather than leaving it entirely. The report quotes him saying the economics didn’t disappear; they “rotated to adjacent apps,” naming Hyperliquid, Polymarket, and pump.fun. The implication for traditional DeFi is that classic DeFi’s share of fee generation may shrink even while total fee activity remains robust elsewhere.
This is where the report’s methodological shift matters. Weseley argues that while TVL can answer the “liquidity” question, it can mislead when the issue is economic viability. In his view, fees and revenue provide a more direct measurement of whether DeFi models remain sustainable.
Artemis estimates that the number of DeFi applications generating at least $1 million in monthly fees rose to about 33 or 34 in mid-to-late 2025 before dropping back to roughly 25 or 26 during the first half of 2026. It also estimates that the number generating more than $10 million in monthly fees roughly halved over the same period.
Put differently: even if users and capital haven’t fully “exited” DeFi, the economic engine—measured through fees—has cooled for many protocols. For teams that depend on high-frequency demand or stable onchain activity, that can be the difference between operating profitably and winding down.
Gauntlet: demand is high, but incentives aren’t driving funds the way they used to
DeFi risk management firm Gauntlet takes a more optimistic view of underlying market health. Nicholas Cannon, chief business officer at Gauntlet, tells Magazine that demand is “the strongest it has ever been,” citing growing stablecoin supply and an apparent drift from traditional finance toward DeFi rather than away from it.
In the report, Gauntlet argues the key change since the previous downturn is how capital behaves. According to Cannon, investors are more selective than in past cycles—less easily pulled in by short-term token incentives designed to “bootstrap” user activity.
The quoted stance is blunt: in earlier cycles, liquidity followed incentives wherever they pointed. Now, capital reportedly follows “sustainable yield, track record, and curation.” Incentives can still help start traction, but the report suggests they no longer guarantee survival on their own.
Markus Levin, co-founder of infrastructure company XYO, reinforces this idea—especially for institutional capital. He says the institutional layer in 2026 is more selective, and the strongest survivors are likely those with meaningful existing user distribution or the ability to reach beyond the “traditional DeFi audience.” If that expectation holds, it means today’s bar for success may be higher than the bar set during earlier bear markets.
The report also points to where new experimentation is concentrating: tokenized assets, stablecoins, and emerging categories such as agentic DeFi. While these areas are not presented as cures for every DeFi challenge, they align with the thesis that the economics are shifting rather than disappearing.
Infrastructure consolidation and distribution-led growth
One consequence of DeFi maturation highlighted by the report is that fewer teams are attempting to build the next Aave or Uniswap from scratch. Instead, Cannon argues that startups increasingly use established infrastructure as a foundation.
The report links this shift to where funding is landing. It cites a June announcement from Morpho association about a $175 million raise to support institutional lending onchain. It also cites July coverage that agentic DeFi startup Alpaca raised $135 million to build infrastructure for AI-powered financial applications.
In that environment, the product competition changes. Rather than competing head-to-head with incumbents for liquidity, newer protocols may win by being embedded into platforms users already use. The report quotes Morpho Labs co-founder Merlin Egalite saying protocols that grow fastest will increasingly be those integrated into existing user surfaces—wallets, exchanges, and fintech platforms—rather than those trying to pull users away from their current workflows.
Egalite also argues future growth will come from making DeFi infrastructure easier for traditional financial firms to adopt without rebuilding core systems. For builders and investors, that reframes “innovation” as less about reinventing everything and more about reducing friction for integration and distribution.
What to watch as DeFi’s winners and losers sort out
As 2026 continues, the key question isn’t just which projects are shutting down, but whether surviving DeFi apps can maintain fee generation while distribution advantage shifts toward embedded infrastructure. Readers should watch fee-revenue trends, not just TVL, and track whether capital allocation favors products with durable users and integration pathways—or whether more mainstream DeFi tooling keeps getting crowded out by adjacent venues.
This article was originally published as Why Some DeFi Survivors of 2022 Are Now Shutting Down on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed a proposal for “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto firms already authorized in one country should not have to restart the licensing process from scratch when expanding to neighboring markets.
Zhao made the remarks during a fireside chat at the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026 on Tuesday, backing an idea raised by Lito Villanueva, founding chair of FinTech Alliance PH. The core concept is a simplified approval pathway—while still allowing regulators to assess applicants—so that cross-border operations can be reviewed without duplicating every step of initial authorization.
Key takeaways
Zhao argues ASEAN could enable crypto license portability, reducing the need for firms to reapply from scratch in each member state.
The proposal is framed as “simplified authorization” rather than full deregulation: regulators would still retain review power.
ASEAN already uses cross-border frameworks in other financial areas, offering precedents for streamlined regional processes.
Analogies to the EU’s crypto passporting approach suggest a path forward, but ASEAN’s policy fragmentation could slow standardization.
Why passporting matters for ASEAN crypto and stablecoins
ASEAN member states regulate digital assets through separate national regimes, which can create multiple parallel compliance pathways for companies attempting regional expansion. Zhao’s argument centers on how that fragmentation affects both operational costs and competitive dynamics.
A regional licensing framework, proponents say, could lower compliance expenses and make it easier for crypto and stablecoin services to operate across borders. Zhao also linked passporting to consumer outcomes, suggesting that expanding the set of platforms able to compete through lighter processes could reduce costs and improve service quality.
He characterized the biggest obstacle as political rather than technical, adding that the underlying “technology” of coordinating authorization should not be the deciding factor. For investors and market participants, the practical implication is that clearer and less duplicative regulatory pathways could support more consistent regional market access—potentially affecting liquidity, product availability, and the speed at which regulated offerings scale.
ASEAN’s existing playbook: streamlined approvals in other sectors
While ASEAN does not currently operate a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto firms, regional regulators have created mechanisms that resemble elements of mutual recognition and simplified cross-border authorization in capital markets.
According to the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF), the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum’s Collective Investment Schemes Framework allows a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The framework was first operationalized in Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand in 2014, and the Philippines joined in 2021, based on an ACMF news release stating that ASEAN capital markets connectivity would be enhanced with the Philippines’ entry into the scheme.
The ACMF has also introduced the ACMF Pass under its Professional Mobility Framework. The program enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another, without obtaining a new license.
These frameworks are narrower than the “passporting” approach Villanueva and Zhao discussed for crypto firms. They do not eliminate host-market requirements, and the review still ultimately depends on what host jurisdictions require. Still, they show that ASEAN regulators have already experimented with regional integration tools that reduce redundancy and speed up cross-border market entry—an important reference point for any push toward license portability in digital assets.
Notably, these regional arrangements also help explain how a passporting model might be structured to satisfy regulators: authorization can be streamlined through predefined criteria and processes, while host markets maintain the ability to enforce local rules.
What the EU’s crypto-asset passporting shows—and what ASEAN may differ on
Zhao’s comments also echo a familiar global comparator: the European Union’s approach under the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA). In the EU, an authorized crypto-asset service provider can use passporting rights to provide services across member states after notifying its home regulator of the countries and the specific services involved, according to prior reporting that discussed early tests as national regulators pushed back against passporting.
However, Zhao highlighted a key constraint: differences in national policy priorities and regulatory approaches can make alignment harder in ASEAN than in the EU. That said, his stance remains that a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should face a lighter process when entering another—suggesting that “full harmonization” may not be required for progress, even if perfect uniformity is still unlikely.
For readers evaluating the potential impact, the most important takeaway is the distinction between two extremes. On one end is a fully unified bloc-wide regime; on the other is complete duplication of licensing in every jurisdiction. Passporting, as described here, aims to live in the middle—preserving regulatory oversight while cutting down repetitive administrative work.
Next steps: what investors and builders should watch
Whether ASEAN moves toward license portability for crypto will depend on how regulators balance political coordination with market needs for clarity and scale. The immediate signal to monitor is whether proposals like this shift from concept to an actionable framework—particularly around what would be required for streamlined cross-border authorization, how host jurisdictions would apply conditions, and where regulators draw the line between portability and re-licensing.
This article was originally published as CZ Supports ASEAN Crypto License Passporting to Expand Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Apple is being sued by three iPhone and App Store users who allege they suffered combined losses of about $1.8 million after installing a fake Bitcoin wallet application that prompted them to enter their seed phrases. The complaint was filed on Friday in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, according to a copy of the filing reviewed by MacRumors.
The suit argues Apple did not do enough to screen and supervise apps distributed through the App Store, even as the company promotes it as a trusted marketplace. The plaintiffs say the fraudulent app enabled scammers to transfer their Bitcoin after they shared sensitive recovery information.
Key takeaways
Three plaintiffs allege they lost a combined about $1.8 million after installing a counterfeit Bitcoin wallet app from Apple’s App Store.
The complaint says users entered seed phrases into the malicious app, allowing scammers to move their Bitcoin.
Losses reported in the filing include roughly $875,000, $840,000, and $120,000 during 2025.
Apple says it has removed impersonating apps and terminated related developer accounts, and points users and developers to report guideline-violating software.
The original wallet developer has previously criticized Apple over fake app versions appearing in the App Store, and the legitimate wallet does not offer an official iOS app.
Allegations in the Northern District of California lawsuit
The lawsuit names three customers: James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis, and Jalen Delgado. Their complaint, filed Friday, claims Apple failed to adequately review and monitor applications available through the App Store despite presenting the platform as a controlled, trustworthy distribution channel, as described in the filing copy obtained by MacRumors.
The plaintiffs allege that they downloaded what they believed was a Bitcoin wallet app but was actually a fraudulent copy. After installing the app, they entered their seed phrases—the recovery words that can be used to access cryptocurrency wallets. The complaint says those phrases were then used by scammers to transfer the victims’ Bitcoin holdings.
According to the complaint, the losses occurred during 2025. Ramirez reported losses of about $875,000, Ellis reported about $840,000, and Delgado reported approximately $120,000.
