Cryptopolitan

Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange, has revealed that a large share of the traders using its newest tokenized stock product had never engaged with equities on the exchange before.
The exchange has spent the past several months building out three separate routes into traditional market exposures, launching pre-IPO exposure through perpetual futures, direct access to US-listed stocks, and bStocks, its tokenized on-chain securities.
One of the standout figures is that four in ten bStocks users had their first-ever exposure via Binance’s TradFi via the product.
Why are new Binance users choosing the tokenized version first?
Binance’s figures show that 41.5% of bStocks traders had not previously used perpetual futures or direct stock trading on the platform, meaning the token was their first exposure to equities on Binance at all.
According to the platform, bStock listings grew from 5 to 36 within a month, and combined market capitalization across the tokens reportedly passed $300 million over the same period.
Binance also says that the ease of use on the platform has made it easy for users to make certain moves that may require more steps on traditional platforms. It used SPCX, a recent pre-IPO listing of SpaceX stock on the platform, as a case study, stating that 8.6% of the users who traded its pre-IPO perpetual contract went on to buy the bStock version, as opposed to 0.6% who moved into the direct stock.
What happens once conventional markets close?
Traditional US equities trade on a 24/5 schedule. bStocks trades around the clock every day, and Binance said that difference shows up directly in its volume data.
During regular US market hours, bStocks and direct stocks split equity-linked volume on Binance almost evenly, with bStocks at 48%. However, it goes up to 58% once the market closes for the day.
The exchange says that reasons for this go beyond extended hours. Each bStock is meant to be backed one-to-one by a share held with a regulated custodian, a claim the exchange says can be checked through its own Proof of Collateral page, and dividends are paid out automatically through a rebasing mechanism it calls the Multiplier.
Holders can also deploy bStocks in decentralized finance, supplying them to liquidity pools or using them as collateral. Binance cited PancakeSwap liquidity pairs, which show yields ranging from roughly 32% to 228%, and native credit pools offering a steadier 5% to 10%.
Instant, fee-free conversion between a bStock and its underlying share is intended to keep the two priced closely together; however, gaps can still open when conventional markets are shut and on-chain trading continues.
Binance said a sample of users generated $216 million in trades exploiting these gaps between June 11 and July 8. A small group of systematic traders accounted for most of that volume, even though most individual participants only traded once.
Does Binance’s data reflect a wider industry pattern?
Binance’s own figures suggest its products aren’t being used in isolation, as it pointed out that 58.5% of bStock users also traded perpetual futures or direct stocks in the same window, split across users combining perps and bStocks, all three products together, or direct stocks and bStocks.
Independent data shows tokenized stocks have become the largest real-world-asset (RWA) category by wallet count, with newcomers favoring tokenized equities as their entry point into the RWA market rather than as an add-on. The current distributed value tokenized stocks market is $1.88 billion, with a monthly transfer volume of over $7.6 billion per rwa.xyz data.
Several exchanges have expanded tokenized equity offerings into new markets this year, and clearing infrastructure providers like the DTCC have begun testing tokenized securities settlement, while major exchanges such as Nasdaq and the NYSE have launched their own tokenization initiatives.
Set against that backdrop, Binance’s numbers look less like an isolated marketing claim and more like a snapshot of a shift already underway across the industry.

Mitsubishi has now joined a growing list of automakers around the world pushing to start making their own robots.
The Japanese automaker is teaming with Tokyo-based Highlanders Inc. to mass-produce humanoid robots, according to a Sunday report by The Mainichi.
Highlanders, a startup that spun out of the University of Tokyo in 2023, builds general-purpose humanoid and quadruped robots using domestically sourced parts.
“There is no company (in Japan) that can compete with global companies in the realm of physical AI,” said Highlanders CEO Hiroya Masuoka. “We want to take a step forward.”
Mitsubishi targets making 1,000 robots by 2027
Mitsubishi intends to leverage its manufacturing expertise in this alliance, with a target to hit a production capacity of 1,000 humanoids per month before the end of 2027, according to the report.
