Crypto Breaking

Solana’s first major consensus upgrade, Alpenglow, activated on mainnet on Wednesday at about 1:54 pm UTC, according to the Solana Foundation’s Alpenglow dashboard. The upgrade is designed to meaningfully shorten transaction finality—moving Solana’s target from roughly 12.8 seconds to about 150 milliseconds—a shift aimed at making blockchain interactions feel closer to real-time applications.
Alpenglow will roll out in phases. Its first stage, Votor, replaces Solana’s existing voting and finalization mechanism with direct validator voting and a certificate-based approach. A later phase called Rotor is expected to introduce a new block data-distribution protocol intended to replace Turbine.
Key takeaways
Alpenglow activated on Solana mainnet at ~1:54 pm UTC, per the Solana Foundation’s live dashboard.
The upgrade targets reducing transaction finality to ~150 milliseconds from around 12.8 seconds.
Votor is the first phase, switching to direct validator voting and certificates to achieve faster finality.
Rotor is planned as a later phase to change block data distribution by replacing Turbine.
At press time, Solana’s mainnet metrics on the dashboard showed 6.6-second finality and 4,721 TPS.
A near-real-time finality target goes live
Solana’s consensus model is moving away from TowerBFT as Alpenglow becomes the network’s first major consensus upgrade. In practical terms, the upgrade is meant to shrink the time users wait for transactions to be considered final—an improvement that can influence everything from payment reliability to how quickly trades can settle and how responsive decentralized applications feel under load.
The Solana Foundation’s July announcement framed the goal as a dramatic reduction in transaction finality, with the expected outcome of about 150 milliseconds. That target is ambitious compared with the previous finality level of roughly 12.8 seconds, and it reflects Solana’s broader push toward lower latency at multiple layers of the stack.
However, the early mainnet numbers shown in the dashboard suggest that the network is still ramping toward the end-state performance. At the time of publication, the Alpenglow dashboard reported 6.6 seconds for transaction finality and 4,721 transactions per second. That gap between the target and the current measurement matters: it signals that real-world behavior may depend on operational conditions, network dynamics, and how quickly the system converges under varying traffic patterns.
Votor replaces the old finalization path
Alpenglow’s first phase, Votor, is focused on altering how consensus reaches finality. Instead of relying on the earlier voting and finalization mechanism, Votor introduces direct validator voting coupled with a certificate-based system. The design is intended to cut transaction finality to the targeted ~150-millisecond range.
For developers and operators, the significance is straightforward: faster finality typically allows apps to build user flows that depend less on “wait and verify” behavior and more on near-immediate confirmation. This can be particularly relevant for applications that require tight feedback loops, such as high-frequency trading interfaces, payment flows, or interactive on-chain experiences.
For investors and traders, faster finality is not a price catalyst by itself, but it can improve market microstructure over time—especially if it supports more reliable settlement and reduces the time windows in which uncertainty can affect execution.
Next phase Rotor aims to modernize block distribution
Alpenglow is not limited to consensus finality. The later phase, Rotor, is expected to introduce a new block data-distribution protocol meant to replace Turbine. While the immediate activation brings Votor online, the broader roadmap implies that Solana intends to improve performance through both consensus mechanics and how block data propagates through the network.
That matters because block distribution and finality are tightly linked in real deployments. Even if finality logic is improved, delays or inefficiencies in data propagation can still translate into sluggish confirmation under certain network conditions. By treating Rotor as a follow-on upgrade, Solana is effectively tackling latency at multiple points rather than relying on consensus changes alone.
Why Solana’s consensus upgrade is framed as “biggest since genesis”
The scale of Alpenglow is emphasized by researchers from Anza, who described it as the “biggest change” to Solana’s core protocol since genesis. In a May blog post, Anza researchers—Quentin Kniep, Kobi Sliwinski, and Roger Wattenhofer—argued that a target latency of around 150 milliseconds could place Solana in a position to compete with Web2 infrastructure on responsiveness, potentially enabling new classes of applications.
This narrative fits with prior performance work by the Solana Foundation. In August, Solana reduced slot time for the first time since genesis as part of a plan to halve slot times to 200 ms, and the foundation said the fourth stage of that slot reduction plan was completed in October. That earlier change targeted faster confirmations through timing adjustments, while Alpenglow now aims to reduce how long transactions remain pending before being treated as final.
Looking beyond the consensus upgrade, Solana validators are expected to continue working on Agave 4.5, an upgrade proposed for a versioned transaction account limit increase—from 64 to 96 accounts. According to the Solana Foundation, expanding the supported account range could enable better swap routes and execution prices. Agave 4.5 is currently in development and is described as planned for December 2026.
What to watch from here
With Alpenglow now live, the key question is how quickly mainnet performance converges toward the upgrade’s ~150-millisecond finality target under real traffic. Readers should monitor the Solana Foundation’s Alpenglow dashboard for changes in finality and throughput over time, and watch whether the network’s behavior narrows the gap between today’s 6.6-second measurement and the intended near-instant finality experience.
This article was originally published as Solana’s Alpenglow Mainnet Upgrade Aims for 99% Faster Finality on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Singapore, October 2026 — CoinFerenceX The Best Event Singapore 2026 brought together founders, investors, blockchain innovators, institutional leaders and Web3 professionals for a two-day summit on October 5–6 at Flower Field Hall, Gardens by the Bay. Held during TOKEN2049 week, the event convened participants from across the global digital asset ecosystem for discussions on blockchain infrastructure, institutional adoption, tokenised real-world assets (RWAs), decentralised finance (DeFi), artificial intelligence (AI) and the evolving digital economy.
With 3,000+ attendees, subject to final attendance verification, the Singapore edition marked a major milestone for CoinFerenceX, reinforcing its position as a platform for connecting Web3 businesses, investors, builders and ecosystem partners through industry discussions, networking and collaboration.
A Global Gathering of Web3 Leaders
CoinFerenceX Singapore 2026 featured a high-profile lineup of industry executives, entrepreneurs, investors and technology leaders representing leading organisations across the digital asset sector.
Among the headline speakers were:
Arthur Hayes, Chief Investment Officer at Maelstrom
Raoul Pal, Co-Founder and CEO of Real Vision
Yat Siu, Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Animoca Brands
Sandeep Nailwal, Co-Founder and CEO of Polygon Labs
Andrei Grachev, Managing Partner at DWF Labs
Michael Heinrich, Co-Founder and CEO of OG Labs
Vugar Usi, CEO of MEXC
Luuk Strijers, Head of Exchanges at Coinbase
Jessica Walker, Global Media and Content Lead at Binance
The wider speaker lineup included representatives from organisations such as BNB Chain, BingX, Gate, Crypto.com, CertiK, MetaMask, Base, Berachain, Aethir, RedStone, Spartan Group and other companies working across the Web3 ecosystem.
Across its conference programme, the event created opportunities to examine the business models, technologies and investment themes influencing the industry’s direction.
From Digital Asset Markets to Real-World Adoption
The summit’s programme explored several themes shaping the future of Web3, with discussions extending beyond market speculation to practical business applications and infrastructure development.
Institutional adoption and tokenised real-world assets: Speakers examined the development of tokenised funds, treasuries, private credit and other financial instruments, alongside the infrastructure required to connect traditional capital markets with blockchain networks.
Stablecoins and digital payments: Discussions explored how stablecoins and blockchain-based payment systems could support settlement, cross-border transactions and other financial use cases.
Artificial intelligence and autonomous agents: Sessions considered the intersection of AI and crypto, including autonomous agents, machine-driven payments, digital identity and the implications of AI-powered economic activity.
DeFi and financial infrastructure: Industry participants discussed the evolution of decentralised finance, institutional-grade infrastructure, on-chain credit and new approaches to digital asset liquidity.
Blockchain security and institutional trust: The programme also addressed cybersecurity, custody, smart-contract vulnerabilities and the safeguards needed to support broader participation in digital asset markets.
Together, these conversations reflected the industry’s continuing shift towards practical applications, sustainable business models and infrastructure capable of supporting wider adoption.
https://x.com/CoinFerenceX/status/2107280642845380864
CoinFerenceX Singapore 2026 Sponsors and Partners
The summit was supported by sponsors and ecosystem partners whose participation contributed to the event’s industry reach and programme.
Powered by: Liquid Loans
Featured Sponsors: ZIG Finance and Golden Ratio Group
Other Sponsors: M5Dex, RealX, AWS, AEON, Hamieverse, Hashlock, VulSight, TiDB, Coinut, CT and DigiMaaya.
The participating organisations represented a range of sectors, including digital asset finance, blockchain infrastructure, decentralised applications, payments, data technology, Web3 entertainment and security.
Their involvement also reflected the importance of collaboration between technology providers, financial platforms, infrastructure companies and emerging Web3 businesses.
CoinFerenceX also partnered with The Best Event to deliver the Singapore edition, combining conference programming with opportunities for networking and industry engagement.
The event’s broader ecosystem included media, community and conference partners. The full sponsor and partner directory is available at CoinFerenceX Singapore Partners.
Leadership Perspectives: A Milestone for the Global Web3 Community
“CoinFerenceX Singapore 2026 marks an important milestone in our mission to unite the global Web3 community, foster meaningful connections and drive innovation. We are grateful to our speakers, sponsors, partners and attendees for making this edition a success. We look forward to building on this momentum and creating even greater opportunities for collaboration in our future editions,” said Radhe Gupta, Founder of CoinFerenceX
“CoinFerenceX The Best Event Singapore proved that it’s not just the biggest rooms with the best voices,” shared Brent Fulfer, Co-Founder of The Best Event and Investor at TBV. “Connecting the community is how The Best Event began, so we’re glad we could bring together an event that fosters innovation, collaboration and meaningful partnerships. We thank everyone involved and look forward to creating more impactful experiences for the global Web3 community,”
Building on the Momentum: What’s Next for CoinFerenceX?
Following the success of CoinFerenceX Singapore 2026, the team is preparing for its upcoming international editions, including CoinFerenceX Dubai on 19–20 April 2027 and the next Singapore edition on 4-5 October 2027.
The upcoming editions will continue to bring together Web3 founders, investors, blockchain innovators and industry leaders, creating opportunities for networking, knowledge sharing and strategic partnerships across the global digital asset ecosystem.
Further details regarding speakers, sponsorships and participation opportunities will be announced through the official CoinFerenceX website.
With its expanding international presence, CoinFerenceX remains committed to connecting the global Web3 community and creating meaningful opportunities for collaboration and innovation.
About CoinFerenceX
CoinFerenceX is an international Web3 summit series connecting founders, investors, blockchain innovators, institutions and ecosystem leaders. Its events focus on the developments shaping the digital asset economy, including blockchain infrastructure, decentralised finance, tokenisation, institutional adoption and emerging technologies.
Through its conferences and ecosystem partnerships, CoinFerenceX aims to facilitate industry dialogue, business networking and collaboration across the global Web3 community.
About The Best Event
The Best Event (TBE) is an event series focused on bringing together founders, investors, operators, protocols and brands through curated experiences and industry gatherings. Its collaboration with CoinFerenceX supported the delivery of the Singapore 2026 summit.
For event updates and partnership information, visit CoinFerenceX.
Contact Details:
Prince Gupta
Chair/Co-Founder
prince@coinferencex.com
This article was originally published as CoinFerenceX The Best Event Singapore 2026 Concludes Two-Day Web3 Summit, Bringing Together 3,000+ Attendees on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Two-day programme covers wealth, health, European monetary history, institutional capital, self-custody and the future of Bitcoin adoption
AMSTERDAM, October 20, 2026 — Bitcoin Amsterdam has published its full 2026 agenda for 5 and 6 November, with more than 60 sessions across keynotes, panels, workshops and fireside chats. Strike CEO Jack Mallers delivers the keynote on Friday, 6 November at 16:15 CET.
DAY 1 Programme – November 5:
The programme opens with sessions on energy and independence.
“Generating Freedom: Watt It Takes to Go Off-Grid” asks what it takes to generate your own power and mine without a utility bill, with Duncan Coombe of The Solo Mining Co.
“Bitcoin Is Political, But Not Partisan” brings together voices from across the political spectrum to explore what it means to choose Bitcoin over state-issued money.
The Treasury Stage goes deeper into Bitcoin’s origins and its place in finance.
“Bitcoin’s Earliest Moments & How It Could Have Failed” brings together researcher Alex Waltz, early developer Martti Malmi and Aaron van Wirdum, author of The Genesis Book, to reconstruct how fragile Bitcoin’s first days were.