The impersonated wallet and the “no official iOS app” issue
The counterfeit app impersonates Sparrow Wallet. MacRumors reports that Sparrow Wallet is available on Windows, macOS, and Linux, and that developer Craig Raw has said the wallet has no official iOS app.
That detail may be significant for investors, users, and app platform observers because it underscores an apparent mismatch: if there is no legitimate iOS release, a purported iOS wallet carrying the same branding would be inherently suspicious. MacRumors further notes that Raw has previously criticized Apple after fake versions of the app appeared on the App Store.
For users, this kind of incident highlights the risk of wallet-related apps that ask for seed phrases. In practice, seed phrases are effectively full-access credentials. Any wallet prompt requesting them should raise serious red flags, especially when the app’s legitimacy is unclear.
Apple’s response: app removals and account terminations
Apple told MacRumors that it has taken action against the fraudulent listings. The company said it removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts tied to those apps.
Apple also pointed to its reporting mechanisms, saying developers and users can report applications that violate App Store guidelines. Apple further said it takes action against apps that do not comply with its rules.
The lawsuit, however, centers on whether those controls were sufficient—particularly given the alleged scale of the losses and the claim that users were able to access a counterfeit app that appears designed to capture seed phrases.
Why the case matters for crypto users and the broader app ecosystem
This dispute touches a fault line that has repeatedly surfaced in crypto-enabled fraud: many losses involve not only a malicious actor, but also the ecosystem that allowed the harmful app to reach victims in the first place. For crypto users, the case serves as a reminder that downloading wallet software from mainstream app stores is not, by itself, a guarantee of safety—especially when the app’s behavior suggests it may be collecting recovery credentials.
From an enforcement and platform-governance perspective, the lawsuit may also shape how regulators, courts, and consumers evaluate “reasonable” screening and monitoring for high-risk financial and credential-handling applications. The plaintiffs are alleging a failure of oversight despite Apple’s positioning of the App Store as a trusted marketplace, which is likely to be a focal point in legal arguments about responsibility and foreseeability.
Even if Apple removes impersonating apps quickly after being informed, victims may already have been compromised. That timing gap—between a fraudulent app becoming available and enforcement actions landing—can be critical in the types of scams described in the filing.
There is also an information asymmetry for users: people may assume that brand names like “wallet” and familiar project titles imply legitimacy. The “no official iOS app” detail reported by MacRumors, combined with Raw’s past criticism about fake listings, suggests that legitimacy signals (such as official release availability and publisher identity) can be decisive for avoiding impersonation.
What happens next will likely depend on how the court assesses the adequacy of Apple’s app review and monitoring processes, and how it evaluates whether the harm was caused by app distribution decisions versus individual user behavior (such as entering seed phrases into a fraudulent interface).
In the meantime, readers should watch for any further procedural developments in the case and for Apple’s continued actions on impersonating crypto apps—especially wallet applications that request seed phrases or recovery credentials. The unanswered question is not only whether enforcement occurred, but whether it came fast enough to prevent the kinds of losses alleged in this filing.
This article was originally published as Apple Sued Over Alleged Bitcoin Wallet Scam Scheme on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Apple is being sued by three customers who allege they suffered a combined loss of about $1.8 million after installing a fraudulent “Bitcoin wallet” app from the App Store. The lawsuit, filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, claims Apple failed to properly review and monitor applications even as it markets the App Store as a trusted marketplace.
According to the complaint, the victims entered their Bitcoin seed phrases into the fake wallet, enabling scammers to move funds. The plaintiffs say their losses occurred during 2025, with reported losses of approximately $875,000, $840,000, and $120,000 across the three accounts, respectively.
Key takeaways
Three plaintiffs allege App Store controls were insufficient, leading to seed-phrase theft via a fake Bitcoin wallet app.
The complaint states total claimed losses reached roughly $1.8 million during 2025.
Apple says it removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated associated developer accounts.
Sparrow Wallet has no official iOS app, which the filing and related developer commentary indicate should have mattered to users.
Lawsuit alleges App Store oversight failures
The lawsuit names plaintiffs James Ramirez, Christopher Ellis, and Jalen Delgado. The filing alleges Apple did not adequately review and monitor applications despite promoting the App Store as a secure channel for users to obtain software. A copy of the complaint was obtained by MacRumors, which reported on the case.
The core allegation is straightforward and common to seed-phrase theft scams: the victims allegedly provided their seed phrases to the fraudulent application, after which scammers transferred their Bitcoin. Each plaintiff reported losses of different magnitudes during 2025, culminating in the combined figure cited in the complaint.
The broader issue raised by the plaintiffs is less about one specific scam and more about whether platform-level processes—review, monitoring, and enforcement—were strong enough to prevent an impersonation-style wallet from reaching users.
Sparrow Wallet impersonation and the iOS gap
MacRumors’ coverage ties the alleged scam to Sparrow Wallet impersonation. Sparrow Wallet is described as being available for Windows, macOS, and Linux, and the wallet’s developer, Craig Raw, previously criticized Apple over fake versions of the application appearing on the App Store.
Crucially for users, Sparrow Wallet has no official iOS app. That absence is significant because impersonation scams typically rely on confusion—users may assume a popular wallet exists on their device and may not realize that the genuine developer did not provide an iOS version.
While the lawsuit centers on the plaintiffs’ alleged experience, this iOS gap also points to a practical takeaway: wallet users should be cautious about any “official” claim for seed-based wallets appearing on mobile app stores—especially when the known developer ecosystem indicates a different set of supported platforms.
Apple says it removed the apps and took enforcement action
In response to MacRumors, Apple said it had removed apps impersonating Sparrow Wallet and terminated developer accounts linked to those apps. Apple also stated that developers and users can report applications that violate App Store guidelines, and that it takes action against apps that do not comply with its rules.
This response frames Apple’s position as enforcement after detection, rather than an admission that the App Store’s gatekeeping was insufficient before the scam was live. For investors, traders, and builders, the tension here is important: seed-phrase scams produce irreversible outcomes for users, so the debate naturally turns to how quickly and how effectively malicious impersonators are identified and removed.
The case therefore sets up a likely factual dispute over timing and adequacy—what Apple knew, when it acted, and whether its review and monitoring efforts met the standard the plaintiffs argue should apply to a marketplace that promotes itself as trustworthy.
Why this matters for crypto users and the broader app ecosystem
Seed-phrase entry scams are among the most damaging categories of fraud in the crypto ecosystem because they transfer control of funds in a way that is difficult for users to reverse. This lawsuit highlights a recurring vulnerability: users often treat app stores as inherently safer than installing software from unknown sources, even though wallet-related attacks can still pass through if impersonation and branding are effective.
For crypto users, the dispute underscores several risk-control habits that remain relevant regardless of what the court ultimately decides. First, users should verify whether a wallet exists on iOS at all—particularly when a developer’s published support list does not include iOS. Second, users should avoid entering seed phrases into any app that was not directly sourced from official developer channels. Third, even if a platform removes malicious apps later, users may already have lost funds by the time enforcement occurs.
For app developers and wallet maintainers, the case is also a reminder that brand impersonation can cause real financial harm quickly, and that monitoring and reporting mechanisms may need to be paired with more proactive user education—especially around what is and isn’t available on mobile.
Readers should watch next for how the court addresses the alleged timeline of the fraudulent apps and what evidence the plaintiffs use to argue that App Store processes were inadequate prior to the losses. Apple’s response suggests it will emphasize removals and enforcement efforts, so the factual record on detection and action timing may be the central battleground.
This article was originally published as Apple Sued Over Alleged $1.8M Losses Linked to Bitcoin Wallet App on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao has endorsed the concept of “license passporting” across ASEAN, arguing that crypto and stablecoin providers that are already regulated in one country should not have to restart the licensing process when expanding into neighboring markets.
Speaking Tuesday at the “One ASEAN, One Digital Economy” fireside chat during the ASEAN Tech Summit Manila 2026, Zhao backed an approach originally raised by FinTech Alliance PH founding chair Lito Villanueva: a simplified approval pathway—or license portability—so regulators can still conduct due diligence, but without forcing applicants to complete a wholly new application from scratch in each jurisdiction.
Key takeaways
Zhao supports regulatory passporting across ASEAN to reduce the “apply from zero” burden for already-licensed crypto and stablecoin firms.
He framed cross-border coordination as largely a political issue, while suggesting the underlying technology and compliance architecture are manageable.
A streamlined regional licensing model could lower compliance costs and encourage competition across fragmented ASEAN rules.
ASEAN has precedent for simplified cross-border authorization in other parts of finance, though crypto-specific passporting does not yet exist.
The EU’s MiCA framework provides a clearer passporting example, highlighting the contrast between region-wide rules and ASEAN’s country-by-country regulatory environment.
Why “passporting” matters for crypto in ASEAN
ASEAN countries currently regulate digital assets through separate national frameworks, which can translate into multiple licensing processes for firms trying to operate regionally. Zhao’s argument is that this patchwork discourages cross-border expansion and increases overhead—both of which can slow access to new services and leave costs higher for users.
At the same time, Zhao did not suggest regulators would be sidelined. His core position was that regulators should retain the ability to review and assess applicants, but that the administrative burden should be lighter when a firm already holds a license in another participating market.
In practical terms, that distinction could matter most for compliance-heavy business models—such as custody, exchange operations, and certain stablecoin-related activities—where duplication of documentation, legal reviews, and internal controls can become expensive and time-consuming with each new country entry.
ASEAN already uses simplified approvals in other sectors
While ASEAN does not currently have a bloc-wide “passport” specifically for crypto companies, regulators have used streamlined cross-border mechanisms in capital markets to deepen integration. One example is the ASEAN Capital Markets Forum (ACMF) framework for Collective Investment Schemes (CIS).