The company mentioned labor shortages as one reason behind the move. It also plans to deploy humanoid robots on an engine manufacturing line at its factory in Kyoto, Japan.
“In Japan, we are the ‘leadoff hitter’ in mass producing’ humanoid robots, said Mitsubishi Motors CEO Takao Kato.
The companies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the partnership earlier this month.
Highlanders agreed to work with Mitsubishi to develop robots for use in the automaker’s facilities. In turn, Mitsubishi Motors’ Kyoto Plant will be used to mass-produce Highlanders’ robots.
The announcement revealed Mitsubishi Motors already has a stake in Highlanders, and it plans to make additional investments in the future.
Meanwhile, the deal puts a Japanese automaker into a contest that already includes Hyundai, Tesla, BYD, Xiaomi, and XPeng, all of which have moved to put walking robots on their own assembly lines.
Automakers are investing heavily in humanoids
Xiaomi is already testing humanoid robots in its car production facility. On July 15th, Cryptopolitan reported that Xiaomi’s robots hit 98% success rate, just 1% below the performance level of human workers.
The tech giant plans to deploy “a large number” of humanoid robots in its factories over the next five years.
Another Chinese automaker, XPeng, plans to launch its humanoids globally by next year, as part of its plan to become a “physical AI company.”
South Korea’s Hyundai took the acquisition route. The Korean group agreed in July to buy SoftBank’s remaining 9.65% stake in Boston Dynamics for an estimated 500 billion won, or about $338 million, Cryptopolitan reported.
Having full control of the robotics firm, Hyundai intends to deploy Boston Dynamics’ humanoid robot, Atlas, at its Metaplant America electric-vehicle complex in Georgia starting in 2028.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

If you’re a Bitget user in Canada, you’ve probably noticed something’s off lately. Since January 2026, Bitget has been rolling out restrictions for Canadian accounts. No new sign ups, no Interac or bank transfers, and a countdown on any positions you still have open.
If you’re trying to figure out what to do next, BTCC is worth considering, especially if you’re mainly a futures trader who cares about leverage and a solid safety record.
To be clear, this isn’t a “BTCC vs Bitget, who wins” kind of article. Bitget still does a lot of things well, copy trading and its huge coin selection being the obvious ones, and BTCC doesn’t try to compete on those fronts. This is really just an honest look at what BTCC offers, so if you’re a Canadian user who needs a platform you can keep actually using, you have enough to make your own call.
What Happened with Bitget in Canada
On January 12, 2026, Bitget sent a notice directly to Canadian IP addresses. Following updated guidance from the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) around stablecoin custody, Bitget ended up being geofenced out of offering new or expanded services to Canadian residents.
Here’s what that actually looks like for users:
No new Canadian KYC is being accepted as of January 2026, so new users can’t sign up at all
Interac and bank wire funding have been shut off for Canadian accounts
Existing positions are limited to “Reduce Only” orders, meaning you can close trades but not open new ones
Canadian users have been removed from Bitget Earn pools
Open positions are being force closed over a 90 day window
Withdrawals to external wallets still work, at least for now
The core issue seems to be that fully serving Canadian users would have required Bitget to register as a FINTRAC Money Services Business and go through a Pre Registration Undertaking with the OSC and CIRO. That’s a slow, expensive process that also means segregating Canadian user funds from the platform’s global operations, and it looks like Bitget chose not to go down that road, at least for now.
If you’re a Canadian Bitget user, the practical upshot is that you’re on a clock. That’s the situation this article is meant to help with.
A Quick, Honest Comparison
Before anything else, here’s a side by side look at the basics. Bitget genuinely has some advantages here too, so this table isn’t cherry picked to make BTCC look perfect.
BTCCBitgetFounded20112018Registered users12M+120M+Futures pairs400+840+Spot pairs380+840+Max leverage500x125xFutures maker fee0.025%0.02%Futures taker fee0.05%0.06%Copy tradingyesyesDemo tradingyes ($100,000 virtual)yesZero cut liquidation protectionyesyesCanadian availability (mid 2026)No restriction observedSupport Interac depositrestricted since Jan 2026
**Fees change with VIP tier and volume, so always check the current rates on each platform before trading.
The short version: BTCC is a futures focused exchange with a high leverage ceiling and a clean security history. Bitget is a broader platform with more coins. Which one fits you depends a lot on how you actually trade, but if you’re a Canadian user, the “can I even use it” question matters more than usual right now.