“DAC8: Europe’s War on Financial Privacy” presents Théo Mogenet of Bull Bitcoin on a legal challenge to France’s implementation of the EU’s crypto-asset reporting rules.
The Deep also hosts “Big Bitcoin: In Control?” on 5 November at 13:00, a Whale Pass session on where influence sits in Bitcoin today.
For newcomers and the culturally curious, “Bitcoin 101” hosted by Randi Hipper of Miss Teen Crypto, offers a practical introduction, and “Your Mom Uses ChatGPT, But Not Bitcoin” by Fred King of CryptoSnake tackles adoption head-on.
DAY 2 Programme – November 6:
Day two shifts to wealth, health and history.
“Conscious Wealth: Protecting the Fortune That You Carry” opens the morning with Eric Balance of Harmony Partners.
“Generational Wealth: How Self-Sovereignty Shapes Legacy” with Richard Byworth of BYZ Partners, Hunter Albright of SALT Lending and Peter Lane of Bitcoin Life.
“Europe’s Monetary History & Future: Austrian Economics, Banks & Bitcoin” brings Rahim Taghizadegan of Deedsats, Willem Middelkoop of the Commodity Discovery Fund and Thomas Bollen together to trace how European money reached its current state and where Bitcoin fits.
The Proof-of-Work Stage focuses on builders and self-custody.
“Who Controls the Mining Stack?” asks where control sits across hardware, software and mining pools, with Duncan Coombe and Abubakar Sadiq Ismail of 2140.dev.
“Will Self-Custody Ever Be Safe?” brings together the teams behind BitVault, BitBox and Wesatoshis Labs to weigh security against usability.
“Bitcoin, Explained Live: Bitcoin Core 32” walks through what changes in the latest release, with Sjors Provoost of Bitcoin Core and Aaron van Wirdum.
The afternoon turns to institutions and policy.
“The Nexus of Institutional Investment, Capital Markets & Digital Assets” features Rapha Zagury of 21 Capital, Ben Werkman of Strive and Cormac Dinan of StoneX Digital International.
“Staat vs. de Markt: Hoeveel Overheid Hebben We Nodig in Geld?” is a Dutch-language panel on how much government involvement money needs, with Paul Buitink of Holland Gold and Simon Lelieveldt.
Jack Mallers also joins Robert Breedlove of the “What is Money” Show for a fireside chat on Friday, 6 November at 13:00 CET on The Deep, a Whale Pass session on Bitcoin, global macroeconomics and individual sovereignty. The Deep also hosts “Biohacking for Bitcoiners Q&A” with Siim Land and Nick Carpousis at 14:00 CET.
The Deep is an exclusive stage, accessible with a Whale Pass. Sessions on the public stages remain open to all ticket holders.
Full agenda and tickets: bitcoin.amsterdam
About BTC Inc.
BTC Inc. is the world’s leading Bitcoin media enterprise, operating Bitcoin Magazine, the Bitcoin Conference, and Bitcoin for Corporations. Through its media, events, and educational platforms, BTC Inc. delivers trusted news, research, and experiences that advance Bitcoin adoption among individuals, institutions, and enterprises worldwide.
BTC Inc. is a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), a publicly held Bitcoin company that owns and operates a global portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements, as defined under U.S. federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “plan,” “will,” “seek,” “target,” or the negative of such terms or other variations thereof. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding BTC Inc.’s business plans and strategies, including plans for future events, expected attendance and programming, and the anticipated growth of the Bitcoin community in Europe.
These forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and involve numerous assumptions and risks. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected include, but are not limited to: (i) the volatility of Bitcoin prices and its effect on attendee, sponsor, and advertiser demand; (ii) the risk that future events may not occur as planned or may not achieve projected attendance or revenue; (iii) changes in the regulatory environment in the Netherlands, the European Union, or other jurisdictions that could affect the Company’s ability to hold or promote its events; (iv) dependence on venue availability and third-party vendors; (v) competition from other Bitcoin and digital asset conferences; (vi) risks associated with the integration of BTC Inc. into Nakamoto Inc.’s operations following the February 2026 acquisition; (vii) general economic conditions and their impact on events revenue; and (viii) other important factors detailed in Nakamoto Inc.’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other documents that are filed, or will be filed, with the SEC and that are or will be available on Nakamoto’s website at www.nakamoto.com and on the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov.
Because Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) is the parent company of BTC Inc., investors in Nakamoto Inc. common stock should be aware that the performance and risks of BTC Inc.’s media, events, and educational operations may affect the consolidated financial results, reputation, and regulatory profile of Nakamoto Inc. and its subsidiaries. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and neither BTC Inc. nor Nakamoto Inc. undertakes any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Amsterdam 2026 Agenda Now Live on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday framed the Trump administration’s stablecoin push as a historic step toward building a national framework for digital payments, drawing an analogy to major banking reforms during Abraham Lincoln’s presidency.
In a post on X, Bessent praised the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) final rule implementing the GENIUS Act, calling it a “watershed moment in American finance.” He compared the legislation’s role in regulating payment stablecoins to the National Currency Act of 1863, which helped establish a federal structure for nationally chartered banks to issue currency.
Key takeaways
Bessent compared the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin framework to the National Currency Act of 1863, emphasizing the goal of a national payments system.
The OCC finalized rules covering how supervised entities must handle reserves, redemptions, and risk management for payment stablecoins.
The OCC’s rules are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027, with authorization generally required for issuers by then.
Penalties may apply to companies that issue payment stablecoins without the necessary approvals under the GENIUS Act framework.
The rule applies not only to national banks and certain savings associations, but also to some foreign issuers seeking approval under federal supervision.
The GENIUS Act as a “national framework” for payment stablecoins
The GENIUS Act, signed into law in 2025, created a federal regulatory structure specifically for “payment stablecoins.” In broad terms, it established the legal basis for how the U.S. will regulate stablecoins intended for payments and related financial use cases—an area that has drawn intense attention from regulators due to concerns over reserves, redemption risk, and systemic stability.
Bessent’s comments focused on the political and economic meaning of that framework: he argued that the final OCC rule would encourage “private-sector innovation, competition, and American leadership in digital assets.” Rather than positioning stablecoin rules as a barrier, his framing suggests the administration views clarity and oversight as prerequisites for scaling digital payment rails in the U.S.
Investors and market participants may see value in this “regulatory runway” approach. When rules are defined in advance and tied to a clear effective date, issuers can plan product timelines, compliance processes, and reserve management strategies with greater certainty than under a shifting patchwork of interpretations.
What the OCC’s final rule covers and who it applies to
According to reporting by Cointelegraph, the OCC’s final rules govern stablecoin reserves, redemptions, and related services under the GENIUS Act. The OCC described the approach as a “clear, practical framework for payment stablecoin innovation,” with implementation scheduled to begin on Jan. 18, 2027.
The OCC says the final rule applies to multiple categories of institutions that would be under federal supervision, including national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches of foreign banks, and nonbank companies seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins. It also covers certain foreign payment stablecoin issuers.
Crucially for market structure, the rule is not limited to one type of issuer. That matters because stablecoin issuance in practice has involved a mix of bank-affiliated arrangements and nonbank-led models. By specifying an approval path for a broader set of entities, the OCC’s framework can influence which businesses are able to scale and how quickly—especially as stablecoin activity becomes more tied to regulated payment ecosystems.
For readers looking for the regulatory language itself, the OCC’s bulletin describing the rule is available on its website: OCC Bulletin 2026-50.
The timeline: authorization, reserves, and redemption readiness
The OCC’s approach sets a concrete deadline. Beginning Jan. 18, 2027, companies issuing payment stablecoins in the United States will generally need authorization under the GENIUS Act framework. The article notes that issuing stablecoins without required authorization could trigger penalties.
While the headline narrative emphasizes innovation, the operational implications for issuers are straightforward: reserves and redemption mechanics are central to stablecoin credibility. The OCC rule’s focus on reserves and redemptions signals that compliance will likely require demonstrable, auditable reserve practices and clear processes for handling customer redemption requests—core elements in avoiding liquidity stress.
From a risk-management standpoint, stablecoin buyers and partners (including payments providers) tend to evaluate whether an issuer’s redemption process is reliable under normal conditions and during periods of market volatility. A standardized regulatory framework can reduce uncertainty for counterparties and potentially streamline due diligence.
At the same time, the scope of compliance preparation is substantial. Nonbank issuers and foreign firms seeking U.S. approval may need to design or restructure custody, reserve reporting, and risk controls to match federal supervisory expectations. The time between now and Jan. 18, 2027 becomes a critical window for applications, internal governance updates, and partnership alignment.
Why this matters now: stablecoins gaining payment traction
Even as growth in the overall supply of dollar-denominated stablecoins has stalled, the article notes that traction for payments and money transfers has continued to grow. That dynamic—steady use in transfers and payments alongside uneven expansion in total supply—helps explain why regulators are moving toward detailed issuance rules rather than focusing only on market growth.
In practical terms, “payment stablecoins” sit closer to everyday financial flows than earlier speculative or exchange-focused uses. As adoption spreads into transfer services and payment channels, regulators face greater pressure to ensure that stablecoins function predictably and that failures do not cascade into broader financial systems.
The broader industry context also shows regulators paying close attention to how stablecoin risk is managed by institutions that interface with the tokens. For example, Cointelegraph has previously reported on Mastercard launching stablecoin risk screening tools for banks and payment providers, underlining that compliance and risk controls are becoming a mainstream requirement rather than an edge-case concern.
What to watch next
With the OCC’s stablecoin rules set for an effective date of Jan. 18, 2027, the next phase for issuers will be preparing for authorization requirements under the GENIUS Act and aligning reserve, redemption, and risk management processes with federal supervision. Market participants should watch how applications progress and whether regulated issuance expands the share of compliant stablecoins in U.S. payment workflows.
This article was originally published as Treasury Chief Bessent Flags GENIUS Act as Stablecoin Shift Similar to Lincoln-Era Banking Reform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Artificial intelligence could dramatically lower the cost of building crypto games, potentially triggering a rapid wave of short-lived “meme games” designed less for long-term community building and more for quick speculation, according to Illuvium co-founder Kieran Warwick.
Warwick told Cointelegraph that tools now make it possible to create comparable games in just days—around $1,000 in cost—where earlier speculative titles like Wolf Game and Fishing Frenzy reportedly took months to produce. He suggested that, if this model scales, crypto could see an explosion in game launches, with as many as 100,000 new titles in a year.
Key takeaways
Warwick estimates AI could cut the timeline and cost of creating speculative crypto games to days and roughly $1,000.
He predicts up to 100,000 short-lived “meme games” could launch within a year, often intended to last only long enough to profit.
While cheaper development may expand options, Warwick argues a disposable model is unlikely to be beneficial long term for crypto gaming.
Industry leaders cited demand and user retention challenges, with data indicating limited traction for many gaming tokens and dapps.
A Blockchain Game Alliance survey found AI adoption for game design and content creation is already underway among some industry professionals.
From memecoin launchpads to serial game deployers
Warwick framed the potential shift as an evolution of the memecoin playbook. In 2024, launchpads such as Pump.fun helped accelerate memecoin creation by lowering the barrier to issuing tokens, contributing to a market surge. According to CoinGecko’s State of Memecoins 2025, the sector’s combined market capitalization reached $150.6 billion in December 2024, then fell nearly 69% to $47.2 billion by November 2025.
That boom also split opinions across the industry: supporters pointed to memecoins’ trader appeal, while critics argued the activity diverted attention and capital from more substantive projects and harmed crypto’s broader reputation.
Warwick suggested that AI-driven game tooling could deliver a similar dynamic for crypto games. “Like you have serial deployers of memes, you’ll get serial deployers of games,” he said, comparing the likely behavior of speculative participants to those who cycle through memecoin launches.
He also warned that a high-volume stream of “quick” games could exacerbate the risk of players ending up on the losing end. In a post on X on Monday, Warwick wrote that “there will be ridiculous gains” but also that people will be “absolutely f****ing rinsed.”
Cheaper games don’t solve the retention problem
Even as AI lowers production friction, Warwick said the long-term outcome may be unfavorable for the ecosystem. He argued that the model he has been working toward at Illuvium—focusing on higher-quality games with deeper ownership mechanics—still represents the direction crypto gaming should build toward, even if short-term speculative products multiply.
Warwick noted that Illuvium’s flagship game, Overworld, has been in development for more than six years, with a revamped full release targeted for the first quarter of 2027.