According to the ACMF, its Collective Investment Schemes Framework “allows” a fund authorized in its home jurisdiction to be offered in participating host jurisdictions through a streamlined authorization process. The initiative began operating in Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand in 2014, and later expanded when the Philippines joined in 2021. The ACMF describes the Philippines’ entry as an enhancement to ASEAN capital markets connectivity. (See: ACMF CIS cross-border framework and ACMF news release on Philippines entry.)
Separately, the ACMF has also introduced the “ACMF Pass” under its Professional Mobility Framework. This arrangement enables eligible investment advisers licensed in one participating jurisdiction to receive fast-track registration to provide advisory services in another jurisdiction without obtaining another full license. The ACMF details the Professional Mobility initiative and related arrangements on its website. (See: ACMF Professional Mobility and ACMF announcement.)
Zhao’s crypto “passporting” idea is broader than these finance-specific programs, but the examples underscore a key point for investors and operators: ASEAN regulators have, in practice, found ways to use mutual recognition and simplified approvals in areas where rules differ across member states.
Europe’s MiCA shows how passporting can work in practice
A closer analogue outside ASEAN is the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) regime, which includes passporting rights for authorized crypto-asset service providers. Under the approach described in earlier reporting, an authorized provider can offer services across EU member states after notifying its home regulator about the countries and services involved. (See: Cointelegraph’s coverage of MiCA passporting.)
Zhao’s comments suggest he sees alignment across ASEAN as more difficult than building common technical rails, partly because policy and regulatory approaches vary between countries. Still, his central claim remains: the pathway for a firm already licensed in one ASEAN market should be meaningfully easier when it enters another—provided regulators can still evaluate the application on its substance.
What changes—and what remains uncertain
If ASEAN regulators adopted a passporting or license portability model for crypto, the biggest immediate change would likely be operational: firms could focus compliance resources on meeting baseline requirements, rather than rebuilding licensing dossiers for each country. That could also affect market dynamics by making it easier for licensed operators to expand service offerings, potentially improving competition and reducing consumer-facing costs over time—an outcome Zhao explicitly tied to broader regional participation.
However, a major uncertainty remains how “lighter” the process could realistically be under current political and regulatory structures. Even within systems that use simplified approvals, host jurisdictions often still apply their own rules or requirements. In other words, passporting can reduce duplication without eliminating local oversight.
For readers watching ASEAN’s crypto landscape, the next signal to track would be whether regional bodies or individual regulators begin converging on shared standards for licensing and ongoing supervision—especially for businesses tied to stablecoins and custody/exchange services, where risk controls are central.
Zhao’s endorsement highlights that the technology for cross-border licensing mechanics is not the main barrier; coordination among regulators is. The practical question now is whether ASEAN moves from principles like mutual recognition and streamlined approvals in capital markets toward comparable frameworks for crypto—without compromising local regulatory objectives.
This article was originally published as CZ Endorses Crypto License Passporting for ASEAN Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has introduced a new assessment framework aimed at helping banks prepare for the potential impact of quantum computing on the cryptography underpinning distributed ledger and digital finance systems. The move signals that Hong Kong’s rapid push toward tokenization and blockchain settlement is now paired with a formal push to address “post-quantum” security risks.
In a white paper released Monday, the HKMA unveiled the sector’s first Quantum Preparedness Index (QPI). The HKMA assigned an overall readiness score of 2.3 out of 10 across surveyed institutions and said roughly half of them had no formal post-quantum planning in place. The regulator’s goal is to raise the sector to a QPI score of 10 by 2030.
Key takeaways
The HKMA’s first Quantum Preparedness Index scores the banking sector at 2.3/10, indicating limited readiness for post-quantum upgrades.
According to the HKMA, around half of surveyed institutions lack formal post-quantum planning.
Hong Kong’s tokenization and distributed ledger initiatives heighten the urgency of cryptographic migration planning.
The regulator warns that sufficiently powerful quantum computers could eventually break RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography used in financial systems.
The HKMA is targeting full sector preparedness by 2030 and is urging earlier inventories and risk assessments.
Why HKMA is turning to quantum preparedness now
The HKMA’s quantum framework arrives as the city expands how it uses tokenization in mainstream finance. Hong Kong has already issued three batches of tokenized green bonds totaling about HK$16.8 billion (around $2.1 billion) since 2023, according to government disclosures published on the government information site and related bond issuance updates since that period.
At the policy level, the HKMA is also advancing tokenized deposits and digital-asset settlement. It has been working on these capabilities under Project Ensemble, an initiative that Cointelegraph previously covered in the context of tokenization efforts and wholesale CBDC-related infrastructure.
Within this broader push, the HKMA’s central argument is that distributed ledger applications and payment networks rely on cryptography for core functions—and that a successful cryptographic compromise would create systemic vulnerabilities. The white paper states that if those protections were undermined, it could lead to severe disruption across the systems that depend on them.
The QPI score and what the assessment found
The white paper and the accompanying index formalize how the HKMA expects banks to think about readiness. With an overall QPI score of 2.3/10, the HKMA essentially portrays the sector as being in an early stage—before deep technical migrations and long-running system updates.
Two findings stand out from the HKMA’s release. First, it reports that around half of the surveyed institutions had no formal post-quantum planning in place. Second, it describes examples of early technical work: the HKMA says one institution completed a proof of concept applying post-quantum cryptography to distributed-ledger connectivity.
The HKMA also points to real-world experience in the industry, noting HSBC’s 2024 use of quantum-safe technology to move tokenized gold across distributed ledgers. This detail is included in the HKMA’s white paper as an example of post-quantum considerations being explored in connection with tokenized asset settlement.
Quantum risk: what could be broken, and why timelines matter
In the HKMA’s framing, the major threat comes from the possibility that quantum computers could run Shor’s algorithm at scale. In its view, that capability could eventually undermine widely used public-key systems such as RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography.
If that were to happen, the HKMA warns it could enable attackers to decrypt protected data or forge digital signatures—mechanisms used to authorize transactions, verify identities, and establish trust within financial systems.
The regulator emphasizes practical urgency rather than alarm. According to the white paper, replacing cryptographic systems embedded across infrastructure can take years. For that reason, it urged banks to begin with foundational work now—such as inventories of cryptographic assets, risk assessments, and migration planning—before machines with the required capability become available.
Hong Kong’s tokenization strategy raises the bar for security upgrades
The HKMA’s quantum effort aligns with its broader Fintech 2030 direction, announced as a strategy in 2025 that made tokenization a key pillar. Cointelegraph previously reported that tokenization was one of four strategic pillars within an overall plan of more than 40 initiatives in coverage of HKMA’s Fintech 2030 strategy.
The HKMA has signaled that its tokenization agenda includes acceleration of real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, regularization around tokenized government bond issuance, and exploration of tokenized Exchange Fund papers. It has also described blockchain settlement work supported by e-HKD, tokenized deposits, and regulated stablecoins.
Meanwhile, the business momentum behind digital assets and tokenized deposits appears to be building. In a speech, Hong Kong Financial Secretary Paul Chan said banks in the city held more than HK$14 billion (about $1.785 billion) in digital assets under custody at the end of 2025, up about 180% year over year. He also cited tokenized deposits reaching HK$29 billion (about $3.7 billion).
That combination—growing tokenization activity alongside a regulator-led push for cryptographic resilience—helps explain why the HKMA is moving beyond generic cybersecurity guidance and instead introducing a measurable readiness score. For market participants, the QPI structure may translate into clearer expectations for governance and technical planning as they integrate DLT into more of their regulated operations.
Going forward, banks in Hong Kong will likely need to watch how the HKMA tracks QPI progress toward the 10/10 by 2030 target and whether additional guidance is released on timelines, assessment methods, and post-quantum migration priorities. With the assessment showing low current readiness, the next phase to monitor is how quickly institutions turn plans into concrete inventories, testing, and system upgrades across ledger connectivity and transaction authorization layers.
This article was originally published as Hong Kong readies banks for quantum cybersecurity threats on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has moved to harden the city’s financial system against the long-term risks posed by quantum computing. In a newly released white paper, the regulator unveiled a first-of-its-kind Quantum Preparedness Index (QPI) designed to measure how ready banks are for potential threats to the cryptography that underpins digital payments, tokenized deposits and blockchain-based settlement.
According to the HKMA, the sector’s overall QPI score stands at 2.3 out of 10. The white paper also found that around half of surveyed institutions have not put formal post-quantum planning in place. HKMA said it is targeting full sector readiness—defined as a QPI score of 10—by 2030.
Key takeaways
The HKMA’s inaugural Quantum Preparedness Index scored the banking sector at 2.3/10, signalling limited maturity in post-quantum planning.
About half of surveyed institutions reportedly lack formal post-quantum cryptography migration plans.
The regulator links quantum risk directly to the cryptography used in distributed ledgers and payment networks, warning of potentially severe disruption if protections fail.
HKMA aims for banks to reach “full readiness” by 2030, with early actions such as inventories and migration planning flagged as urgent.
Why Hong Kong’s tokenization agenda raises quantum stakes
HKMA’s quantum initiative arrives as Hong Kong deepens the integration of traditional finance with distributed ledger technology. The regulator’s broader push includes work to tokenize assets and expand digital settlement rails—areas that rely heavily on cryptographic security for confidentiality, authentication and transaction integrity.
Government figures highlighted in related reporting show that Hong Kong has issued three batches of tokenized green bonds totaling about HK$16.8 billion (roughly $2.1 billion) since 2023. At the same time, HKMA continues to advance tokenized deposits and digital-asset settlement efforts through Project Ensemble, a programme designed to explore how tokenized forms of money and assets can move and settle on distributed ledgers.
In practice, the more value that is represented, transferred, and authorized on cryptographically protected networks, the more consequential it becomes if the underlying encryption or signature schemes are eventually weakened by quantum capabilities.
The HKMA’s quantum preparedness framework
In Monday’s announcement, the HKMA introduced both a white paper on quantum preparedness and the sector’s first QPI. The regulator’s central point is that modern distributed ledger applications and payment networks depend on cryptography for core functions, meaning a compromise could translate into operational and trust failures across financial services.