What You’d Actually Pay in Fees
Futures Trading
Fee typeBTCCBitgetMaker0.03%0.02%Taker0.048%0.06%
If you mostly place market orders, BTCC works out a bit cheaper. If you’re mostly placing limit orders, Bitget has the edge. Either way the difference per trade is small, it just adds up with volume.
At Different Trading Volumes (Taker Orders)
Monthly volumeBTCC (0.048%)Bitget (0.06%)Annual difference$10,000$4.8/month$6/monthabout $12/year$100,000$48/month$60/monthabout $120/year$500,000$240/month$300/monthabout $600/year
For casual trading this is basically pocket change. If you’re trading heavily, it’s worth a few hundred dollars a year, so not nothing, but not the main thing to decide on either.
VIP Tiers
BTCCBitgetVolume needed for VIP1No volume needed, just $200 deposit$5M/monthVIP1 taker fee0.045%0.04%VIP1 maker fee0.025%0.018%
BTCC’s VIP1 tier is easier to reach. Bitget’s fees end up a touch lower once you’re actually there. If VIP tiers matter to your trading, it’s worth running the numbers for your own volume.
Leverage, and What It Actually Means
BTCCBitgetBTC/USDT max leverage250x125xETH/USDT max leverage250x125xOther pairsup to 50 to 250xup to 75x
Say you’re putting up $100 margin on a BTC long:
BTCC (250x)Bitget (125x)Max position size$25,000$12,500BTC equivalent at $100K/BTC0.25 BTC0.125 BTCP/L on a 1% BTC move$250$125
The flip side of high leverage is worth spelling out clearly:
LeverageMove to liquidation$100 wiped out at250xabout 0.4%BTC $100,000 to $99,800125xabout 0.8%BTC $100,000 to $99,20050xabout 2.0%BTC $100,000 to $98,000
At 250x, a move as small as 0.4% (something BTC can easily do within an hour) can wipe out your margin. Both platforms use zero cut liquidation, so you’ll never owe more than you put in, but the margin itself can disappear fast at the higher end.
Honestly, the real benefit of a 250x ceiling isn’t that you should trade at 250x all the time. It’s more about flexibility, being able to size positions the way you want across a portfolio. If you like trading futures with real leverage room, BTCC gives you more of that. If 125x is already more than you’d use anyway, this difference won’t affect you much.
Security and Track Record
BTCCBitgetYears operating15+ (since 2011)7+ (since 2018)History of hacksnonenoneProof of Reserves147%175%Zero cut systemyesyes
BTCC’s story here is simple: no hack in 15-plus years, through a period that included Mt. Gox, FTX, and the 2025 Bybit breach, all of which made a lot of traders rethink how they pick an exchange.
Bitget’s story is a bit different. A 175% Proof of Reserves means more reserve coverage on paper than BTCC reports.
Neither one has an obvious weak spot. It really comes down to whether you’d rather trust “this platform has never had an incident” or “this platform has more of a cushion if one happens.”
Where Bitget Still Has an Edge
It wouldn’t be fair to skip this part. If a really wide coin selection matters to you, that’s genuinely an area where Bitget is stronger, and BTCC doesn’t try to match it.
BTCCBitgetFutures pairs370+840+Spot pairs370+840+Tokenized stocks/commoditiesyesnot availableStakinglimitedextensive
If you like following experienced traders instead of building your own strategy, or you want exposure to newer or smaller coins, that’s a real reason to miss Bitget. Where BTCC pulls ahead is if you also want tokenized exposure to things like stocks or gold alongside your crypto futures, all on one platform.