Animoca Brands CEO Robby Yung echoed the importance of user retention. He told Cointelegraph that meme-style games that “don’t particularly take much effort to make” may struggle to become a lasting category because retention is fundamental to gaming success.
In other words, lowering the cost of production could increase supply, but it may not automatically create a durable user base willing to stick around after the initial novelty fades.
Supply may rise faster than demand
Other founders raised the question of whether there are enough active players to absorb a flood of new crypto titles. Mirai Labs co-founder and CEO Corey Wilton questioned whether an AI-driven increase in game supply can overcome weak demand for Web3 experiences.
“We shipped quite a few games, six or seven games, into the market,” Wilton said. “Ultimately, it came to the conclusion that the demand for or within the Web3 space simply isn’t there.”
Wilton’s skepticism aligns with figures cited from Dappradar on gaming decentralized apps: its tracking shows $232.2 million in total value locked across 2,356 apps. Separately, a basket of the top 50 gaming tokens was reported to have a combined market capitalization of $3.8 billion at the time of writing.
Yung added that liquidity and demand issues in many altcoins are real concerns, but he also emphasized that consumer choice remains limited because the number of game titles using crypto is still small. That makes it difficult, he argued, to determine whether “crypto” itself is the problem or simply that the market doesn’t yet have enough consistently engaging games.
He pointed to continued interest despite recent adjustments in the sector. For example, Yield Fields—an upcoming web3 farming game built on the Robinhood chain—raised an estimated $8.3 million on Oct. 14 by selling digital land plots as nonfungible tokens, with a launch scheduled for later in the month.
AI is already being used in crypto game production
Beyond the speculation about future “meme games,” there is also evidence that AI tools are already moving into crypto game development workflows. A survey by the Blockchain Game Alliance (BGA) in 2025, covering 506 industry professionals, found that 32.8% said their company had implemented or experimented with AI for game design and content creation.
Yung compared this shift to the early days of mobile gaming, when cheaper development encouraged more studios to enter the market. He argued that the initial concern—whether the market would be flooded with low-quality releases—did not ultimately prevent growth. Instead, he said, the outcome was greater variety, with customers able to choose what fits their preferences.
For crypto gaming, that comparison highlights a crucial tension: more tools can mean more experimentation and more genres, but it still depends on whether teams can convert new supply into sustained engagement—particularly in a category that already struggles with retention and liquidity for many offerings.
As AI tooling becomes more accessible, investors, builders, and players will likely need to watch not just how quickly new games can launch, but whether they retain users, generate lasting communities, and avoid repeating the cyclic pattern seen in other speculative crypto segments. The next test will be whether AI-driven convenience produces durable gameplay experiences—or simply more disposable products aimed at short-term profit.
This article was originally published as Crypto ‘meme games’ set to launch, bringing new risks for holders on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

AI tools are starting to compress the timeline and cost of building crypto “meme games,” raising the prospect of a rapid, highly speculative wave of short-lived titles—potentially echoing the memecoin boom-and-bust dynamics seen across launchpads and trader-led activity.
Illuvium co-founder Kieran Warwick told Cointelegraph that AI can cut development for games in the “meme” style from months to “days” and roughly $1,000—bringing the same kind of fast, repeatable deployment model to gaming that traders once associated with memecoins. Warwick also argued that this could mean “serial deployers of games,” with as many as 100,000 new games potentially launching within a year, many designed to exist just long enough for creators to profit.
Key takeaways
Kieran Warwick says AI could reduce crypto meme-game development to days and about $1,000, accelerating how quickly new titles can be launched.
He expects up to 100,000 crypto meme games to appear within a year, often with short lifespans intended to monetize quickly.
Industry leaders are split: cheaper production may expand variety, but critics warn disposable games could leave speculators exposed.
Dappradar data cited in the report shows limited current usage for crypto gaming Dapps, suggesting supply growth may outpace player demand.
An industry survey from the Blockchain Game Alliance indicates AI is already being adopted or tested in game design and content creation.
AI lowers the barrier for “meme game” supply
The core claim from Warwick is that AI will change the economics of game creation in crypto. Whereas earlier speculative games—such as those structured around in-game competition for rewards—could take months and significant effort, Warwick argues that AI tooling can make similar experiments cheap and fast.
That shift matters because it alters who can participate in launching games and how often new experiments can be rolled out. Warwick framed the likely outcome as a scaling of behavior he likened to memecoin deployment: rather than a few carefully developed releases, there could be many rapid “serial” launches designed around short-term momentum.
However, Warwick cautioned that this may not be a net positive for crypto gaming’s long-term health. He suggested that while there may be moments of extreme returns for some participants, many others could be “rinsed,” reflecting the risk profile of speculative cycles. In his view, the lasting path for crypto gaming is closer to sustainable ownership-driven models—where quality and retention are built over time rather than optimized for brief hype windows.
Memecoin lessons: supply surges, demand questions
The article connects Warwick’s prediction to what happened in 2024 and beyond in the memecoin market. CoinGecko research cited in the report says the combined market capitalization of memecoins reached $150.6 billion in December 2024 before falling nearly 69% to $47.2 billion by November 2025, illustrating how quickly attention-driven growth can fade.
The memecoin surge was also tied to launchpad-style platforms that made it easy to create tokens, enabling traders to cycle into new narratives quickly. The report notes that this boom split industry opinion: proponents argued memecoins attracted active traders, while critics said they diverted capital from more meaningful projects and damaged crypto’s reputation.
Warwick expects crypto meme games to draw a similar type of speculative audience. He compared the dynamic to traders who earn quick paychecks and then use a portion to gamble, but with “a new venue” and a “shiny wrapper” in the form of games rather than tokens.
Still, the direction of the effect is not guaranteed. Cheaper and faster development could, in theory, expand experimentation and create niche markets that previously weren’t viable. But the report also highlights the possibility that a flood of low-end or short-lived titles could worsen the mismatch between supply and real user engagement—particularly if retention fails to materialize.
Where are the players? Demand and liquidity remain constraints
Several figures in the report question whether supply growth alone can solve the fundamental challenge for crypto games: attracting and keeping users.
Mirai Labs co-founder and CEO Corey Wilton said his company shipped multiple games into the market but concluded that demand within the Web3 space “simply isn’t there.” The report also cites Dappradar tracking of gaming decentralized apps, which shows $232.2 million in total value locked across 2,356 apps. It adds that a basket of the top 50 gaming tokens had a combined market capitalization of $3.8 billion at the time of writing, underscoring the scale of capital concentrated in a relatively small segment.
Wilton’s framing suggests a structural issue: even if more games can be created quickly, they still require liquidity, adoption, and an audience that finds them genuinely compelling. The report further includes commentary from Animoca Brands CEO Robby Yung, who argued that user retention is the “lifeblood” of games and that a meme-style category that requires little effort to produce may struggle to become lasting.
At the same time, the article points to counterevidence that crypto gaming still draws interest when products are engaging or innovative. It references ongoing activity such as Yield Fields, an upcoming web3 farming game on the Robinhood chain. According to the report, Yield Fields’ developers raised an estimated $8.3 million on Oct. 14 by selling digital land plots as nonfungible tokens, with a launch targeted for the end of the month.
AI already in the pipeline—quality and choice may rise
The report also addresses whether AI itself is changing the development process in a measurable way. It cites a Blockchain Game Alliance 2025 survey of 506 industry professionals, which found that 32.8% said their company had implemented or experimented with AI for game design and content creation.
That matters for investors and builders because it indicates AI adoption isn’t merely theoretical. If more studios are already using AI in production workflows, the next question becomes what this changes for player-facing outcomes: more frequent releases, more variety, improved content generation, and potentially lower costs—or alternatively, more sameness and disposable experiences if incentives remain aligned with short-term monetization.
Yung compared the arrival of AI tools in game production to the early days of mobile gaming, when development became cheaper and faster and more studios entered the market. He argued that when markets expand, the answer to fears about “flooding” with low-quality products shouldn’t be assumed to be less choice. Instead, the historical pattern described in the report is that customers get access to a wider range of options, and players select what they like.
In practice, this creates a key tension highlighted across the article: AI may increase both the number of games and the range of quality, but crypto gaming’s current adoption metrics suggest the industry still has to prove that it can convert new releases into durable demand and liquidity.
For readers tracking this trend, the most important signal to watch is whether AI-driven game supply translates into consistent user retention and meaningful on-chain engagement—especially as the sector experiments with short-lived “meme” formats versus longer-term, ownership-focused products. If engagement metrics do not keep pace, the risk is that the next cycle looks more like another speculative churn than a sustainable expansion of crypto gaming.
This article was originally published as Crypto “Meme Games” Set to Arrive, Bringing New Risks for Players on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance says it has taken part in a coordinated crackdown on scam networks operating from West Africa, describing the effort as part of “Joint Disruption Week” alongside law enforcement and private-sector partners.
In a press release dated October 21, 2026, Binance stated that the operation led to 28 arrests across Ghana and Nigeria. The company said investigators shared intelligence in real time across borders during the week-long effort.
Binance reported that in Ghana authorities arrested 19 people near Accra. It added that the operation included seizures of 303 electronic devices and identification of 117 victims of human trafficking. The company also said private sector partners identified more than $11 million in funds that could potentially be frozen, citing the U.S. Department of Justice as the source for that figure.
Compliance spending tied to anti-fraud work
Binance connected its participation to what it described as long-term investment in compliance for user protection. The company said it invests approximately $300 million a year in compliance and that around 1,500 employees work in compliance-related functions.
Binance also claimed its systems intercepted about $10.53 billion in potential fraud, scams and irregular activity between 2025 and the first quarter of 2026.
Samukele Mkhize, Compliance Head for Binance Africa, was quoted in the release saying scammers do not “keep within borders” and that real-time sharing among law enforcement, technology companies and exchanges can remove tools criminals rely on. Binance said it was “proud to stand with the investigators across West Africa” who enabled the operation.
Requests and education efforts cited
The press release said Joint Disruption Week builds on prior cooperation. Binance claimed it has supported authorities across 313,653 law enforcement requests to date, and that in 2025 it processed more than 71,000 requests that helped prevent $6.69 billion in potential fraud losses for users.
Alongside enforcement, Binance referenced what it said is free education through Binance Academy, presented as open to everyone without an account. The company said it aims to help people recognise warning signs of scams before they lose money.
Mkhize was quoted saying enforcement removes criminals while education reduces the “opportunity,” adding that many scams rely on pressure and panic, including tactics such as promises of returns that sound too good to be true or demands for urgent payment. Binance also said no genuine investment platform will rush a user to move crypto.
Reporting guidance included
Binance stated that anyone who believes they were targeted should report to local police and contact Binance customer support through the official app or website.
The announcement was distributed by APO Group on behalf of Binance.
This article was originally published as Binance says it helped disrupt West African crypto scam networks in coordinated Joint Disruption Week on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Cardano Foundation has urged the European Union to resist creating brand-new, standalone rules specifically for decentralized finance (DeFi) and staking. In a detailed response submitted to the European Commission, the organization argues that existing financial regulatory frameworks should be applied based on what an activity does and the risks it creates—rather than on the underlying technology used to perform it.
In a Wednesday blog post, the foundation outlined its 19-page submission dated Sept. 30, calling for a clearer regulatory split between users who directly participate in decentralized networks and the financial services offered by intermediaries—especially where users’ assets are held, controlled, or otherwise custody-like arrangements are involved.
Key takeaways
The Cardano Foundation wants EU regulation to track the substance and risk of an activity, not the technology label attached to it.
It argues that delegation by users to help secure a network should not be treated the same as intermediary staking services that control assets.
The foundation warns that unclear overlaps between MiCA and existing financial laws could produce inconsistent interpretations across EU member states.
Its position arrives as EU regulators consider expanding oversight for staking, lending and borrowing, and potentially adding a regulated category for access to DeFi protocols.
Substance over technology in EU DeFi and staking rules
At the center of the foundation’s argument is a principle that EU regulation should follow “the substance of an activity, the functions performed, and the risks created, not the technology through which it is conducted.” That framing is intended to prevent blanket rules that could capture fundamentally different behaviors under a single regulatory bucket.
In its response, the foundation draws a line between two patterns of participation:
Direct network participation, where users interact with a decentralized system in a way that does not require giving up custody or locking their tokens in a custody-like arrangement.
Financial services provided by intermediaries, where the operational model involves control mechanisms—particularly those tied to custody or management of user assets.
The implication for market participants is straightforward: rules should be calibrated to whether an intermediary performs a finance-like role. Otherwise, the foundation suggests, compliant DeFi participation could be treated like a custodial or asset-management service, raising legal uncertainty and potentially limiting legitimate decentralized access.