The HKMA’s white paper states that quantum computers capable of running Shor’s algorithm at scale could break widely used public-key cryptography such as RSA and elliptic-curve cryptography. The regulator warns that this could enable attackers to decrypt protected data or forge the digital signatures used to authorize transactions, verify identities and underpin trust in financial systems.
Because cryptographic systems can be embedded deeply in hardware, software and operational processes—and replacement can take years—the HKMA is effectively pushing banks to treat post-quantum migration as a multi-year programme rather than a last-minute upgrade. The regulator urged institutions to begin inventories, conduct risk assessments and develop migration planning well before quantum capabilities become a practical threat.
What the QPI score suggests—and what banks must address next
The gap between the intended endpoint and the current readiness level is stark. With an overall score of 2.3 out of 10, the QPI results imply that many institutions may not yet have translated quantum risk into concrete governance, technical roadmaps, and replacement strategies for cryptography used across their systems.
HKMA’s findings also highlight a planning shortfall: around half of the surveyed institutions reportedly had no formal post-quantum planning. That matters because preparedness is not only about choosing replacement cryptographic algorithms. Banks also need to map where current cryptographic methods are used across their infrastructure, assess dependency chains in distributed-ledger connectivity and settlement workflows, and ensure that upgrades do not disrupt operational continuity.
While the overall picture is cautious, HKMA noted that at least one surveyed institution completed a proof of concept applying post-quantum cryptography to distributed-ledger connectivity. The white paper also referenced HSBC’s 2024 use of quantum-safe technology to move tokenized gold across distributed ledgers—an example that illustrates how quantum-resilience work can show up in real settlement experiments rather than remaining purely theoretical.
Still, the HKMA’s score indicates that these efforts are not yet broad-based enough to lift the sector average. For investors and market participants, the practical takeaway is that compliance, systems readiness and operational risk management around cryptography are likely to become increasingly important as Hong Kong scales tokenized products and distributed settlement services.
Hong Kong’s wider timetable: tokenization now, cryptography upgrades later
HKMA framed the quantum preparedness push within its broader strategy to expand fintech and tokenized finance. The regulator had previously outlined a Fintech 2030 strategy in 2025, where tokenization was identified as a strategic pillar in a plan covering more than 40 initiatives. The approach includes accelerating real-world asset (RWA) tokenization, regularizing tokenized government bond issuance, and exploring tokenized Exchange Fund papers, alongside blockchain settlement supported by mechanisms such as e-HKD, tokenized deposits and regulated stablecoins.
Supporting context also came from a speech by Hong Kong Financial Secretary Paul Chan, who said banks held more than HK$14 billion in digital assets under custody at the end of 2025—up about 180% year over year—while tokenized deposits had reached HK$29 billion. Those figures underscore the speed at which tokenization-linked activity is growing, even as cryptographic migration planning remains at an early stage.
That combination—rapid adoption of tokenized rails alongside an acknowledged lack of post-quantum preparation—helps explain why HKMA’s framework is structured as a measurable readiness programme with a target by 2030.
For readers watching this space, the key question is how HKMA will turn the QPI into action: whether institutions will formalize post-quantum migration plans at scale, and how quickly banks move from proof-of-concept work to system-wide inventories and upgrade roadmaps as tokenized settlement continues to expand.
This article was originally published as Hong Kong Readies Banks for Quantum Risks as Tokenization Expands on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance says it has been running simulated phishing attacks on its own staff every month for the past four years, using the results to measure whether its security practices are improving. The exchange’s chief security officer, Jimmy Su, told Cointelegraph that the internal “red team” carries out the exercises and that employees who repeatedly fail may be sent for remediation training.
Meanwhile, the crypto sector also faces policy and compliance pressures across Asia: an Internet rights group in India challenged a government-backed order to remove repositories related to Jack Dorsey’s BitChat, while other developments—from stablecoin payment pilots in the Philippines to shifting retail behavior in South Korea—highlight how technology adoption and regulation are moving in parallel.
Key takeaways
Binance conducts monthly internal phishing tests via its red team and uses the outcomes to trigger remediation training.
India’s Internet Freedom Foundation says a recent order to GitHub to disable BitChat repositories is unconstitutional and threatens open-source and free speech.
CoinShares-related social-engineering concerns remain in focus, with prior industry estimates suggesting a large share of crypto incidents are driven by manipulation rather than pure technical exploits.
South Korea’s five largest crypto exchanges reported a sharp year-over-year drop in combined trading volume, despite growth in equities.
Several countries are exploring real-world payment use cases for stablecoins and blockchain rails, even as governance scrutiny tightens.
Binance uses internal phishing drills to test security hygiene
According to Cointelegraph, Binance’s security approach includes ongoing, controlled attempts to trick employees with phishing-style tactics. Jimmy Su, Binance’s chief security officer, said the company runs these exercises “on a monthly basis” to determine whether day-to-day security hygiene is improving.
The tests are carried out by Binance’s internal ethical hacking unit—its “red team”—which is tasked with breaking into systems in order to identify vulnerabilities. Su said employees who fail the phishing simulations are not simply tracked; they are expected to undergo remediation training.
The broader relevance is that attackers often target human behavior rather than exploiting only software bugs. In February, AMLBot estimated that 65% of crypto security incidents in 2025 were driven by social engineering, underscoring why organizations have increasingly prioritized employee training alongside technical controls. (AMLBot estimate referenced by Cointelegraph: https://cointelegraph.com/news/amlbot-2025-crypto-incidents-social-engineering-phishing-impersonation)
India challenges GitHub takedown order over BitChat repositories
In India, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) condemned a government order directing GitHub to remove or disable repositories related to BitChat, describing the move as unconstitutional. The group warned that the decision could undermine free speech and the open-source ecosystem.
IFF’s statement, according to Cointelegraph, followed a cybercrime agency directive that ordered GitHub to disable access to three BitChat repositories within three hours. The agency’s rationale was that BitChat could be used to bypass internet shutdowns, evade lawful surveillance, and facilitate unlawful activities.
BitChat is described as a decentralized messaging app designed to route encrypted messages between nearby devices over Bluetooth, without relying on internet connectivity or centralized servers. Cointelegraph also noted that since BitChat’s July 2025 release, it has gained traction during periods of unrest and internet outages in countries including Madagascar, Nepal, Uganda, Jamaica, and Iran. (Cointelegraph links referenced by the original report: https://cointelegraph.com/news/jack-dorsey-launches-bluetooth-relayed-decentralized-messaging-app-bitchat, https://cointelegraph.com/news/48000-nepalis-install-jack-dorseys-bitcoin-amid-protests, https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitchat-second-ranked-app-jamaica-as-hurricane-strikes, https://cointelegraph.com/news/decentralized-messaging-adoption-global-unrest)
For developers and users, the dispute raises a familiar tension in crypto and open-source technology: platforms and code repositories can become collateral in broader concerns about communications infrastructure and governance. What remains to be seen is whether GitHub’s handling of the order, and any potential legal challenge in India, changes how decentralized tools are distributed—or whether similar requests spread to other repositories.
Retail crypto interest cools in South Korea while equities surge
Separately, South Korea’s crypto trading activity has deteriorated sharply even as its stock market climbed. Cointelegraph reports that the combined trading activity across five major won-based exchanges—Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax—fell by 89% year over year.
The figure comes from Cointelegraph’s review of CoinGecko’s historical 24-hour volume readings. The comparison used seven-day averages in July 2025 versus July 2026. On a combined basis, average daily volume declined to $305 million from $2.82 billion over the comparable July 2025 period.
Cointelegraph also stated that the KOSPI benchmark more than doubled during the same stretch. While volume has dropped for crypto, the divergence suggests that some retail liquidity may be rotating toward stocks—or that risk appetite and participation in crypto are being influenced by factors beyond token prices alone, such as market structure or broader macro sentiment.
Traders and investors watching South Korea will likely want to focus on whether this pattern persists beyond July and whether exchange-level initiatives or regulatory developments affect participation. The next question is whether lower volumes reflect temporary sentiment shifts or a more durable change in retail allocation decisions.
Stablecoin rails and exchange restructures signal continued build-out
Beyond security and policy disputes, adoption-oriented developments continued. In the Philippines, the Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) plans a stablecoin-based settlement rail for cross-border payments to freelancers, virtual assistants, and other workers receiving overseas income. Cointelegraph reports that the project is being developed with Meridian, with the intent to reduce processing cost and time while retaining safeguards associated with traditional banking transactions.
According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, stablecoins would be used as a settlement instrument before funds are converted to Philippine pesos and credited to recipients’ BPI accounts. (Cointelegraph referenced coverage from ABS-CBN and Philippine Daily Inquirer.)
In Singapore, Coinbase is also reported to be expanding its local presence, planning to grow headcount from 150 to about 200 staff members by the end of 2026 and prioritizing roles including engineers and institutional sales. Cointelegraph cited comments from Hassan Ahmed, Coinbase’s country director for Singapore, to the Business Times about the city-state’s role as a strategic hub for crypto innovation. (Cointelegraph referenced link: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/singapore/coinbase-expand-singapore-operations-grow-headcount-200-despite-global-restructuring)
Elsewhere in Asia, HashKey Holdings said it has merged HashKey Exchange and HashKey Global into a single platform and application, with the goal of giving users a consistent app experience while compliance is managed through local regulatory frameworks. (Cointelegraph link referenced: https://cointelegraph.com/news/hong-kong-crypto-giant-hashkey-merges-its-exchanges-into-one)
Taken together, these stories point to a sector split between defensive maturity—like Binance’s ongoing internal phishing drills—and front-of-house expansion, such as stablecoin payment settlement testing and exchange platform consolidation. The common thread is governance: whether it’s security enforcement inside companies, repository access decisions by governments, or compliance-heavy product rollouts in banking systems, the “how” of crypto adoption is increasingly as important as the “what.”