Is BTCC Worth Trying
If you…BTCC might work well because…Mainly trade futures and want high leverage250x ceiling with zero cut protectionCare most about a clean security history15 years, no incidentsAlso want exposure to stocks or commoditiesTokenized products alongside crypto futuresAre new to futures and want to practice first$100,000 demo accountMostly place market ordersSlightly lower taker feeNeed a platform that can still onboard you as a CanadianBitget isn’t accepting new Canadian sign ups right now
Moving Your Funds from Bitget to BTCC
If you’re a Canadian Bitget user in the reduced window, here’s roughly how the process goes:
Log into Bitget, go to Assets, then Withdraw.
Pick a coin that both platforms support for transfers. USDT is usually the simplest option, just make sure the network (like TRC20) matches on both sides.
Copy your BTCC deposit address for that coin and network exactly.
Send a small test transfer first, something like $10 to $20, before moving everything over. Getting the network wrong can mean losing funds permanently.
Once the test transfer arrives safely, move the rest and close out your Bitget position before the reduce only window ends.
Getting Started with BTCC
Sign up on the official BTCC site with your email or phone number.
Complete KYC by uploading a government ID, approval is usually quick.
Deposit funds and start trading, or try the demo account first if futures trading is new to you.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Bitget still usable in Canada? Existing users can reduce or close positions and withdraw to external wallets, but no new Canadian accounts are being accepted, and CAD funding methods are turned off. Full service hasn’t resumed as of this writing.
Is BTCC available to Canadian users? Yes. BTCC does offer service to users in Canada. They have Interac e-Transfer for Canadian users to deposit CAD.
Is higher leverage always better? Not really. It increases how efficiently you use your capital, but at 250x a move of just 0.4% can wipe out your margin. The real upside is flexibility in how you size positions, not maxing out the leverage every time.
Can I use both platforms? Outside Canada, sure, plenty of traders use BTCC for futures and Bitget for copy trading or spot. For Canadian users right now, that’s less of an option given the restrictions described above.
One Last Thing
Bitget’s restrictions in Canada aren’t a rumor or a marketing talking point, they’re a real, dated regulatory situation that puts current users on a timeline. If that’s you, and futures trading with solid leverage and a long clean safety record sounds like what you need, BTCC is worth checking out for yourself. The demo account is a good low pressure way to get a feel for it before moving real funds over.
This article is for general information only and isn’t investment advice. Please confirm current fees, leverage limits, and regulatory status directly with each platform before trading.

ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) had its long-anticipated IPO on Monday, July 27. The sale coincided with a spike of activity on Hyperliquid, as CXMT drew the attention of whales and retail traders.
The CXMT IPO was expected to become the biggest offering on the Shanghai stock exchange since 2011. As Cryptopolitan reported, the China AI stock rush was seen as a new opportunity, and was immediately taken over by crypto traders.
CXMT saw a record trading spike, as well as an inflow of crypto whales taking directional positions for one of the biggest IPOs in Mainland China. | Source: HIP-3
CXMT is already available through TradeXYZ, after the platform bought the rights to the ticker on Hyperliquid for 500 HYPE.
As of July 27, CXMT had over $45M open interest on HIP-3, with a new peak of daily volumes above $9M after the initial record spike. The day of the IPO coincided with significant selling, as both the perpetual futures contract and the stock were in price discovery mode.
CXMT surges in Shanghai trading
The chipmaker CXMT became China’s most valuable AI infrastructure firm, after surging between 470% and 530% in its Shanghai debut. The company’s total market cap is estimated at over $483B, making it the most valuable listed company in mainland China.
The stock market debut also tests the strength of the chipmaker and AI stock narrative. CXMT is a major DRAM producer, a basic component powering user electronics, as well as data centers.
The IPO proceeds are expected to go toward expanded production and additional research and development.
Beyond the business model of CXMT, the main driver for the rapid price expansion was the peak demand for shares, far exceeding the IPO offers.
The demand spilled over into on-chain trading, as Hyperliquid offered an entry point to speculating on the early price discovery. On the first day of trading, the HIP-3 market for CXMT reached 1.14% of the volumes on the Shanghai stock exchange, with a spike to $234M in the first hours of post-IPO trading.