Delegating ADA as participation—not custody
The foundation points specifically to Cardano users’ ability to delegate native ADA tokens to help secure the network. It argues that this delegation model allows participation without surrendering custody or permanently locking tokens in a way that resembles intermediary-managed staking.
By characterizing user delegation as fundamentally different from intermediary-run staking services, the foundation is effectively asking regulators to consider control and custody as the key regulatory differentiators. For investors and users, this matters because regulatory treatment can influence how products are designed, what terms intermediaries impose, and what compliance obligations are triggered—especially in markets where firms may be hesitant to offer services without clear guidance.
For builders, the same distinction could affect how decentralized applications are architected—particularly whether they route user assets through intermediary custody solutions or allow users to participate through mechanisms that preserve control.
MiCA overlap concerns as EU considers more staking oversight
The foundation’s submission also emphasizes the need for regulatory clarity between the EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets Regulation (MiCA) and existing financial laws. It warns that overlapping requirements, along with inconsistent interpretations across EU member states, could “create uncertainty” for crypto businesses.
That uncertainty is not merely theoretical. In practice, inconsistent approaches can lead to fragmented compliance strategies, higher operating costs, and uncertainty over which regulatory regime applies to a given service. The foundation’s argument suggests that without a careful delineation, firms could face contradictory obligations depending on where they market or operate.
The timing of the Cardano Foundation’s response is notable. EU regulators are already weighing additional safeguards and potential expansions to oversight for crypto activities. According to earlier reporting, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recommended changes in September, including additional safeguards for staking, lending and borrowing, and proposed a new regulated service category for firms providing access to DeFi protocols.
Placed against that backdrop, the foundation’s call for substance-based regulation can be read as an attempt to influence how any additional safeguards are framed—so that the rules target real custody and intermediary risk rather than decentralized participation itself.
Regulatory clarity push extends beyond Europe
The Cardano Foundation’s EU advocacy also aligns with broader efforts for clearer crypto rules internationally. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the Cardano Foundation joined five other blockchain organizations in an Oct. 20 letter urging the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to formally recognize digital commodities as non-securities under the SEC’s proposed crypto framework.
While that US request is separate from the EU discussion, both campaigns share a common theme: regulators should provide clearer boundaries that distinguish activity types and reduce ambiguity for market participants.
For users, builders, and exchanges, clarity matters because it directly affects which services can be offered, how they can be offered, and how compliance programs should be structured. For decentralized networks, it also matters whether regulators treat decentralization itself as a risk factor—or whether they focus on custody, control, and financial intermediation.
As EU discussions move forward, the key question for the industry is whether regulators will adopt the Cardano Foundation’s substance-and-risk approach—especially around delegation versus custodial staking, and MiCA versus existing financial law overlaps—or whether they will pursue more prescriptive rules aimed specifically at DeFi and staking. Market participants should watch for how ESMA’s recommendations and any subsequent EU drafting translate into concrete obligations for firms operating near decentralized ecosystems.
This article was originally published as Cardano Foundation Pushes EU to Keep MiCA Scope Off DeFi, Staking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. President Donald Trump hosted a White House roundtable focused on cybercrime on Wednesday, citing large losses suffered by Americans and highlighting government actions aimed at stopping criminals who operate through online scams. The event comes amid heightened political scrutiny over allegations that Trump and members of his administration have profited from digital-asset-related activity.
Trump said “countless” Americans lost more than $20 billion to cybercrime in 2025, describing a range of tactics including impersonation schemes, ransomware attacks, scam centers, and other methods. He also claimed that federal officials froze $1 billion in “cybercurrency tied to foreign scammers” and prevented $1.6 billion in losses from reaching criminals after a March executive order.
Key takeaways
Trump framed 2025 cybercrime losses as exceeding $20 billion and pointed to specific government actions, including freezing $1 billion tied to foreign scammers.
The White House discussion avoided the terms “cryptocurrency” and “digital assets,” even though related reporting before the event indicated a possible crackdown on foreign crypto scams.
Trump used “cybercurrency,” a less common term that many in the industry associate with older language for cryptocurrency.
Separate reporting cited U.S. investigations that attribute significant 2025 losses to scams involving digital assets, including through crypto ATMs.
The event unfolded alongside ongoing U.S. political controversy over connections between the Trump administration and the digital-asset sector.
White House cybercrime claims and the “cybercurrency” wording
At the Wednesday roundtable, Trump described the scale of cybercrime losses in broad terms, tying them to scams and extortion techniques commonly used by cybercriminal groups. In discussing countermeasures, he pointed to two figures: $1 billion frozen in what he called “cybercurrency” connected to foreign scammers, and $1.6 billion in losses reportedly blocked from reaching criminals following a March executive order.
Notably, Trump and Attorney General Todd Blanche did not explicitly use the terms “cryptocurrency” or “digital assets” during the roundtable remarks. Earlier coverage had indicated that the event could center on foreign crypto scams, and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin likewise referred to “digital extortion” rather than cryptocurrency.
Trump’s use of “cybercurrency” stands out because it is widely viewed as dated—language that does not match how most of the public and industry now discuss cryptocurrencies. For investors and compliance professionals, terminology matters: the way officials label threats can influence how regulators and law enforcement coordinate, and how institutions interpret the scope of enforcement priorities.
What U.S. reporting says about crypto-linked losses
While the White House event did not explicitly highlight “cryptocurrency,” U.S. law-enforcement reporting has linked a substantial portion of scam losses to digital assets. According to reporting attributed to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Americans lost $11 billion in 2025 from scams specifically involving digital assets, including scams involving crypto ATMs. (This figure was reported by Cointelegraph, citing the FBI.)
That mismatch—government officials speaking generally about cybercrime without naming cryptocurrency, while other reporting emphasizes crypto-linked losses—creates a question for the market: is the administration positioning the issue as a broader cyber threat first, with digital assets as one component, or is it narrowing language for political or regulatory reasons? Either way, the underlying theme for users remains the same: scams involving digital-asset rails continue to be a material driver of reported losses.
Political scrutiny continues alongside the enforcement push
The roundtable took place as Trump and administration figures face questions from lawmakers and voters about allegations that they used their positions to enrich themselves through digital-asset holdings. Separate reporting referenced claims that Trump’s crypto-related ventures generated significant net gains in 2025 and that alleged “schemes” involving investors may have led to substantial losses, according to a Public Citizen report.
Trump’s family’s company, World Liberty Financial, has also drawn scrutiny connected to its USD1 stablecoin and claims about how it was used in relation to a large investment connected to an entity in the United Arab Emirates. In parallel, reporting also noted that Trump’s memecoin project, Official Trump (TRUMP), has continued with tokenholder events, which have in turn fed accusations from lawmakers and advocacy groups about “pay-to-play” dynamics.
For the crypto ecosystem, the practical implication is that enforcement narratives do not operate in a vacuum. Market participants often watch whether public anti-crime messaging is matched by consistent policy implementation and credible separation between official actions and personal or political financial interests. Even if the cybercrime crackdown is legitimate and substantive, the political context can affect regulatory credibility and sentiment.
Europe’s arrests underscore the cross-border nature of laundering
The White House event followed international reporting that Italian authorities arrested 30 people in connection with a crypto money-laundering scheme. Bloomberg reported that the case involved alleged use of crypto to launder millions of dollars through a bank allegedly linked to the mafia, with investigators tracing funds from sources including corporate fraud, crypto investment scams, and drug trafficking to digital wallets.
The juxtaposition matters. When cybercriminal and laundering networks move value through digital assets across jurisdictions, policy and enforcement efforts tend to require cross-border coordination. The U.S. officials’ emphasis on freezing funds tied to foreign scammers aligns with that reality, and the Italian case reinforces that laundering activity continues to exploit crypto rails internationally—not only for ransomware but also for fraud and trafficking proceeds.
Looking ahead, readers should watch whether the White House’s messaging translates into clearer policy signals on digital-assets-related enforcement—particularly how authorities describe cryptocurrency in official frameworks, what legal mechanisms are used to freeze or seize funds, and whether international cases like the Italy arrests prompt more coordinated action with U.S. partners.
This article was originally published as Trump’s White House Cybersecurity Roundtable Sidesteps Crypto on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tether is backing Bolivian fintech Peso with a pre-seed investment aimed at expanding USDT payments across Latin America, the companies said this week. In an announcement on Tether’s website, the stablecoin issuer said the funding is intended to strengthen Peso’s payments infrastructure and its ability to route USDT transactions through banking and merchant payment systems.
The investment also arrives as local demand for dollar-linked alternatives grows in Bolivia amid a sustained shortage of US dollars and ongoing inflation pressures. Peso, for its part, is positioning USDT as a practical way for consumers and merchants to transact without relying exclusively on access to physical or banked dollars.
Key takeaways
Tether is leading Peso’s pre-seed round to expand USDT payment infrastructure across Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia and Argentina.
Peso’s product integrates USDT into consumer payments—so far via food delivery payments on Yango in Bolivia.
The fintech supports payments rails that connect USDT with local currencies through banking and merchant systems.
Bolivia’s policy discussion has increasingly centered on recognizing stablecoins like USDT for payments and financial services amid dollar shortages.
Tether’s investment targets payments infrastructure, not just token use
According to Tether, its investment will help Peso scale USDT-based payment services in multiple Latin American markets. The announcement emphasizes the practical layer of the rollout: connecting USDT with local payment ecosystems, including services that link stablecoin payments to local currency through banking and merchant payment systems.
Tether did not specify the size of its investment.
Peso integrates USDT into real-world payments in Bolivia
In Bolivia, Peso has already embedded USDT payments into Yango’s food delivery offering. That integration allows customers to pay for orders using USDT, according to the companies’ announcement.
Peso’s payments stack described by Tether includes QR payments for customers, point-of-sale (POS) capabilities for merchants, and virtual accounts tied to Bolivia’s banking system. Tether also noted that these virtual accounts are connected via ACH transfers, indicating Peso is building a bridge between stablecoin settlement and traditional banking rails.
For investors and operators, the relevance is straightforward: stablecoin payments only matter at scale if they fit into everyday consumer payment flows—such as QR checkouts and merchant POS—while still integrating with existing banking settlement. Peso’s approach, as presented by Tether, suggests an emphasis on usability and operational connectivity more than standalone wallet apps.
Bolivia’s dollar shortage is driving stablecoin adoption
Tether’s support for Peso is taking place against a backdrop of increasing local reliance on stablecoins in Bolivia. The announcement aligns with earlier reporting that stablecoins gained traction as access to dollars became harder.
Bolivia has “increasingly” turned to stablecoins since 2025 amid a prolonged US dollar shortage and high inflation, with businesses reportedly beginning to accept USDT for purchases as foreign currency access tightened. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Bolivia’s interest in stablecoins has expanded beyond informal use, with government attention shifting toward whether and how such assets fit into the broader financial system.
In November 2025, the government announced plans to integrate cryptocurrencies and stablecoins into the financial system. That included allowing banks to offer digital asset custody and crypto-linked financial products. Later, in July 2026, Bolivia began considering a regulatory framework that would recognize USDT for payments, savings and trade alongside the boliviano and the US dollar, according to Cointelegraph coverage referenced in the Peso update.
Those steps came after Bolivia abandoned its longstanding currency peg in June, which contributed to the demand for dollar-denominated alternatives such as USDT. The same dynamic has continued to shape the commercial rationale for stablecoin payments: merchants and consumers may seek predictable value storage and settlement when local currency purchasing power and dollar access are under strain.
More USDT-linked services are emerging alongside policy discussions
The Peso investment is not the only sign of growing stablecoin-linked activity in Bolivia. Tether’s announcement points to other fintech expansion in the country, including a Tuesday update from lending platform Tala.
According to the announcement, Tala partnered with El Dorado to offer embedded credit through a digital wallet, allowing eligible customers to receive and repay loans in USDT on the Tempo blockchain. While Tether’s investment specifically targets payments infrastructure, this broader ecosystem growth highlights a pattern: multiple financial services are exploring stablecoin rails to reach users who need dollar-linked access for day-to-day transactions or credit products.
At the same time, Bolivia’s evolving regulatory discussions underline a key uncertainty for the sector: stablecoin adoption may accelerate through commercial integrations, but the durability of those models often depends on how regulators define permissions, custody rules, and operational requirements for banks and fintechs.