For the weeks ahead, watch how India’s BitChat repository dispute develops and whether it affects other open-source or decentralized tools, while South Korean trading volume trends indicate whether retail activity is temporarily shifting or settling into a new baseline.
This article was originally published as Binance Reports Monthly Internal Phishing Tests; India Censors BitChat Code on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy, the business intelligence firm best known for holding one of the largest corporate Bitcoin treasuries, continued reshaping its capital structure last week by combining common stock sales with buybacks of its preferred shares.
According to company disclosures, Strategy sold 5,429,160 shares of its Class A common stock through its at-the-market (ATM) program between July 20 and July 26, bringing in $544.5 million in net proceeds. In parallel, it repurchased 288,930 shares of its STRC preferred stock for $25 million, as detailed in a Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Monday.
Key takeaways
Strategy raised $544.5 million in net proceeds via its July 20–26 ATM common stock sales.
In the same period, the company repurchased $25 million worth of its STRC preferred stock through buybacks.
Despite the capital activity, Strategy reported no Bitcoin buys or sales for July 20–26, keeping holdings steady at 843,775 BTC.
Strategy’s U.S. dollar reserve increased to $3.75 billion as of July 26, up from $3.225 billion the previous week.
Recent remarks by Michael Saylor on X fueled speculation about Strategy’s preferred-stock strategy, though the filings show only what the company actually executed.
ATM stock sales and preferred buybacks
Strategy’s latest capital moves were carried out through both of the mechanisms it has relied on to fund its broader financial strategy. First, the company used its at-the-market offering program to sell additional shares. The reported sale volume—5,429,160 shares of Class A common stock—translated into $544.5 million in net proceeds over the July 20–July 26 window.
Separately, Strategy used preferred share repurchases to alter its balance-sheet composition. The company repurchased 288,930 shares of STRC preferred stock for $25 million, according to the Form 8-K filed Monday.
Market reaction followed the news as traders digested the mix of issuance and repurchases. Yahoo Finance data referenced by the original reporting indicated STRC preferred shares were up about 2.3% to $88.90 ahead of the Nasdaq open, while Strategy’s common shares were also higher in Monday’s premarket activity.
Why the cash reserve matters for Strategy’s structure
Following additional fundraising through its ATM program, Strategy increased its U.S. dollar reserve to $3.75 billion as of July 26. The company’s prior reserve level was $3.225 billion the week before, meaning the latest funding cycle added roughly half a billion dollars to the cash buffer over a short period.
Just as important for investors is that Strategy reported no Bitcoin purchases or sales during July 20–26. Its Bitcoin holdings remained unchanged at 843,775 BTC, acquired at an average purchase price of $75,476 per bitcoin, for $63.69 billion in aggregate. In other words, the week’s financing activity appears to have been directed toward liquidity and capital structure rather than changing the size of the treasury.
Strategy’s growing cash reserve reflects an operational need that goes beyond flexibility in market conditions. The reserve is intended to support dividend payments on its preferred stock and interest payments on its outstanding debt—requirements that make near-term liquidity particularly relevant for a company balancing treasury strategy with obligations across its capital stack.
Saylor’s posts reignite debate on Bitcoin and banks
These financial filings arrived in the wake of renewed debate sparked by Strategy executive chairman Michael Saylor on X. Earlier in the week, Saylor’s comments pushed the same discussion back to the forefront: whether Bitcoin’s long-term growth depends on integration with traditional financial institutions.
On Sunday, Saylor wrote that rejecting Bitcoin’s links to financial infrastructure would deny access to most potential users. The argument drew criticism from some Bitcoin supporters, who argue that greater reliance on banks runs counter to Bitcoin’s original goal as a peer-to-peer electronic cash system designed to minimize the need for financial intermediaries.
Supporters and critics both claim alignment with Bitcoin’s fundamentals, but they emphasize different layers of adoption. For those skeptical of bank involvement, the concern is that mainstream routing through established institutions could undermine the network’s decentralized promise. For those taking Saylor’s position, the focus is on distribution—how institutions can act as conduits for broader user access.
The renewed discussion also followed an earlier Saylor post in which he wrote, “We’re gonna need another color,” prompting speculation among market observers about possible adjustments to Strategy’s preferred stock approach. While the speculation highlighted investor attention to Strategy’s preferred instrument strategy, the week’s documented actions remain tied to the specific transactions reported in regulatory filings.
What to watch next
With Strategy maintaining a steady Bitcoin position during the July 20–26 window while simultaneously building cash reserves and adjusting preferred shares, the next signals to monitor are whether future filings show additional preferred share changes, further increases in the dollar reserve, or a shift back toward Bitcoin purchases. The balance between financing activity and treasury execution is likely to remain the key question for investors tracking how Strategy translates capital markets access into long-term Bitcoin exposure.
This article was originally published as Strategy Funds $544.5M and Launches STRC Share Buyback on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

HashKey Holdings says it has consolidated its crypto exchange operations into a single platform and application, aiming to give customers one seamless entry point while keeping regulatory compliance tailored to local jurisdictions.
In a Monday announcement, the Hong Kong-based digital asset services firm said it has merged its HashKey Exchange and HashKey Global businesses. The change brings core hubs—including Hong Kong, Singapore, the Middle East (Dubai), and Bermuda—under one platform experience.
Key takeaways
HashKey is unifying separate exchange branches into one platform and one app for multiple regions.
The company says it will use a “unified entry, localized compliance” model rather than region-by-region front ends.
Customers across Hong Kong, Global, Singapore, and Dubai/Bermuda should download the same application.
Compliance and controls are described as being managed based on each user’s legislative domain.
The approach aligns with broader industry moves toward shared user interfaces over fragmented legal structures.
One app, multiple legal environments
HashKey’s stated goal is to reduce friction for users who would otherwise need to navigate different exchange offerings depending on where they operate. The company said the rollout follows a “unified entry, localized compliance” principle: the platform experience is meant to be consistent for end users, while compliance is handled according to the applicable regulatory framework for each jurisdiction.
Practically, HashKey says users in Hong Kong, Global, Singapore, or the Middle East can download the same application. From there, the platform would manage compliance across each user’s specific legislative domain—supporting the firm’s claim that the single front end can still remain aligned with local rules.
HashKey framed the move as a shift away from the early-era virtual asset industry pattern, when licensed exchanges often maintained siloed regional models to simplify compliance at the time.
How HashKey’s model compares with other exchanges
HashKey’s consolidation mirrors a trend visible in other major platforms: presenting a single consumer interface while distributing legal responsibilities across multiple entities behind the scenes.
For example, the company pointed to market precedents such as OKX, which markets its website and mobile apps as one platform. However, OKX’s terms historically allocate customers to different providers based on residence. In that setup, the outward experience is unified, but the legal backend remains fragmented across regions.
Similarly, HashKey referenced Kraken’s approach in Europe. Kraken previously consolidated its Dutch broker BCM into its platform following an acquisition in September 2024, and later began serving the European Economic Area through its Irish MiCA entity as part of a unified regulatory framework described in its own updates.
While HashKey’s announcement focused on front-end unification and localized compliance management, the comparisons underline a recurring industry reality: even when users see one platform, regulatory coverage often still depends on separate entity structures by region.
Why the consolidation matters for users and operators
For traders and other market participants, a single platform experience can reduce confusion—especially for users who operate across multiple regions or relocate. It can also streamline onboarding workflows by limiting differences in user interfaces, login flows, and product access that often vary between regional exchange branches.
From an operator standpoint, unifying applications can simplify support, infrastructure choices, and product delivery. Rather than maintaining parallel front ends and workflows for each jurisdiction, the firm can focus on one user experience and then apply compliance controls based on user location or jurisdictional classification.
Still, HashKey’s announcement also highlights a key tension in exchange consolidation: customer-facing simplicity does not necessarily mean one set of rules. The “localized compliance” framing suggests that while the application is shared, users may be governed by different legal and compliance arrangements depending on where they fall within HashKey’s described jurisdictional domains.
What to watch next after HashKey’s rollout
As HashKey moves to the unified platform, users should pay close attention to how access, account requirements, and compliance checks behave in each jurisdiction—particularly whether the transition changes onboarding steps or documentation expectations for customers in Hong Kong, Singapore, or the Middle East.
For the broader market, the move signals that exchange operators are continuing to modernize the customer layer of their businesses, even while regulatory requirements remain inherently local. The next phase to monitor will be how smoothly the migration completes across all described regions and whether HashKey expands the approach to additional products or services tied to licensing constraints.
This article was originally published as HashKey to Consolidate Hong Kong, Singapore and Middle East Exchanges on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Securitize, the tokenized-assets platform, said its subsidiary Securitize Capital has registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an investment adviser—an update that expands the firm’s regulated advisory offering for institutional clients.
The company framed the move as a way to deepen regulated investment-advisory capabilities around onchain capital markets, building on an existing lineup of market infrastructure and financial-services licenses already held within the Securitize group.
Key takeaways
Securitize Capital’s SEC investment adviser registration adds formal advisory capabilities to the firm’s current regulated business stack.
The subsidiary previously operated as an exempt reporting adviser and is now subject to additional disclosure, compliance, recordkeeping, and examination duties.
Securitize says the change is meant to support institutions designing and managing investment strategies that use tokenized, onchain capital markets.
The registration complements existing regulated entities at Securitize, including an SEC-registered broker-dealer, alternative trading system, transfer agent, and fund administration services.
What the SEC investment adviser registration changes
According to Securitize, Securitize Capital’s SEC registration broadens how the subsidiary can serve institutional investors. The key operational shift is that the business is no longer relying on exempt status—meaning it must comply with the Investment Advisers Act’s baseline requirements for regulated advisers.