Former BTC whale jumps into CXMT
On HIP-3, the price of CXMT ranged from over $8 to $5.99. The price range set by perpetual futures traders was closer to the actual IPO price, compared to the company’s initial target of $1.20 per share.
After the IPO, HIP-3 held 13 whale positions for CXMT, of which seven were showing bullish confidence with long positions.
The leading position is still short, with $17.87M in notional value. The leading whale has an unrealized loss of $1.24M after the price rally.
Another whale, mostly known for BTC positions, fully switched to trading CXMT. The whale still holds a $4.81M position, fluctuating between gains of $300K and small temporary losses. The whales are still waiting for the stock to choose a direction in the initial post-IPO days.
At this point, it’s unknown if any of the whales have also succeeded in gaining IPO shares directly from the company. In this case, shorting CXMT would be a hedging strategy in case the shares took a nosedive after the initial hype. This scenario would also point to Hyperliqid as a hedging tool, to be used in other upcoming high-profile IPOs.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

A North Korean hacking crew screens crypto wallets before it strikes. The group tricks victims into fake Zoom and Microsoft Teams calls.
UK security firm JUMPSEC released the source code analysis this week. BlueNoroff’s operation targets the people who hold private keys. It just needs one person to click the wrong prompt.
BlueNoroff screens crypto wallets before choosing who to infect
JUMPSEC was able to retrieve the kit’s true source code after its operators left JavaScript source maps exposed on live infrastructure.
The files describe a workflow that scans a target’s browser as soon as they land on the fake meeting page. JUMPSEC found that the kit looks for Ethereum connections with the EIP-6963 standard and with legacy browser techniques.
It also probes for non-EVM wallets like Solana tools. The results are pushed directly to an operator dashboard. And the person on the call never gets a prompt or warning.
The malware on Windows computers has a list of browser extension IDs for Chrome, Edge, Brave, Opera, Vivaldi, and Firefox. Hackers then use these IDs to check against known wallet extensions like MetaMask.
Attackers can check each wallet, decide which ones are worth a full break-in, and then send payloads to those targets. The lure is based on the victim’s existing trust in someone else.
Attackers take over a crypto contact’s Telegram account and send a convincing Calendly invite to a fake meeting domain. Each hijacked account leads to that contact’s own crypto contacts, who become the next round of targets.
As soon as the video call starts, the page asks for a name and webcam access. It then sends the camera feed to the attacker’s panel in the background.
A screenshot from a victim saying their Telegram account was hacked. Source: JUMPSEC.
Victims then see a screen that says “waiting for other participants.” Then the operator plays a pre-recorded video and says to the victim, “Your mic isn’t working.” After that, a fake “Zoom SDK Update” message pops up.
The face on the call isn’t real, according to JUMPSEC. Attackers stitch AI-generated headshots onto body movements captured in earlier meetings.
The fake Teams meeting page includes emoji reactions, device settings, background effects, and wallet scanning. JUMPSEC also found an incomplete Google Meet clone inside the exposed code.
Every operating system has dedicated malware payloads
On Windows, the copied ClickFix command launches a small PowerShell loader that downloads a VBScript. Then it adds a Microsoft Defender exclusion and restarts Defender to make the change permanent.
The payload collects system information and searches for wallet extensions in browsers. It also searches for Telegram Web files. And it can receive later payloads that researchers never quite recovered.
Hackers drop a fake Zoom or Teams installer on macOS while a stealer runs silently. It steals system data and Chrome master keys from Apple’s Keychain and sends them via Telegram.
Security researchers found four macOS versions from April 22 to July 15. Arctic Wolf and JUMPSEC found five phishing kit versions shipped between May 31 and July 14, with full compromise in under five minutes.
Arctic Wolf’s research identified more than 100 victims in over 20 countries, including 41% in the United States. In April, Arctic Wolf tallied more than 80 typosquatted meeting domains registered since late 2025.
About 80% of those targeted work in crypto or blockchain finance, and 45% are founders or CEOs. The timing of the attacks also corresponded with business hours in North Korea.