As Tether and Peso scale USDT payment capabilities across Latin America, market participants will likely watch two things closely: whether Bolivia’s proposed stablecoin framework moves from consideration to formal implementation, and how quickly payment providers can expand merchant coverage beyond early use cases like delivery payments.
This article was originally published as Tether Supports Bolivian Fintech to Enable USDT Payments for Food and Banking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The PHP Foundation has blamed a prolonged delay in addressing a critical security flaw on “structural failure,” citing indecision and limited resources. The admission comes as PHP released emergency patches for two related vulnerabilities after international observers warned that attackers could gain remote code execution without authentication.
While the foundation acknowledged it identified early signs of the issue in 2024, it said the path to a safe fix was repeatedly stalled to avoid breaking the broader PHP software ecosystem. In the meantime, major organizations worldwide moved to reduce exposure—at times taking websites and services offline while updates were rolled out.
Key takeaways
The PHP Foundation says the delayed fix was a “structural failure” driven by decision-process issues and insufficient resources.
After emergency patches were released for two related PHP vulnerabilities, many organizations temporarily disabled services to install updates.
The vulnerabilities are described as enabling remote code execution by unauthenticated attackers on affected servers without requiring a login.
Crypto and web infrastructure stakeholders reported scanning activity: some reported no issues found, while others published domain-level exposure counts.
Operational mitigations—such as temporarily suspending site functions—became part of response guidance where patching could not be applied immediately.
Why the patching process stalled
In a blog post following the emergency release, the PHP Foundation explained that developers first noticed indications of the vulnerability in 2024. However, it said internal deliberations repeatedly restarted over months because of the risk of disrupting widely deployed PHP components.
The foundation also pointed to the challenge of reaching a fix that could produce reliable results without harming compatibility across a massive install base. It noted that there was not, at the time, a known direct path to remote code execution, and that the core team with the necessary deep engine knowledge was handling multiple responsibilities.
“Combined with the lack of a known path to remote code execution and the small team of core developers with the necessary deep knowledge of the engine occupied with many responsibilities, this decision process caused work on a fix to stall and restart repeatedly over months,” the foundation said.
It then underscored the outcome plainly: “We won’t pretend otherwise: the delay was a structural failure, caused by both the security team’s decision process and its lack of resources.”
Emergency response as organizations take sites offline
As PHP published its emergency patches, governments and institutions moved quickly to reduce risk while systems were updated. Several entities shut down public-facing services or temporarily disabled website functions, reflecting the reality that not all environments can be patched instantly.
According to reports, the Netherlands suspended its digital identity service, and the country’s National Cyber Security Center also took its website offline. Finland’s state IT provider Valtori disconnected government public web services, while France’s Interior Ministry temporarily took prefecture websites offline. In Germany, the federal IT provider ITZBund disabled several websites, Reuters reported.
In Australia, the Australian Signals Directorate said its cybersecurity website, cyber.gov.au, was among the government sites affected by the PHP issue.
Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi urged website operators on X to prepare to apply the patch as quickly as possible and suggested that temporarily suspending website functions could reduce risk if patching could not be executed immediately.
The scale of response also extended to large internet platforms. The Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, said it took some supporting services offline as a precaution, including Toolforge and Cloud VPS—systems used by volunteer developers—leading to parts of Wikipedia being unavailable on Wednesday.
Security scanning across the crypto industry
As the PHP vulnerabilities entered the operational spotlight, security firms and digital asset companies focused on identifying where PHP was in use and whether those deployments were likely to be exposed.
SlowMist said it surveyed PHP usage across the crypto sector and urged exchanges, DeFi platforms, and wallet providers to review their exposure and upgrade. It reported that among 1,488 domains assessed, 793 domains showed direct PHP fingerprints.
Intersect, a membership organization supporting Cardano blockchain development and governance, said it temporarily took its Members Area offline while it assessed potential exposure; the page remained offline at the time of writing.
Major market operators also shared internal assessments. Coinbase’s chief security officer, Jeff Lunglhofer, said the company found no evidence of exposed PHP instances after conducting a full sweep and coordinating with third-party suppliers for additional assurance.
BitGo said its platform was unaffected by the PHP vulnerability, while Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao told internet users to be “extra careful” when visiting websites in the coming days, pointing to the possibility that some administrators might not yet have applied patches.
Separately, the PHP security team stated it had not identified functional exploits at the time the issue was publicly disclosed.
What remains unclear—and what to watch next
The PHP Foundation’s explanation highlights how difficult it can be to balance security urgency with ecosystem stability, especially when fixes risk compatibility breakage. For network operators, the key variable is less about the timeline of discovery and more about implementation: whether deployments are updated promptly and correctly across the full stack.
As more organizations finish patching and publish follow-up results, investors and builders in the crypto space should watch for post-mortem details on which PHP versions were impacted, how widespread the vulnerable configurations are, and whether additional indicators of compromise emerge as scanning and incident response matures.
This article was originally published as PHP Foundation Cites Structural Failure for Delay in Security Patch on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The PHP Foundation says the delayed response to a critical PHP vulnerability was the result of “indecision” and a shortage of resources, calling the stalled fix a “structural failure.” The acknowledgment comes as government agencies and other organizations took websites offline while PHP issued emergency patches for two related critical security issues affecting widely used server software.
According to the foundation, the first signs of the underlying vulnerability appeared in 2024, but efforts to produce a fix were repeatedly delayed because the team lacked a clear route to remote code execution and the core developers were stretched across many responsibilities. Following renewed attention to the issue in August—after security firm Calif and OpenAI independently reported the same underlying problem—PHP released the patches that authorities have been racing to deploy.
Key takeaways
The PHP Foundation describes the patch delay as a “structural failure” tied to both decision-making process and limited resources.
Emergency patches were released for two related critical PHP vulnerabilities that could allow unauthenticated remote code execution without requiring a login.
Multiple national and infrastructure operators temporarily shut down websites or services to reduce exposure while updates are applied.
Crypto and blockchain services have been surveying their exposure to PHP use and, in at least one case, taking internal pages offline during assessment.
Major exchanges and digital asset firms publicly stated they found no evidence of exposed instances, while urging additional verification.
Why the PHP Foundation says the fix stalled
In a blog post published after the emergency release, the PHP Foundation said developers first recognized signals related to the vulnerability in 2024. The foundation also said it faced a difficult trade-off: patching in a way that would not disrupt PHP’s broad ecosystem of production software.
The foundation pointed to multiple internal constraints. In its words, there was “no known path to remote code execution,” and the “small team of core developers” with the necessary deep knowledge of the engine was occupied with many responsibilities. That combination led to “work on a fix to stall and restart repeatedly over months.”
More directly, the foundation said it would not soften the message: “the delay was a structural failure, caused by both the security team’s decision process and its lack of resources.” For operators, that admission is significant because it frames the incident as not only a technical challenge but also a resourcing and governance problem—issues that can shape how quickly similar vulnerabilities are handled in the future.
Emergency patches trigger precautionary shutdowns worldwide
As PHP released patches for two related critical vulnerabilities, organizations around the world moved to reduce risk by disconnecting services and preparing update rollouts. The disruption was reported across government, identity systems, and public-facing web assets.
In the Netherlands, officials shut down parts of the country’s digital identity service, and the National Cyber Security Center also took its website offline. Finland’s state IT provider Valtori disconnected government public web services, while France’s Interior Ministry temporarily took prefecture websites offline. In Germany, Reuters reported that ITZBund disabled several websites.
Other jurisdictions also reported affected government sites. Australia’s Australian Signals Directorate acknowledged that its cybersecurity website, cyber.gov.au, was among the sites tied to the PHP issue. In Japan, Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi posted on X urging website operators to apply the patch as quickly as possible, adding that temporarily suspending website functions could reduce risk if immediate patching is not feasible.
Even large online reference infrastructure responded conservatively. The Wikimedia Foundation said it took supporting services offline as a precaution, including Toolforge and Cloud VPS. It noted that parts of Wikipedia went offline on Wednesday as a result.
Crypto industry checks: what firms said after the disclosure
For the crypto sector, the practical risk is straightforward: many exchanges, custodians, DeFi platforms, and wallet services rely on PHP in backend systems, content systems, or ancillary tooling. Following the emergency release, at least two security-focused and infrastructure-oriented actors publicly described efforts to identify exposure.
Blockchain security firm SlowMist said it scanned PHP usage across the crypto industry. In its assessment, it identified 793 domains with direct PHP fingerprints among 1,488 domains reviewed, and urged exchanges, DeFi platforms, and wallet providers to review exposure and upgrade.
Intersect, a membership organization supporting Cardano development and governance, said it temporarily took its Members Area offline while it assessed exposure. The organization indicated the affected page was still offline at the time of its post.
On the exchange and infrastructure side, Coinbase’s chief security officer Jeff Lunglhofer said the company found no evidence of any exposed PHP instances. He added that Coinbase performs a full sweep when vulnerabilities are disclosed and works with third-party suppliers for additional assurance. BitGo also stated that its platform was unaffected, while Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao advised internet users to be extra careful when visiting websites over the next few days, warning that some administrators may not yet be fully patched.
OpenAI also contributed to the operational response by releasing a Codex skill intended to help website operators check for potentially vulnerable PHP versions and identify applicable updates. The foundation’s security team also said it had not identified functional exploits at the time of public disclosure.
What to watch next as patching catches up
The immediate question now is coverage: how quickly organizations can validate they are running patched versions, especially for services that depend on PHP indirectly through third-party components. Crypto teams in particular may want to treat this incident as a reminder to prioritize asset inventory and web stack auditing, since SlowMist’s scan suggests PHP footprints can be widespread across internet-facing domains.
This article was originally published as PHP Foundation Says “Structural Failure” Delayed Critical Fix on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The American Bankers Association (ABA) has criticized finalized rules from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) governing how payment stablecoins can be issued and how custody arrangements should work. In a Wednesday statement, the industry group said the OCC’s interpretation—approved as part of the regulatory framework implementing the GENIUS Act—misread Congress’s intent, particularly on the question of stablecoin yield.
Key takeaways
The ABA argues the OCC removed earlier safeguards that would have treated certain third-party yield arrangements as effectively violating the GENIUS Act’s yield prohibition.
ABA warns issuers could offer “economically equivalent” rewards while technically avoiding the statutory ban, creating regulatory gaps.
The Blockchain Association said the OCC’s revision better matches the statutory text, while banking groups fear ambiguity.
The rules are set to take effect ahead of the GENIUS Act’s implementation in January 2027, with additional agency guidance expected from the Fed and Treasury.
ABA pushes back on OCC’s stablecoin yield approach
According to the ABA, the OCC’s final rule included “several positive steps,” but the banking group remained focused on one major change: the regulator dropped a provision that would have established a presumption that certain third-party arrangements run afoul of the GENIUS Act’s prohibition on yield payments.
The ABA also said the OCC declined to adopt a broader presumption aimed at arrangements that are designed to work around the yield restriction—an issue that has drawn sustained attention from both lawmakers and industry participants as the GENIUS Act moved through Congress.
In the ABA’s view, those omissions matter because payment stablecoins occupy a regulatory boundary the law is designed to preserve: Congress drew a distinction between payment stablecoins and traditional bank deposits. If that boundary becomes too porous, the ABA argues it could undermine the funds banks rely on to make loans.
“The final rule removes the OCC’s originally proposed safeguards that would have addressed indirect arrangements involving affiliates, exchanges and other distribution partners. As a result, payment stablecoin issuers can provide economically equivalent yield while technically avoiding the statutory prohibition. The OCC also declined to adopt a broader presumption against arrangements designed to circumvent the ban.”
Why the yield presumption debate remains central
Before and after the GENIUS Act passed in July 2025, rewards or yield on stablecoins were among the most contested provisions across legislative and industry discussions. The ABA’s critique suggests that the final OCC rules will leave room for market structures that could replicate the economic effect of yield without being categorized as direct yield payments.
Supporters of the OCC’s final approach see the situation differently. The Blockchain Association backed the change, arguing the OCC “brought the final rule more closely in line with the statutory text.” That framing implies that the dropped presumption was too broad or not properly supported by the law as written.
Meanwhile, the Bank Policy Institute—another banking industry advocacy group—said the omission replaces clarity with ambiguity. The group warned that the resulting uncertainty could increase the risk of “deposit flight,” tying the policy dispute back to the traditional banking funding model and the stability of the loan supply.
GENIUS implementation timeline and additional rulemaking expected
The OCC finalized these payment stablecoin issuance and custody rules ahead of the GENIUS Act’s implementation in January 2027. The ABA statement indicates the banking industry is already treating the final rule as a key foundation for how stablecoin economics will be regulated under U.S. oversight.