Securitize said the company previously operated as an exempt reporting adviser. Under the Investment Advisers Act, that status generally implies more stringent expectations around disclosure, compliance, recordkeeping, and SEC examination. For institutional participants, those obligations matter because they shape governance, supervisory controls, and documentation standards that regulators typically look for in adviser oversight.
The firm also positioned the upgrade as an expansion of “investment advisory capabilities” tied to Securitize’s broader infrastructure. In practice, that means institutions may be able to engage with Securitize not only as a platform for tokenization and related market services, but also through a more explicitly regulated advisory channel.
A regulated platform built around tokenized capital markets
Securitize said the adviser registration is being added to existing regulated businesses within the group. The company cited an SEC-registered broker-dealer, an alternative trading system, a transfer agent, and fund administration services—capabilities that are often described together in tokenization business models because they can support issuance, custody/transfer mechanics, trading venues, and ongoing fund administration.
By bringing adviser registration under the same umbrella, Securitize is effectively tightening the regulatory alignment across multiple layers of its tokenized-asset ecosystem. That matters for institutions deciding whether they want exposure to tokenized structures under familiar compliance frameworks, rather than relying on a less standardized set of arrangements across different vendors.
Industry scale and the broader push for RWA infrastructure
Securitize also reiterated its market position in the “tokenization” category. The company described itself as the largest tokenization platform by onchain asset value, citing around $4.8 billion in tokenized assets across funds from BlackRock, Apollo, KKR, VanEck, Hamilton Lane and other asset managers.
This context is important: as the real-world assets (RWA) sector continues to develop, competition is increasingly about more than token issuance. Platform operators are trying to combine issuance rails with trading, transfers, and governance that fit within U.S. financial regulation. Securitize’s move suggests it wants to add another leg to that structure—advisory oversight—while keeping the rest of its regulated-services suite in place.
NYSE listing follows a merger, while the stock faces pressure
The registration comes as Securitize’s public-company status continues to play out. Securitize began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker SECZ on July 2 after completing a business combination with Cantor Equity Partners II.
Following the listing, the article notes that the shares have fallen about 46% from their first-day closing price.
While the SEC investment adviser registration is a regulatory milestone, it may also be read by investors as part of a broader effort to strengthen institutional credibility and expand monetizable services. At the same time, the stock’s drawdown since the NYSE start date underscores that market participants may be watching not only compliance progress, but also whether that compliance translates into durable demand and measurable business growth.
What to watch next
For institutions and market participants, the immediate question is how Securitize Capital’s adviser status will expand real advisory workflows—particularly how compliance, oversight, and recordkeeping will be implemented as clients engage with tokenized strategies. For investors, the next signal to track is whether the additional regulated capability converts into higher adoption, clearer revenue drivers, and continued traction across its tokenized-asset partnerships.
This article was originally published as Securitize Registers as SEC Investment Adviser via Capital Unit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

“Crypto + AI” is the new “blockchain + [anything].” A desperate rebrand for failing business models, and investors aren’t buying it.
The Pattern We’ve Seen Before
2017: Every company added “blockchain” to their name and watched their stock price triple.
Kodak became KodakCoin. Long Island Iced Tea became Long Blockchain Corp. A company that made fruit juice rebranded to blockchain and saw its shares surge 200% overnight.
None of it was real. All of it eventually collapsed.
2026: The same thing is happening with AI. Except this time, it’s crypto companies doing the rebranding—and it’s failing faster.
What’s Actually Happening Right Now
Bloomberg reported it today: the once-hot market for cryptocurrency treasury stocks has imploded. Companies that bet their entire identity on Bitcoin accumulation are now pivoting to artificial intelligence to win back investors.
The numbers are brutal:
K Wave Media, a former Bitcoin accumulator that shifted to data center development, has seen its shares fall 71% since rebooting in May.
Satsuma Technology approved the full liquidation of its 668 BTC. The move was so drastic it triggered the company’s delisting from the London Stock Exchange. A company deleted itself from a major exchange to exit crypto.
Sequans Communications sold 1,025 BTC, along with almost 80% of its remaining holdings, just to repay convertible debt.
MARA Holdings and Bitdeer have been selling Bitcoin to repay debts while simultaneously redirecting resources toward AI data centers.
Even Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, the loudest evangelist for the corporate Bitcoin treasury model, sold approximately 3,620 BTC and authorized further sales. They still hold over 840,000 BTC, making them the largest corporate holder. But even the true believer is selling.
The corporate Bitcoin treasury model isn’t just struggling. It’s unwinding in real time.
Why The AI Pivot Isn’t Working
Here’s what these companies are betting on: if we say “AI” enough times, investors will forget we said “Bitcoin” and give us another chance.
It’s not working. K Wave Media’s 71% decline happened after the pivot, not before.
Why? Because investors aren’t stupid. They’ve seen this movie before.
When a company pivots its entire identity to chase a hot trend, it signals one thing: the original strategy failed, and management has no real conviction about what comes next.
A Bitcoin treasury company that suddenly loves AI data centers isn’t a tech innovator. It’s a company trying to survive by attaching itself to whatever narrative is currently attracting capital.
The market can tell the difference between a genuine AI company and a crypto company that bought a few Nvidia chips and updated its press release.
Turns out, so can Bloomberg.
Brian Armstrong Saw This Coming
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said it this week, publicly:
Crypto startups that rebrand to AI are missing the point. Blockchain technology isn’t competing with AI; it’s the infrastructure that will underpin future automation.
Armstrong’s argument is precise: these aren’t two separate things you can choose between. AI needs infrastructure. Blockchain provides trustless, verifiable infrastructure for AI agents, AI transactions, AI governance.
Companies pivoting from “crypto” to “AI” as if they’re alternatives are making a category error. And they’re making it because they’re panicking, not because they have a strategy.
The companies that will survive aren’t the ones that abandoned crypto for AI. They’re the ones that understood crypto is the infrastructure for AI and built accordingly.
The Real Problem: Business Models Built On Hype
Let’s be honest about what the corporate Bitcoin treasury model actually was.
Companies like MicroStrategy (now Strategy) made a bet: buy Bitcoin, hold it, watch the price go up, use the appreciation to justify your existence as a company.
That’s not a business. That’s a leveraged Bitcoin position dressed up as corporate strategy.
When Bitcoin price goes up, you look like a genius. When it stagnates, as it has for much of 2026, hovering around $64–65K, you look like a company with no real business model, sitting on an asset that isn’t moving, with investors asking uncomfortable questions about your actual operations.
The crypto treasury model required perpetual Bitcoin appreciation to work. The moment appreciation slowed, the model broke.
And now those same companies are trying to claim they were always AI companies really.
The Difference Between Real AI And AI Panic
There’s a meaningful difference between companies building genuine AI infrastructure and companies slapping “AI” on a failing crypto strategy.
Real AI infrastructure companies:
Have actual compute resources being used by actual customers
Generate revenue from AI services, not just from asset appreciation
Have technical teams building real AI products
Can explain what their AI actually does
Crypto companies pivoting to AI:
Announce plans to build AI data centers
Haven’t yet generated meaningful AI revenue
Are selling Bitcoin to fund the pivot
Can’t clearly explain how AI fits their original thesis
K Wave Media’s 71% decline after its pivot tells you which category investors think it falls into.
The Deeper Pattern: What Happens When A Narrative Breaks
Every market cycle has a dominant narrative. The narrative attracts capital. Capital inflates valuations. Valuations attract more capital. Until the narrative breaks.
2021–2022 crypto narrative: Bitcoin is digital gold, crypto is the future of finance, every company should have a Bitcoin treasury.
Companies built entire identities around that narrative. Stock prices reflected narrative premium, not business fundamentals.
2023–2025: Narrative weakens. Institutional adoption happens but stabilizes rather than explodes. Bitcoin sits at $60–65K instead of going to $200K as predicted. The narrative premium evaporates.
2026 desperation move: Attach to the new dominant narrative (AI) before investors fully price in that the old narrative failed.
The problem: AI investors are sophisticated. They know what real AI companies look like. A Bitcoin accumulator with an Nvidia press release isn’t one of them.
Who’s Actually Winning
While crypto treasury stocks implode, two categories of companies are doing well:
1. Companies that built genuine products on blockchain infrastructure
Coinbase, whatever its challenges, built an actual exchange with actual users generating actual revenue. It has a real business that doesn’t depend on Bitcoin price appreciation alone.
2. Companies building AI infrastructure that happens to use blockchain
The companies Armstrong is describing: building the trustless infrastructure layer that AI agents will need to transact, verify, and operate at scale. This is real. It has genuine demand. It’s not a rebrand.
The companies failing are the ones that were never really building anything, just accumulating an asset and hoping appreciation would substitute for operations.
The Uncomfortable Question For Every Crypto Company
If your business model requires the price of Bitcoin to keep going up forever to justify your existence, what do you actually do?
That’s the question the imploding treasury stocks can’t answer.
And “we’re pivoting to AI” isn’t an answer. It’s a postponement.
The companies that survive the current shakeout will be the ones that had actual operations, actual users, actual revenue— that happened to use blockchain or crypto as infrastructure.
The ones that don’t survive will be the ones that confused “holding Bitcoin” with “building a company.”
The AI rebrand just delays the reckoning by a quarter or two.
What Comes Next
Expect more of this: crypto companies announcing AI pivots, investors not being fooled, stock prices continuing to decline, companies eventually running out of runway.
Expect fewer of this: genuine companies built on blockchain infrastructure, serving real users, generating real revenue—that will be fine.
The shakeout was always coming. The Bitcoin treasury model worked during appreciation. It was never a real business. Now that appreciation has slowed, the reality is visible.
The AI pivot is the last gasp. Not a new beginning.
The Lesson That Never Gets Learned
Every market cycle produces the same story:
Narrative attracts capital. Capital inflates valuations beyond fundamentals. Smart money exits. Companies desperately rebrand to the next narrative. Doesn’t work. Collapse.