Further, the OCC’s work may not be the last major step. The article notes that other parts of the U.S. government are expected to release GENIUS-related rules for the agencies within their jurisdiction, including the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. For market participants, that multi-agency rollout is important: compliance requirements and interpretive standards may evolve as each agency fills in details about stablecoin operations, custody, and related financial controls.
Broader policy pressure: clarity legislation still in play
The yield debate is also playing out alongside broader efforts to set crypto market structure rules. The article points to ongoing discussions around the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a bill currently in limbo after a failed procedure vote in the Senate last month.
That matters because stablecoin regulation does not exist in isolation. Even where GENIUS provides a focused regime for payment stablecoins, additional market-structure legislation could influence how participants think about token issuance, exchanges, distribution partners, and compliance obligations—areas that the ABA specifically references when describing indirect arrangements involving affiliates, exchanges, and other distribution partners.
For readers and stakeholders, the next phase to watch is how other agencies—particularly the Federal Reserve and Treasury—respond to the same yield question and whether their rules expand, narrow, or diverge from the OCC’s interpretation. Until then, the central uncertainty highlighted by banking groups is whether market participants will be able to approximate yield economics without triggering the statutory prohibition.
This article was originally published as ABA Criticizes OCC “GENIUS” Rules, Says Stablecoin Yield Terms Undercut Congress on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s price momentum is being weighed down by a familiar on-chain mechanism: investors who bought in later 2025 are effectively “crowding” a key resistance area near $87,000, according to new analysis from Glassnode. At the same time, inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs appear to be strengthening demand around $80,000, where multiple cost-basis benchmarks and order-book liquidity converge.
The tug-of-war is taking place across two zones. Above, several breakeven levels from different investor cohorts repeatedly cap upside attempts. Below, support is forming as bid liquidity concentrates around the $80,000 psychological threshold and related cost-basis bands.
Key takeaways
Glassnode says the breakeven for a cohort of Bitcoin buyers from late 2025 is now around $87,700, acting as resistance when BTC trades toward that level.
A cluster above $87,000 includes the 2026 opening price at $87,490 and the 20-month simple moving average near $87,165.
Bitcoin support around $80,000 is reinforced as ETF-related cost basis and broader market mean levels sit in the same vicinity.
Glassnode highlights how prior rejections at cost-basis levels have historically coincided with sizable retracements.
Breakeven levels from late-2025 buyers re-emerge as resistance
Glassnode’s research frames the current market as a contest between spot demand and sell pressure from investors who are approaching, or returning to, breakeven. In particular, two groups of holders have previously played a role in preventing BTC/USD from sustaining breakouts when price approached their acquisition cost bases.
In November 2025, Bitcoin fell back from a region above the cost basis of investors whose entry time was roughly between six and 12 months prior. At that moment, Glassnode reported that cohort’s cost basis was about $94,000. Later, when price attempted to push above a trendline near $97,100 in January 2026, that same cost-basis area became resistance, leading to rejection and a slide lower.
A similar pattern shows up with another investor cohort. Glassnode notes that holders who bought one to two years earlier slipped into aggregate loss in February 2026 when BTC lost their cost basis of around $76,900. When BTC tried to rebound in May—briefly finding support just above $82,000—the one-to-two-year cost basis again helped stall further upside.
In both instances, the mechanism is straightforward: when price climbs back toward breakeven, underwater holders have an incentive to sell into strength rather than wait, increasing sell-side supply. Glassnode pointed out that the size of the subsequent pullbacks has differed, but the “rejection at cost basis” pattern has repeated.
“Bitcoin rose to the 6-12 month cost basis in January and then fell by more than a third. It met the 1-2 year cost basis in May and fell by about a quarter,” Glassnode said. “The 1-2 year holders also stepped up their selling into the rally at the start of October.”
Today, Glassnode places the relevant breakeven cost bases at approximately $87,700 for the six-to-12-month cohort and about $99,500 for the one-to-two-year cohort. The immediate implication is that the market may struggle to convert gains into sustained trends until it can absorb selling as price challenges these inventory “checkpoints.”
The $87,000 ceiling: overlapping signals around 2026 levels and a key moving average
Beyond the late-2025 cost-basis figure, Glassnode highlights that the region above $87,000 contains additional technical and calendar-linked reference points. This layering matters because it can increase the likelihood that rally attempts fail if multiple “decision points” cluster together.
The same overhead area includes the 2026 opening price at roughly $87,490 and the 20-month simple moving average (SMA) near $87,165. Glassnode also notes that the 20-month trend line has historically preceded new all-time highs once reclaimed as support.
Put simply, the resistance ceiling isn’t a single number—it’s a zone made more resistant by several independent metrics converging at nearly the same level. For traders, that can translate into higher probability of mean reversion (chop) if price repeatedly returns to that band and fails to hold it.
ETF cost basis and market mean strengthen bid liquidity near $80,000
Lower in the chart, Glassnode draws attention to a different set of on-chain and flow-related anchors clustered around $80,000. The analysis ties ETF-related cost basis to a broader “support stack” that includes both ETF-specific benchmarks and the cost structure of the wider market.
According to Glassnode, the spot ETF cost basis is currently about $81,500. The firm also cites Bitcoin’s “true market mean”—its estimate of average acquisition cost across secondary markets—at roughly $77,500. Below that, it places the breakeven for short-term holders (wallets holding BTC for up to six months without selling) around $74,600.
While these levels are different, their proximity helps explain why $80,000 is receiving special attention. Glassnode describes the $80,000 area as a psychological magnet for bid liquidity across exchange order books.
“The block sits just under the US Spot ETF Cost Basis, so the zone between $80K and $81.5K is where order-book and on-chain support overlap. A break below it would bring the liquidation cluster just under $80K, and then the True Market Mean near $78K, into play,” Glassnode commented.
This framing matters for how investors might think about risk: if BTC can hold above the ETF cost-basis neighborhood, the market has multiple reasons to attract bids. If it loses that overlap zone, however, the next sell-pressure or liquidation-related pocket could become more relevant around the nearby $78,000 mean.
What to watch next as on-chain resistance meets ETF-supported demand
The near-term battleground is likely to remain centered on how BTC handles the overlap of cost-basis resistance above $87,000 versus the overlapping support stack around $80,000. Glassnode’s history of earlier rejections at similar cost-basis levels suggests rallies may struggle if price repeatedly returns to breakeven zones dominated by patient sellers.
For market participants, the key question is whether ETF-supported demand can keep BTC above the $80,000 magnet long enough for it to work through the $87,000 resistance zone—especially the area compounded by the 2026 opening level and the 20-month SMA. Until that changes, expect the market to react sharply to each attempt to cross these cost-basis thresholds.
This article was originally published as Glassnode: ‘Top buyers’ pause as Bitcoin upside caps near $87.7K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The American Bankers Association (ABA) has criticized the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) finalized rules for the GENIUS Act, arguing that the regulator’s approach to payment stablecoin yield diverges from what Congress intended. In a notice issued Wednesday, the industry group said the OCC’s final framework contains “several positive steps,” but falls short on safeguards meant to address how stablecoin issuers could structure economically similar returns while attempting to avoid the law’s yield-payment restriction.
The ABA’s response centers on a specific change from the OCC’s earlier proposal. According to ABA, the OCC removed a provision that would have created a presumption that certain third-party arrangements violate the GENIUS ban on yield payments. The banking group warns that this decision leaves room for “economically equivalent” yield to be delivered through indirect structures.
Key takeaways
The ABA says the OCC’s final GENIUS rules weaken safeguards tied to the statutory prohibition on yield for payment stablecoins.
ABA argues the OCC removed a proposed presumption covering indirect third-party arrangements, creating potential ambiguity.
The banking group warns that gaps could blur the line Congress drew between payment stablecoins and bank deposits.
Other industry groups offered differing views, with the Blockchain Association approving the yield-related change.
OCC’s rules are set to take effect in January 2027 as GENIUS implementation approaches, with additional guidance expected from other agencies.
ABA targets the OCC’s yield-related drafting
ABA’s critique focuses on how the final OCC rule treats stablecoin yield. The group says the regulator eliminated proposed safeguards designed to address indirect arrangements involving entities such as affiliates, exchanges, and distribution partners. In ABA’s framing, stablecoin issuers could still provide returns that are economically comparable to yield while attempting to remain “technically” within the statutory limit.
“The final rule removes the OCC’s originally proposed safeguards that would have addressed indirect arrangements involving affiliates, exchanges and other distribution partners,” ABA said. “As a result, payment stablecoin issuers can provide economically equivalent yield while technically avoiding the statutory prohibition. The OCC also declined to adopt a broader presumption against arrangements designed to circumvent the ban.”
ABA further argues that the OCC’s approach risks eroding distinctions that Congress established when it separated payment stablecoins from traditional bank deposits. The association warned that such distinctions are important because banks rely on deposit funding to make loans that support broader economic activity.
“Those gaps risk undermining the distinction Congress drew between payment stablecoins and traditional bank deposits, threatening the funds banks use to make the loans that drive the US economy.”
What changed from the earlier proposal
The ABA’s complaint implicitly points to a drafting tension that has mattered throughout the GENIUS process: how to ensure the yield prohibition is enforceable without creating overly rigid or easily circumvented definitions. The OCC’s final rule, according to coverage noted earlier by Cointelegraph, removed a provision that would have established a presumption that certain third-party structures violate the statutory ban on yield payments.
That shift matters because it affects how regulators, courts, and market participants interpret the boundaries of compliant and noncompliant compensation structures around payment stablecoins. When the rule removes a presumption, ABA argues, it may replace clearer guidance with uncertainty—an environment where different interpretations could proliferate and enforcement becomes harder to anticipate.
Bank Policy Institute sides with the banking critique
ABA was not alone among banking advocacy groups. The Bank Policy Institute also largely aligned with ABA’s concerns, saying the omission of the yield presumption swaps “clarity with ambiguity” and could heighten the risk of “deposit flight.” In other words, the fear is not only about compliance but about competitive dynamics: if payment stablecoins can effectively replicate deposit-like economics while occupying a different legal category, bank funding could face pressure.
For investors and market participants, this dispute has practical implications. Ambiguity around yield-related rules can influence how issuers design product economics, how partners structure distribution deals, and how exchanges or wallets present financial incentives to users—especially in the run-up to GENIUS implementation.
Not everyone agrees: Blockchain Association praises the revision
While banking groups criticized the final rule’s yield-related changes, the Blockchain Association took the opposite stance. It approved of the alteration, saying the OCC “brought the final rule more closely in line with the statutory text.”
This contrast highlights a core asymmetry in the debate: banking advocates view the removed presumption as an enforcement gap that could permit workarounds, while crypto industry groups frame the change as a necessary narrowing to match the statute’s language.
Both perspectives point to the same uncertainty—how strict the final boundaries will be in practice. The disagreement is likely to influence how other stakeholders engage with upcoming rulemaking and interpret what is and is not permissible under GENIUS.
Timeline and next steps for GENIUS rules
The OCC finalized its GENIUS rules ahead of the GENIUS Act’s implementation in January 2027. The rulemaking cadence now moves toward a broader multi-agency phase: the OCC’s action covers the regulator’s lane, while other federal departments are expected to issue additional guidance related to stablecoin provisions under their respective authorities, including the Federal Reserve and Treasury.
In parallel, stablecoin yield remains entangled with ongoing legislative attention. Stablecoin rewards were a flashpoint during GENIUS’s passage and continue to be a subject of scrutiny. The debate also intersects with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a crypto market structure bill described as currently in limbo after a failed procedure vote in the U.S. Senate last month, according to related reporting.
Meanwhile, ABA’s own position is bolstered by the timing: with the OCC rule already finalized, banks and their allies are focused on whether the final drafting will preserve Congress’s intended separation between payment stablecoins and deposit-based banking. Market participants, by contrast, will be watching for how the rule’s flexibility translates into real-world issuer behavior and product design.
As agencies prepare additional GENIUS-related rules in 2027, readers should watch for whether forthcoming guidance clarifies the permissible scope of indirect arrangements tied to stablecoin economics—and whether regulators converge on a shared standard for distinguishing yield from compliant compensation.
This article was originally published as ABA Says OCC “GENIUS” Rules Undermine US Congressional Oversight on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tether is backing Bolivian fintech Peso with a pre-seed investment aimed at scaling USDT-based payments across Latin America, according to a Wednesday announcement on Tether’s website.