2017: Blockchain everything. 2021: NFT everything, metaverse everything. 2024–2025: Bitcoin treasury everything. 2026: AI everything.
The companies that survive every cycle are the ones that were never chasing the narrative in the first place. They were building something real that happened to use the technology everyone else was hyping.
Those companies exist in crypto. They’re just not the ones making headlines this week.
If your crypto strategy requires Bitcoin to go up forever, you don’t have a strategy. You have a bet. And bets eventually lose.
This article was originally published as Crypto Companies Are Pivoting To AI To Save Themselves It’s Not Working on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Securitize Capital, the investment-advisory arm of tokenized-asset platform Securitize, has registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as an investment adviser, the company said Monday. The move is intended to broaden Securitize’s regulated advisory offering for institutional clients and add investment-advisory capabilities on top of its existing suite of market infrastructure services.
Until now, Securitize Capital operated as an exempt reporting adviser. By moving into SEC registration, it becomes subject to additional requirements under the Investment Advisers Act, including enhanced disclosure and compliance obligations, along with stricter recordkeeping and examination standards.
Key takeaways
Securitize Capital registered with the SEC as an investment adviser, expanding its regulated advisory business for institutions.
The firm says the change strengthens its ability to support onchain capital markets through investment strategy development and management.
Securitize Capital previously operated under an exempt reporting-adviser framework, which generally involves lighter oversight than full SEC registration.
Securitize already operates multiple SEC-regulated businesses, including a broker-dealer, alternative trading system, transfer agent, and fund administration services.
The parent company, Securitize, listed on the New York Stock Exchange on July 2 after completing a merger with Cantor Equity Partners II.
What the SEC adviser registration changes
SEC adviser registration is more than a procedural update—it reshapes how a firm must operate across compliance, reporting, and oversight. Securitize Capital’s registration brings it under the Investment Advisers Act, which typically increases the scope and rigor of formal compliance programs, mandated documentation, and regulatory examinations compared with an exempt reporting-adviser posture.
In its statement, Securitize framed the update as a capability upgrade for institutions looking to develop and manage investment strategies that incorporate onchain capital markets. The practical implication is that clients seeking regulated advisory services tied to tokenized investment products may have an expanded pathway within the Securitize ecosystem, rather than relying solely on the platform’s other regulated functions.
How Securitize’s existing regulated stack sets the stage
Securitize said the investment-adviser registration adds advisory capabilities to its existing regulated footprint. According to the company, its current SEC-regulated business lines include an SEC-registered broker-dealer, an alternative trading system, a transfer agent, and fund administration services.
That combination matters because tokenization platforms often rely on multiple layers of regulated infrastructure to move from issuance to transfer, administration, and execution. By layering investment advisory into an already regulated environment, Securitize is positioning itself to offer a more integrated set of services—potentially reducing friction for institutional participants that prefer to work with providers operating under recognized SEC frameworks.
It also reframes the competitive landscape in real-world assets (RWA) tokenization: rather than focusing only on issuance and custody-adjacent functions, the platform can now emphasize portfolio strategy support under the adviser framework.
Scale in tokenized assets and ties to major asset managers
Securitize described itself as the largest tokenization platform by onchain asset value, citing approximately $4.8 billion in tokenized assets across funds associated with major asset managers. The company named BlackRock, Apollo, KKR, VanEck, Hamilton Lane, and other firms.
For investors and allocators, the relevance of that figure is less about a single day’s announcement and more about where the market may concentrate liquidity and operational depth. Tokenization projects vary widely in activity and infrastructure maturity; an adviser registration can be a signal that the platform is working to deepen its institutional relationships beyond settlement and issuance into ongoing strategy and management.
Still, readers should note that the registration does not, by itself, confirm new products, fee arrangements, or changes in tokenized fund availability. It primarily establishes a broader regulated role within the existing business model.
Company listing and market performance context
Securitize’s parent company began trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker SECZ on July 2, following a merger with Cantor Equity Partners II. The announcement pointed to the completion of that business combination.
Since listing, shares have fallen about 46% from their first-day closing price, according to data available via Yahoo Finance at the time of the article. While stock performance does not directly measure regulatory progress, it often reflects investor expectations about growth trajectories—especially in an RWA sector still working through questions of scale, standardization, and distribution.
The adviser-registration step can be interpreted as part of an attempt to solidify long-term institutional traction: by increasing regulatory alignment and expanding advisory capabilities, Securitize may be aiming to make its platform more attractive to institutions that want regulated investment strategy support alongside tokenized exposure.
What to watch next is whether Securitize Capital’s SEC adviser status leads to new or expanded institutional advisory workflows—such as additional advisory offerings tied to onchain investment strategies—and how regulators interpret the firm’s compliance posture as it transitions fully from exempt reporting adviser requirements to a registered adviser framework.
This article was originally published as Securitize Capital Earns SEC Registration as Investment Adviser on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tether Gold has received Shariah certification, giving Islamic banks, institutions, and investors a compliant way to access physical gold through blockchain technology. Amanah Advisors, led by Mufti Faraz Adam, reviewed the product and approved its structure under Islamic finance rules.
The certification covers real asset ownership, clear gold backing, reserve transparency, and the absence of interest-based features. Each XAU₮ token represents ownership of physical gold stored in secure Swiss vaults and issued by TG Commodities, S.A. de C.V.
Tether Gold Shariah Certification Supports Wider Access
Tether Gold does not rely on riba, leverage, or speculative derivatives, according to the company. This structure allows users to hold tokenized gold while keeping direct exposure to allocated bullion.
Circle has acquired fundamental assets from the @IBM blockchain patent portfolio, including 680+ patent families and nearly 1,000 issued patents worldwide.
The acquisition makes Circle the leading U.S. blockchain patent holder and strengthens the foundation behind USDC, CPN,… pic.twitter.com/lp6F6z55aw
— Circle (@circle) July 27, 2026
The approval may support adoption among Islamic banks, takaful providers, halal savings platforms, and trade finance firms. These institutions often prefer assets backed by real value and clear ownership terms.
Islamic Finance Markets Gain Digital Gold Option
Tether Gold may help Islamic finance firms offer digital gold products without changing the asset’s physical backing. Banks could use the token for savings products, treasury holdings, wealth preservation, or approved collateral services.
The certification may also expand access in GCC countries, South Asia, Africa, and other Islamic finance hubs. These regions have strong demand for gold and growing interest in regulated digital assets.
Gold-Backed Loans Expand XAU₮ Use
Tether Gold holders can also use XAU₮ as collateral through Tether’s partnership with Ledn. The service allows eligible users to access loans while retaining exposure to physical gold.
The lending product keeps bullion backing at the center of the structure. However, users must still review loan terms, fees, and local rules before using the service.
Tether Links Gold With Blockchain Strategy
Tether Gold forms part of Tether’s wider plan to connect traditional assets with blockchain networks. The company also supports Bitcoin-based transfer systems through the RGB protocol and Lightning Network tools.
For XAU₮, Tether Gold remains focused on direct gold ownership, verifiable reserves, and digital transfer access. Each token links to allocated gold bars held in Swiss storage facilities. Investors can also transfer fractional ownership without arranging direct transport or private vault storage.
Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said gold has long represented trust and stability across many cultures. He said Shariah approval allows Tether Gold to serve more users while respecting Islamic finance standards.
This article was originally published as Tether Gold Wins Shariah Approval, Expanding Access To Islamic Finance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tether’s gold-backed token XAUt has secured Shariah certification from Amanah Advisors, positioning the product for wider use among Islamic financial institutions and investors seeking Shariah-compliant exposure to physical bullion. The move focuses on whether the token’s underlying design aligns with Islamic finance principles, particularly around how value is held and whether income-generation features introduce interest-related concerns.
According to Tether, the certification concluded that XAUt’s structure complies with key Shariah requirements, including full backing by physical gold, the absence of interest and leverage, and transparent reserves. Tether says each XAUt token corresponds to one troy ounce of physical gold held in Swiss vaults.
Key takeaways
XAUt received Shariah certification from Amanah Advisors, strengthening its suitability for Islamic financial institutions and investors.
Tether says the token is fully backed by physical gold, with reserves designed to be transparent and structured without interest or leverage.
As of March 31, Tether reported XAUt reserves exceeding 707,000 troy ounces worth more than $3.3 billion.
Onchain data cited by RWA.xyz indicates XAUt’s asset value has risen from about $700 million in July 2025 to roughly $2.5 billion.
Why Shariah certification matters for tokenized gold
For many investors, the question is not simply whether an asset is pegged to a real-world commodity, but whether the product’s mechanics fit within Shariah guidelines. Islamic finance frameworks generally restrict practices considered to involve excessive uncertainty, speculative dynamics, or interest. Those constraints have historically created a barrier for broader adoption of mainstream crypto and tokenized offerings.
By obtaining certification, Tether has effectively reduced one of the main due-diligence hurdles for compliance-focused stakeholders. Tether said the certification gives it a clearer path to distribute XAUt to Islamic banks and institutions, as well as individual investors across regions where Islamic finance is widely practiced, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, South Asia, and parts of Africa.
In addition, Tether highlighted reserve transparency and physical custody as central to the compliance narrative. Tether’s position is that each token represents one troy ounce of gold stored in Swiss vaults, and that the token is not engineered with leverage or interest-bearing features.
Reserve coverage and growth in tokenized gold exposure
XAUt is described by Tether as one of the largest tokenized gold products in the crypto market. The company’s latest reserves reporting (available via Tether’s gold reserve reports page) showed that the token was backed by more than 707,000 troy ounces of physical gold as of March 31, representing a value above $3.3 billion.
Beyond reserve size, demand signals also matter. Data cited by RWA.xyz suggests XAUt’s onchain asset value has expanded significantly over the past year. The article notes that the figure rose from approximately $700 million in July 2025 to around $2.5 billion, indicating growing interest in gold exposure delivered through token infrastructure.