The funding is intended to expand Peso’s stablecoin payment infrastructure in Bolivia and beyond, including services designed to connect USDT with local currencies via banking rails and merchant payment systems. Tether did not disclose the investment size.
Key takeaways
Tether invested in Bolivian fintech Peso to expand USDT payment infrastructure across multiple Latin American markets.
Peso has already integrated USDT payments into Yango’s food delivery platform in Bolivia, enabling customers to pay with USDT.
The fintech supports QR payments, merchant point-of-sale tools, and virtual accounts linked to Bolivia’s banking network using ACH transfers.
The move aligns with growing local demand for dollar-denominated alternatives amid Bolivia’s ongoing US dollar shortage and inflationary pressures.
Tether’s pre-seed push into USDT payments via Peso
In its announcement, Tether said the pre-seed round will help Peso broaden its stablecoin payment services across Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia and Argentina. The plan includes bringing USDT payments to users through integrations that route value between stablecoin rails and local payment and banking ecosystems.
While Tether did not provide deal terms, the focus on payment infrastructure—rather than a single app or isolated merchant deal—signals an emphasis on distribution. For traders and users, that distinction matters: infrastructure deployments typically determine how easily stablecoins can be used for routine commerce and how smoothly institutions and merchants can integrate without building an end-to-end system from scratch.
How Peso is using USDT in day-to-day transactions
According to the announcement, Peso has already embedded USDT payment functionality into Yango’s food delivery offering in Bolivia. That integration allows customers to pay for orders using USDT.
Beyond app-based payments, Peso’s described tooling includes QR payments, point-of-sale services for merchants, and virtual accounts tied to Bolivia’s banking system. Those accounts are supported through ACH transfers, connecting traditional banking infrastructure with stablecoin payment flows.
For merchants, the ability to accept stablecoin payments through familiar payment interfaces—such as QR and POS—can reduce friction at the point of sale. For users, it can also reduce the steps required to spend in USDT, potentially improving stablecoin usability beyond transfers or trading.
Bolivia’s dollar gap and the policy backdrop for stablecoins
Tether’s investment lands in a broader context: the country has increasingly looked toward stablecoins since 2025, driven by a prolonged US dollar shortage and persistently high inflation. As access to foreign currency became more difficult, the demand for dollar-denominated alternatives grew, and some businesses began accepting USDT for purchases.
Earlier reporting highlighted that the government has been moving toward formal consideration of crypto and stablecoin integration. In November 2025, Bolivia announced plans to integrate cryptocurrencies and stablecoins into the financial system, including the possibility for banks to offer digital asset custody and crypto-linked financial products. Later, in July 2026, the country began considering a regulatory framework that would recognize USDT for uses such as payments, savings and trade alongside the boliviano and the US dollar.
That regulatory discussion followed a major macro trigger. Bolivia abandoned a long-standing currency peg in June, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, and the resulting strain contributed to further demand for dollar-linked alternatives like USDT.
More stablecoin-linked fintech activity in Bolivia
Alongside Peso’s expansion, other fintech developments point to a steadily building local ecosystem around USDT-based services. On Tuesday, lending platform Tala announced a partnership with El Dorado to deliver embedded credit through El Dorado’s digital wallet. The program is designed to let eligible customers receive and repay loans in USDT on the Tempo blockchain, according to the announcement on Tala’s website.
Taken together, these initiatives suggest stablecoins are not only being used for payments but are also being explored for lending and other financial functions—an important step if regulators move toward recognizing stablecoin payments and financial products more formally.
Investors and builders watching this space should monitor whether Bolivia’s evolving regulatory framework for USDT turns from consideration into enforceable rules that clarify licensing, custody expectations, and how stablecoin payments integrate with banking systems—especially as more fintechs roll out USDT-based features across regional markets.
This article was originally published as Tether Supports Bolivian Fintech to Enable USDT Payments for Food and Banking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

President Donald Trump used a White House roundtable on cybercrime to highlight the scale of fraud affecting Americans, citing losses of more than $20 billion in 2025 and claiming federal actions that he says disrupted criminal proceeds tied to foreign scams. The remarks came amid ongoing political scrutiny over allegations that Trump and members of his administration have benefited from digital-asset-related business interests.
Speaking at the Wednesday event, Trump said “countless” Americans lost over $20 billion from cybercrime in 2025 through impersonation schemes, ransomware attacks, scam operations, and other tactics. He also stated that federal officials froze $1 billion in “cybercurrency tied to foreign scammers” and prevented $1.6 billion in 2025 losses from reaching criminals after a March executive order.
Key takeaways
Trump claimed federal freezes totaling $1 billion in proceeds he linked to “cybercurrency” connected to foreign scammers, alongside actions intended to stop $1.6 billion in losses in 2025.
The administration’s public discussion of scams avoided the terms “cryptocurrency” and “digital assets,” even as reporting ahead of the event suggested a focus on crypto-driven overseas fraud.
FBI figures cited in reporting point to $11 billion in 2025 losses from digital-asset-related scams, including crypto ATMs.
The White House event followed reports of Italian police arrests tied to alleged crypto money laundering connected to organized crime networks.
The roundtable took place while Trump faces repeated political questions about potential conflicts involving crypto investments and token-related projects.
White House cybercrime roundtable emphasizes scale, not terminology
At the event, Trump described cybercrime’s impact in broad terms—impersonation fraud, ransomware, and large-scale scam centers—then attributed specific enforcement outcomes to a March executive order. However, neither Trump nor Attorney General Todd Blanche used the specific language “cryptocurrency” or “digital assets” when discussing the schemes affecting Americans.
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin similarly used the term “digital extortion” rather than directly referencing crypto. The phrasing matters because it suggests the administration may be framing the issue as part of cyber enforcement generally, rather than centering digital assets—even as the policy backdrop appears to target crypto-enabled fraud.
Earlier coverage leading up to the roundtable had pointed to a potential focus on overseas crypto scams, according to a Reuters report. Yet in Wednesday’s remarks, Trump instead used “cybercurrency,” a term many in the industry view as outdated for what is now commonly called cryptocurrency.
FBI-related reporting highlights larger digital-asset losses
While the White House event itself did not explicitly emphasize cryptocurrency, reporting cited by Cointelegraph referenced FBI estimates that Americans lost $11 billion in 2025 specifically through scams connected to digital assets, including crypto ATMs. Cointelegraph’s coverage also notes that it reached out to the White House for comment on the roundtable but did not receive an immediate response.
The juxtaposition between broad White House messaging and more direct FBI-linked figures is likely to be an important point for readers trying to understand what agencies consider “digital-asset related” crime versus general cyber fraud. It also raises a practical question: when policymakers talk about freezing funds and preventing losses, how precisely are digital-asset flows being identified and traced across exchanges, wallets, and intermediaries?
Political scrutiny and digital-asset business ties remain in the background
The roundtable unfolded amid renewed attention on Trump’s personal and political connections to the crypto industry. Cointelegraph previously reported that Trump and his family are tied to several crypto ventures that, according to its reporting, netted him $1.4 billion in 2025. Other coverage cited in the same material argues that alleged “schemes” were linked to investor losses totaling about $4.7 billion, citing a Public Citizen report.
Additional controversy centers on Trump’s family company, World Liberty Financial, which faces scrutiny over its USD1 stablecoin and its alleged use in an investment deal involving a $2 billion stake attributed to an entity tied to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the United Arab Emirates.
Beyond stablecoins, Trump’s memecoin project—Official Trump (TRUMP)—has also drawn criticism. Cointelegraph reported that the token project is hosting another dinner for tokenholders on Nov. 22, and it notes that similar events organized by the memecoin’s backers have prompted accusations from lawmakers and interest groups that access to the presidency is being sold through “pay-to-play” mechanisms.
For market participants, this backdrop can influence how enforcement announcements are received. Even when federal actions target criminal activity, the political environment shapes trust—particularly around questions of whether regulators and law enforcement are addressing industry risks consistently, or whether enforcement efforts could be perceived as selective.
Europe enforcement follows White House attention on cybercrime
Wednesday’s roundtable also landed after reports that Italian authorities arrested 30 people in connection with an alleged crypto money laundering scheme. Bloomberg reported that the operation involved a bank allegedly tied to the mafia, and that investigators were tracing a criminal network moving funds from corporate fraud, crypto investment scams, and drug trafficking into digital wallets.
This matters for crypto users and compliance teams because it points to an established laundering pattern: proceeds from traditional crimes being routed into digital assets to obscure origin and trail funds across borders. When the U.S. frames enforcement around freezing and disrupting “cybercurrency,” international cases like the alleged Italian network can offer additional context on how investigators may pursue similar trails elsewhere.
Still, the details remain critical. In the absence of an explicit breakdown of how “cybercurrency” is defined in the White House’s enforcement narrative, readers should watch for clarification on whether the actions are directed at exchanges, wallet infrastructures, payment processors, or specific scam operators—and how those steps align with existing U.S. sanctions and financial crime frameworks.
Going forward, the key question is whether the administration will provide more precise public details on how digital-asset-related fraud is being detected and disrupted, especially given the mismatch between direct “cryptocurrency” language in FBI-linked reporting and the more general terminology used at the White House. With both U.S. and European enforcement actions being reported alongside political controversy, the next signals to track are concrete investigative outputs—identifications, filings, and follow-on cases—rather than terminology alone.
This article was originally published as Trump’s White House Cybercrime Roundtable Sidesteps Crypto Mention on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Recent reports of more than $200 million in crypto losses linked to tampered hardware wallets and predictable—rather than properly random—seed generation have renewed scrutiny of self-custody. The core issue is not that every investor failed to follow best practices; it’s that some risks can be introduced upstream, through devices or supply chains that holders cannot independently verify.
At the same time, physical attacks targeting crypto owners are increasing, with Cointelegraph citing wrench attacks occurring in France roughly every 2.5 days this year. That broader threat landscape makes a single-storage approach harder to justify—even for cautious users. Many experienced holders now emphasize diversification across storage methods to limit what can go wrong if one layer is compromised.
Key takeaways
Security problems are no longer limited to “user error” or “lost seed phrases”; tampering and poor randomness can also undermine hardware wallet setups.
Crypto ETFs can reduce the operational burden of self-custody, but they shift risk toward centralized issuers, custodian arrangements, and market mechanics.
Passkey-based wallets may simplify access, yet users must still understand device-loss and recovery trade-offs—especially when recovery depends on third parties.
Multisig can reduce reliance on a single key or device, but it can introduce coordination friction and smart-contract risk in some implementations.
Centralized exchanges and paper wallets may solve certain convenience problems, but they carry their own failure modes, including platform risk and key-exposure risk during generation.
Why hardware wallet trust is being questioned
Hardware wallets are designed to keep private keys offline and require users to protect a seed phrase. However, the latest wave of losses described in the source material centers on tampered devices and seeds that were not truly random—problems that self-custody users cannot reliably detect after the fact.
The knock-on effect is psychological and practical: even holders who purchase from official sources and store seed phrases correctly may still be exposed to manufacturer- or supply-chain-side failure. This is precisely why the discussion is shifting toward layered risk management—spreading holdings across multiple addresses and, when appropriate, across different custody frameworks.
Crypto ETFs: less operational work, different risk profile
Crypto exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are often framed as an alternative “entry point” for investors who want exposure without managing keys. The source material stresses a key distinction: even if investors fund an ETF with Bitcoin, they receive shares tied to the ETF’s net asset value rather than direct ownership of the underlying digital assets.
That matters for how investors evaluate risk. ETFs can remove many self-custody tasks—seed phrase handling, wallet backups, and concerns about physical break-ins. But the trade-off is that investors must trust centralized providers, third-party custody arrangements, fee structures, and the possibility that share price behavior may diverge from the underlying crypto market price.
According to guidance referenced from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (via an Investor Bulletin on crypto-asset custody basics for retail investors), crypto-asset custody involves arrangements and responsibilities that investors should understand before allocating capital. The source also cites Ophelia Snyder, co-founder of 21Shares, who argues that exchange-traded products can make sense “for most people most of the time” due to tax, estate planning, and security considerations. She also highlights that security ultimately depends on the provider and that infrastructure controls should be a major selection factor.
The source further mentions that pseudonymous Bitcoin model creator PlanB moved BTC to ETFs in 2025, previously drawing criticism, but later said he had “zero regrets” after the Ledger and Coldcard incidents—underscoring how quickly the narrative around custody can change when hardware wallet trust is shaken.
Passkeys, multisig, and the limits of “better UX”
For users who want to reduce seed phrase friction, passkey-based wallets have gained attention. The source describes passkeys as cryptographic credentials stored on a device, typically secured with biometrics or a PIN, enabling account access without a dedicated offline hardware component. This can be especially relevant for systems built around smart contract interactions.
However, passkeys are not risk-free. The source notes that losing a device or passkey can still create serious access problems, and recovery may require trusting a third party depending on implementation. That concern was raised publicly by Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, who questioned Coinbase’s Smart Wallet design by asking what would happen if a passkey were hacked—characterizing it as “basically a hosted wallet with a better sales pitch.”
Multisignature wallets represent a different approach: splitting transaction authority across multiple keys. In a common 2-of-3 configuration, any two signers can authorize outgoing transfers, reducing the odds that a single lost device or compromised key permanently ends access.
Yet multisig is not a complete solution on its own. The source explains that multisig arrangements can require ongoing availability from multiple participants, can slow down transfers due to coordination, and may introduce additional exposure if using smart contract-based wallet infrastructure. It also highlights Casa’s model, which combines multisig custody with a mix of a hardware wallet, a mobile phone, and a key held by Casa, while noting that many large Ethereum ecosystem treasuries use Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe), a smart-account multisig with a web interface.
Even in multisig settings, the source includes earlier guidance from Casa’s Nick Neuman: users should still spread risk across multiple providers rather than relying on a single custody layer.
Exchanges and paper wallets: convenience trades for custody control
Centralized exchanges are the most straightforward custody alternative for many active traders. The source frames the appeal as convenience: by keeping crypto on an exchange, users shift private key management responsibilities to the company. But the recurring warning “not your keys, not your coins” remains central, since exchange histories include hacks, exploits, and even extreme cases where access to customer assets was taken improperly.
While operational security has improved and many platforms publish proof-of-reserves reports, the source cautions that proof of reserves does not fully establish an institution’s ability to meet every obligation in all circumstances. It also emphasizes that regulatory reporting requirements have grown; the source references OECD Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework-style expectations and notes that customers may be required to provide identity, residency, or tax details, with noncompliance potentially leading to account restrictions or suspended withdrawals.
Paper wallets are another alternative mentioned in the source, with keys printed offline. But the article argues that they often fail a practical security test: generating a wallet safely can be difficult, since compromised systems, malicious generators, or poor randomness can leak private keys before they are printed. Paper can also be lost or damaged, and importing the private key into an internet-connected wallet can undo the offline advantage.
What this means for investors deciding between self-custody options
The overarching message in the source is that there is no universal “best” storage method. Instead, custody should be matched to user circumstances and risk tolerance. Snyder’s framing in the source draws a clear dividing line: self-custody users tend to fall into two groups—those who are long-term crypto “natives” with strong security practices, and everyone else.
If you are not in the first camp, the source suggests self-custody may not be the right fit, and that combining some exposure via centralized exchanges and ETFs can be a practical way to distribute risk as part of a broader portfolio approach.
For readers, the key watch items are straightforward: whether hardware wallets continue to face supply-chain and randomness concerns, how providers strengthen recovery and security around passkey-based access, and whether proof-of-reserves and compliance processes evolve in ways that meaningfully change custody risk for everyday holders.
This article was originally published as 5 Ledger Alternatives for Storing Bitcoin: Key Options to Consider on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Cardano Foundation is urging European Union policymakers to avoid creating a fresh, stand-alone regulatory regime specifically for decentralized finance (DeFi) and staking. In a submission to the European Commission, the foundation argues that lawmakers should apply existing financial rules based on what an activity actually does and what risks it creates—rather than classifying the activity according to the underlying technology.
In a 19-page response posted Wednesday, the foundation also draws a line between users who directly participate in decentralized networks and intermediaries that package services around custody, asset control, or other forms of managed exposure. The distinction, it says, matters for how obligations under EU law should be structured.
Key takeaways
The Cardano Foundation says DeFi and staking should be regulated by activity and risk, not by the technology used to deliver them.
It calls for clearer separation between direct user participation and intermediary services, especially those involving custody or control of user assets.
The submission warns that poorly aligned rules between MiCA and existing financial legislation could create uncertainty for crypto businesses operating across EU member states.
Its position aligns with broader EU deliberations about expanding oversight for staking, lending/borrowing, and certain DeFi-related access services.
Substance over structure in EU crypto oversight
At the center of the Cardano Foundation’s argument is a principle it says EU regulators should adopt: regulation should follow the “substance of an activity,” including the functions performed and the risks created, instead of focusing on whether the activity is conducted through decentralized infrastructure.
In its response, the foundation emphasizes that not all crypto participation is equivalent from a legal and risk perspective. While decentralized networks enable users to participate directly, other models involve intermediaries that may manage keys, provide custody, or exercise control over users’ funds. According to the foundation, these two categories should not be treated identically.
The foundation’s stance also implicitly challenges a one-size-fits-all approach. If EU rules are written around “DeFi” as a label, the foundation argues, they risk capturing fundamentally different behaviors under the same regulatory umbrella—an outcome it believes would increase compliance complexity without necessarily improving consumer or market protection.
Delegation on Cardano vs. intermediary staking services
The submission highlights delegation as a concrete example of how the EU could distinguish between decentralized user involvement and intermediary-run services. The Cardano Foundation states that Cardano users can delegate native ADA tokens to help secure the network without surrendering custody or locking their tokens.
On that basis, it argues that this type of participation should be treated differently from staking services operated by intermediaries, where users may not retain the same level of control or custody. The distinction matters because EU regulatory obligations often become stricter when providers take custody, control assets, or manage key operational components on behalf of users.
For market participants, the underlying issue is whether regulators will define staking and participation primarily by user autonomy or by the broader system in which the staking outcome is produced. If the EU follows the Cardano Foundation’s framing, it could lead to more differentiated compliance paths for protocol users versus entities offering managed staking products.
MiCA overlap risk and member-state inconsistency
Beyond staking mechanics, the foundation’s response focuses on how MiCA interacts with other existing financial laws. It warns that overlapping requirements and inconsistent interpretations across EU member states could generate uncertainty for crypto businesses.
The foundation argues that regulators should provide clearer distinctions between what MiCA covers and what is already addressed under existing financial legislation. In its view, ambiguity about jurisdictional boundaries could lead to fragmented compliance standards—particularly for firms operating in multiple EU countries or building services that sit close to established categories such as financial intermediation or custody-related functions.
This is a practical concern for the industry: when firms cannot clearly map products and services to the governing legal framework, compliance costs tend to rise, and product design often shifts toward the least-regulated path rather than the most transparent one.
Broader EU scrutiny of staking and DeFi access
The Cardano Foundation’s regulatory message arrives as EU oversight discussions continue to evolve. In September, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) recommended additional safeguards for staking, lending and borrowing, and also suggested a new regulated service category for firms providing access to DeFi protocols.
That ESMA recommendation sets the stage for the kind of detailed boundary-setting the Cardano Foundation is calling for. ESMA’s approach—covering both risk mitigation measures and the possibility of a regulated category for certain DeFi-related access—suggests EU regulators are looking to address how users connect to decentralized protocols, not just how protocols function in isolation.
The Cardano Foundation’s submission effectively pushes back on the need for a new, standalone DeFi-and-staking framework. Instead, it advocates treating activities according to the financial role they play and the specific risks they introduce—an approach designed to align crypto services with established regulatory categories.
Regulatory clarity efforts extend beyond Europe
While the submission is aimed at the European Commission, the foundation’s push for clearer rules also has a transatlantic dimension. The Cardano Foundation joined five other blockchain organizations in an Oct. 20 letter urging the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to formally recognize digital commodities as non-securities under its proposed crypto framework.
That U.S. effort is separate from the EU process, but it reflects a common industry theme: participants want clearer legal definitions that reduce ambiguity and support consistent compliance across jurisdictions.
As the EU reviews the Cardano Foundation’s response, the key watch item is how regulators will draw lines between direct protocol participation and intermediary-managed services, and whether MiCA will be harmonized cleanly with existing financial laws. Those choices will determine how staking and DeFi access are likely to be structured—and what compliance burdens firms may face as EU oversight expands.
This article was originally published as Cardano Foundation Urges EU to Keep MiCA Rules Off DeFi, Staking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday compared the Trump administration’s stablecoin legislation to historic banking reforms, arguing that the rules now taking shape could help define how payment stablecoins operate in the United States.
In a post on X, Bessent praised the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s (OCC) final rule implementing the GENIUS Act, calling it a “watershed moment in American finance.” He likened the move to the National Currency Act of 1863—an effort that created a federal structure for nationally chartered banks to issue currency—framing the GENIUS Act as a similar attempt to set national standards for digital payments.
Key takeaways
The OCC finalized rules under the GENIUS Act covering reserve management, redemptions, and risk controls for payment stablecoin issuers.
The final rule is scheduled to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027, with broader regulatory authorization expected for issuers from that date.
Issuing without the required approval under the GENIUS framework could expose companies to penalties.
The OCC’s scope includes banks and nonbank companies seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins under federal supervision.
Bessent’s analogy positions the GENIUS framework as an effort to establish long-term national rules for digital currency, not just short-term oversight.
The OCC’s GENIUS Act rule and what it regulates
According to Cointelegraph’s report on the finalized rule, the OCC’s updates spell out how the GENIUS Act will apply to stablecoin issuers, with specific emphasis on the mechanics that regulators typically focus on for consumer and payment-related instruments.
The GENIUS Act itself, which was signed into law in 2025, created a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins. The OCC’s final rule operationalizes that framework for institutions under its supervision, including requirements tied to stablecoin reserves, how redemptions should work, and the risk management expectations issuers must meet.
OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould characterized the regulation as a “clear, practical framework for payment stablecoin innovation,” signaling the agency’s intent to provide implementable guidance for companies seeking to build within the law.
For investors and market participants, the practical significance is that regulatory compliance is no longer just a policy discussion—it is becoming a set of defined operational requirements. Stablecoins are increasingly marketed for payments and money transfers, so the reserve and redemption rules can influence how issuers structure products and how counterparties assess risk.
When the rules start and why authorization matters
Cointelegraph reports that the OCC rules are scheduled to take effect on Jan. 18, 2027. From that date, companies issuing payment stablecoins in the United States will generally need regulatory approval under the GENIUS Act framework.
The OCC also indicated that issuing without the required authorization could lead to penalties, making timing an urgent planning issue for issuers and service providers that rely on stablecoins for settlement and payment flows.
In its bulletin on the final rule, the OCC said the regulations apply to national banks, federal savings associations, federal branches of foreign banks, and nonbank companies seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins under federal supervision. The bulletin further notes that the rules also cover certain foreign payment stablecoin issuers, extending the compliance conversation beyond purely domestic entities.
Room for “innovation,” but within a federal structure
Bessent’s remarks were notable not only for the historical comparison, but for how they framed the GENIUS Act as an engine for competition and growth. He said the OCC rule would support “private-sector innovation, competition, and American leadership in digital assets.”
The Lincoln-era parallel Bessent drew is meant to communicate continuity: just as the National Currency Act established a system for currency issuance within a federal banking structure, the GENIUS Act and OCC rule are positioned to establish an analog for digital payment stablecoins. Whether the outcome mirrors the effectiveness of the 1863 legislation will depend on implementation details—particularly how strictly authorization requirements are applied and how quickly industry participants can align reserves, redemption processes, and risk governance.
There is also a market timing angle. Cointelegraph noted that dollar-denominated stablecoins have been gaining traction for payments and money transfers, even as growth in overall supply has stalled. A regulatory framework that reduces uncertainty could matter most at the margin—encouraging additional payment-focused deployment while discouraging activity that can’t meet reserve and redemption requirements.
What issuers, banks, and payment providers should watch next
With the effective date set for Jan. 18, 2027, attention will likely shift from rulemaking to execution: how companies apply for authorization, how supervisors evaluate reserves and redemption readiness, and what risk management standards issuers must demonstrate in practice.
Industry watchers may also want to monitor how banks and payment providers respond as the stablecoin compliance boundary firms up. The broader ecosystem is already trending toward more formal risk controls for stablecoin-related activity, and the OCC rule adds another layer of standardized expectations for issuers under federal oversight.
For now, the central open question remains whether the new framework will accelerate adoption by clarifying permissible structures—or slow it by raising the cost and timeline of authorization. Either way, the shift from legislative intent to enforceable rules is likely to be a defining moment for payment stablecoins in the U.S.
This article was originally published as Treasury Secretary Bessent Compares GENIUS Act to Lincoln-Era Reform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.