While tokenized commodities are often discussed through the lens of liquidity and accessibility, the key point for investors is how Shariah certification and physical backing can intersect with market demand. If institutions in Shariah-compliant finance ecosystems can evaluate the product with fewer structural objections, it may help unlock new distribution channels—particularly where regulators and compliance departments scrutinize whether a product’s income or risk characteristics violate established principles.
Broader trend: more Shariah-compliant crypto products
Debate over cryptocurrency’s compatibility with Islamic finance has been ongoing. As discussed in earlier coverage referenced by the source, scholars have differed on whether digital assets meet Shariah expectations due to concerns such as speculation and uncertainty. Over time, however, efforts to design compliant products have started to gain traction.
One example highlighted in the source dates back to 2025, when a Bahrain-based group, AlAbraaj Restaurants Group, said it adopted a Bitcoin treasury strategy and intended to develop Shariah-compliant financial instruments to broaden access to Bitcoin within the Islamic world.
More recently, the source points to developments in stablecoin infrastructure. In April, Palm Azgar Finance expanded its Shariah-compliant PUSD stablecoin to ADI Chain, positioning it around the scale of the global Islamic finance market. The source notes that PUSD became the second stablecoin available on that network, enabling institutions to settle transactions using either a dollar-linked asset or a dirham-denominated token on the same infrastructure.
Taken together, these examples frame a shift from theoretical compliance debate toward product engineering—attempts to structure crypto exposure in a way that can pass institutional review. Tether’s XAUt certification fits that broader pattern by targeting a concrete barrier: certification by a recognized advisor that can assess whether a tokenized gold product is consistent with Shariah guidelines.
Middle East momentum and the regulatory backdrop
Distribution is not just about product design; it also depends on how regional regulators handle digital asset services. The source describes Dubai as an increasingly prominent crypto hub and notes that the emirate’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) issued its 50th virtual asset service provider license earlier this month. The article adds that this puts Dubai ahead of Hong Kong and Singapore in the number of licensed crypto firms, underscoring the pace of regulated market development in the region.
For tokenized assets like XAUt, regulatory clarity can influence whether institutions consider adoption—especially when they need to align token distribution, custody, and settlement practices with local compliance requirements. Shariah certification addresses a religious/contractual suitability question, while licensing and regulatory frameworks address operational and legal concerns. Together, the two can determine how quickly eligible products can move from niche demand to broader institutional access.
Looking ahead, the key variable will be how fast Shariah-compliant finance players incorporate XAUt into their offerings after certification. Investors and institutions should watch for indications of new partnerships, clearer market access strategies by Tether, and evidence that demand growth continues in step with the asset’s reserve reporting and onchain uptake.
This article was originally published as Tether’s XAUT Receives Shariah Certification for Islamic Investing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tether’s gold-backed token XAUt has secured Shariah certification from Amanah Advisors, a development that Tether says could make its tokenized gold product more accessible to Islamic financial institutions and investors seeking Shariah-compliant exposure to physical gold.
According to Tether, the certification concludes that XAUt’s design aligns with core Islamic finance requirements: the token is fully backed by physical gold, it does not involve interest-based mechanics, avoids leverage, and maintains transparent reserves disclosures. Tether states that each XAUt token corresponds to one troy ounce of physical gold held in Swiss vaults.
Key takeaways
XAUt has received Shariah certification from Amanah Advisors, positioning it for wider use by Shariah-focused institutions.
Tether says the token is fully backed by one troy ounce of physical gold per XAUt, stored in Swiss vaults.
The company highlights compliance features commonly required in Islamic finance, including no interest and no leverage.
Reserve reporting shows XAUt is already one of the more established tokenized gold offerings, with backing exceeding 707,000 troy ounces as of March 31.
Onchain metrics compiled by RWA.xyz indicate XAUt’s asset value has risen sharply since mid-2025.
Why Shariah certification matters for tokenized gold
For investors and institutions operating under Shariah principles, the challenge is often less about whether gold is permitted, and more about how a financial product is structured. Islamic finance typically emphasizes restrictions around interest, excessive uncertainty, and speculative leverage—conditions that can affect whether certain tokenized products are considered acceptable.
Tether’s certification directly targets that gatekeeping issue. By obtaining formal Shariah certification for XAUt’s structure, Tether is signaling that its tokenized-gold model is designed to meet the expectations of Shariah-governed decision makers—potentially reducing friction in markets where Shariah compliance is not optional.
In its announcement, Tether said it expects the certification to support adoption in regions where Islamic finance is widely used, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, South Asia, and parts of Africa.
XAUt’s backing and growth in tokenized gold
Tokenized gold only becomes practically useful to mainstream users if the underlying asset is credibly secured and consistently disclosed. Tether points to reserve reports published on its website as evidence of ongoing backing and transparency.
In Tether’s most recent reserves reporting, the company said XAUt was backed by more than 707,000 troy ounces of physical gold, worth over $3.3 billion, as of March 31. That matters because Shariah certification alone does not address the operational question of whether there is sufficient physical backing behind token issuance.
Beyond reserve disclosures, market interest in the product appears to be growing onchain. Data cited from RWA.xyz shows XAUt’s onchain asset value rose from roughly $700 million in July 2025 to around $2.5 billion. While onchain valuations do not replace physical reserve verification, they do offer a window into how widely a tokenized asset is being held and used across blockchain-based venues.
Shariah-compliant digital assets move from niche to organized offerings
Crypto has long faced questions from Islamic scholars about whether certain digital assets can comply with Shariah principles. The debate has often focused on whether participation in the asset introduces prohibited elements such as interest, excessive uncertainty, or speculation.
In recent years, however, more structured products have emerged that attempt to address those issues directly rather than leaving compliance to interpretation. The broader trend appears to be an industry shift toward token designs that emphasize asset backing, transparent reserve models, and reduced exposure to interest-like returns.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Shariah-compliant approaches have been pursued in different ways. For example, a Bahrain-based group, AlAbraaj Restaurants Group, adopted a Bitcoin treasury strategy and said it planned to develop Shariah-compliant financial instruments to broaden access to Bitcoin across the Islamic world.
More recently, Palm Azgar Finance expanded its Shariah-compliant PUSD stablecoin to ADI Chain, positioning the product for participation in what it described as the $3 trillion Islamic finance market. PUSD is designed to allow transactions to settle using either a dollar-linked asset or a dirham-denominated token on the same infrastructure.
Alongside individual product efforts, regulatory clarity has also been a factor in regional expansion. Dubai has been highlighted as a leading crypto hub in the Middle East, continuing to grow its regulated digital asset framework. Cointelegraph previously reported that Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) issued its 50th virtual asset service provider license earlier this month, surpassing the number of licensed crypto firms in Hong Kong and Singapore.
What to watch next after Amanah Advisors’ certification
With Shariah certification in place, the next question is adoption: whether Islamic banks, funds, and Shariah-governed investors will translate compliance approval into measurable purchasing and integrations for XAUt. Readers should watch for subsequent announcements from Tether or ecosystem partners describing where XAUt will be offered, how it will be distributed through compliant channels, and whether reserve reporting continues to meet the transparency expectations that underpin Shariah assessments.
This article was originally published as Tether’s XAUt Gold Token Gets Shariah Certification for Wider Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy expanded its cash reserve to a record $3.75 billion after selling additional MSTR shares last week. The company also completed its first STRC preferred stock buyback under its repurchase program. Meanwhile, Strategy kept its Bitcoin holdings unchanged as MSTR shares gained during premarket trading and Bitcoin remained above $65,000.
Strategy Expands Cash Reserve and Completes First STRC Buyback
Strategy increased its USD reserve by $525 million after raising about $544.5 million through MSTR stock sales. The latest filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission confirmed the updated reserve position. As a result, the company now holds $3.75 billion in cash reserves.
The larger reserve gives Strategy about 2.1 years of dividend coverage under current estimates. At the same time, the company executed its first STRC preferred stock repurchase. Strategy bought back 288,930 STRC preferred shares for approximately $25 million.
The repurchase formed part of the Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program announced last month. After the transaction, Strategy retained $975 million for additional preferred stock repurchases. Meanwhile, the MSTR share repurchase program still has about $1 million available for future purchases.
Bitcoin Holdings Stay Unchanged as Capital Strategy Continues
Strategy did not purchase additional Bitcoin during the latest reporting period. Instead, the company continued raising capital through MSTR share sales. The company still holds 843,775 BTC valued at approximately $58.47 billion.
Strategy acquired those Bitcoin holdings for about $63.68 billion over several years. Consequently, the company currently carries more than $5.21 billion in unrealized losses. However, the company has maintained its long-term Bitcoin treasury approach despite recent market fluctuations.
Strategy remains the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin among publicly traded companies. The company has regularly financed Bitcoin acquisitions through equity offerings and preferred stock issuance. However, the latest filing focused on strengthening liquidity instead of expanding Bitcoin holdings.
MSTR Shares Rise as Bitcoin Holds Above $65,000
MSTR shares closed 2.09% lower at $91.67 during Friday’s regular trading session. The stock traded between $89.76 and $93.68 before finishing below the previous close. Trading volume also remained below the stock’s 20 million share average.
Premarket trading showed renewed buying activity after the latest corporate filing became public. MSTR gained 2.21% and traded near $93.70 before the opening bell. Even so, the stock remains down about 10% over the past month and nearly 50% this year.
Meanwhile, STRC shares advanced 1.66% to $88.33 but remained below the preferred stock’s $100 target price. Several brokerage firms have maintained buy ratings on MSTR with an average 12-month target of $275. At the same time, Bitcoin traded above $65,000 after developments in Iran-Oman discussions supported broader market sentiment, while trading volume increased 86% during the past 24 hours.
This article was originally published as Strategy Raises Cash Reserve to $3.75B and Starts STRC Stock Buyback on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.