BlueNoroff is a subgroup of the Lazarus Group. Cryptopolitan reported earlier that Lazarus targeted banks and crypto firms with a fileless RemotePE trojan, using similar Telegram and fake-scheduler lures.

If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

On Sunday, July 26, Michael Saylor posted Strategy’s Bitcoin purchase chart to X. The caption said, “We’re gonna need another color.” It was his fifth such post since the company’s last disclosed Bitcoin purchase on June 22.
MSTR trades as a leveraged proxy for Saylor’s Bitcoin buying, and dozens of treasury companies copied his model. For the first time in two years, Strategy has gone four weeks without adding a single coin to its portfolio.
Saylor’s Sunday chart stops signaling Monday Bitcoin buys
For years, a Sunday night Saylor chart was a reliable predictor of an 8-K filing on Monday. That filing would reveal another tranche of Bitcoin. The signal has been weakening lately. He posted on June 28, “We’re gonna need more charts,” but it was a new capital framework. And then there was the July 5 post right before the largest Bitcoin sale Strategy had ever done.
Saylor floated “green dots” in late November, a day before Strategy announced a $1.44 billion dollar reserve with a 130 BTC buy. On January 4, he posted a hint for whether coins or cash were coming, asking followers, “Orange or Green?”
The Sunday post drew a lot of engagement with more than 11,000 likes and over 1,400 replies. Saylor, however, never explained the caption, and the company confirmed no transaction took place.
Strategy’s market value against its Bitcoin, enterprise mNAV, fell below 1 on June 27. MSTR is trading at a discount to the value of the coins it holds. Selling shares to buy more Bitcoin doesn’t grow Bitcoin per share anymore, it shrinks it. Meanwhile, the preferred stock dividends of Strategy, with STRC lifted to a 12% rate, have to be paid in cash.
We’re gonna need another color. pic.twitter.com/AqZO5UeXDx
— Michael Saylor (@saylor) July 26, 2026
Strategy has 113 buys totaling 843,775 BTC, paid for at an average of $75,476 per coin for $63.69 billion. That stack is worth about $55.1 billion with Bitcoin at $65,283.96, leaving the position about $8.6 billion underwater.
The late-June capital framework created new exits for cash. It approved a $1 billion digital credit securities buyback, a $1 billion common stock buyback, and a program of as much as $1.25 billion in Bitcoin sales. On July 23, Strategy changed the way it calculates mNAV and warned that figures prior to that date are no longer comparable. Shares of MSTR closed at $91.67 on Friday, down from $94.85 a week ago.
Strategy sends cash to reserves
Strategy is still in the process of raising capital. It’s just parking the proceeds now. The company sold 2,732,318 MSTR shares for net proceeds of $263.5 million in the period July 13 to July 19 and did not purchase any Bitcoin. Its SEC filing of July 20 put the new dollar reserve at $3.225 billion. The reserve now covers ~1.8 years of dividend commitments.
The room to keep raising isn’t the constraint. Strategy can continue to sell up to $23.53 billion of additional common stock under its existing at-the-market programs. But the pause is a choice, not a dry well.
The pause comes after a warning Strategy received in June. CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno has urged the company to stop buying Bitcoin and rebuild its cash buffer, Cryptopolitan reported on June 24. Reserves dropped about 38% from early 2026.
Moreno said Strategy’s dividend obligations ballooned about fourfold in six months to $1.2 billion, and dividend coverage collapsed from more than seven years to about 14 months.
“Buying whenever capital is available is not a strategy,” he said, calling that “a formula for accumulating at cycle peaks.” Instead, he suggested a model-based approach to time future purchases.
The next hard data point is Thursday, July 30, when Strategy reports second-quarter results after the U.S. market closes that day.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Dormant Bitcoin activity dropped in the second quarter. It fell to its lowest level since the third quarter of 2022. The figures were shared by Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Digital, in a post on X.
The reawakening of old coins has historically coincided with profit-taking by Bitcoin’s longest-term holders.
Dormant Bitcoin awakenings slow after two-year sell-off
Dormant coin movement is when Bitcoin sits still for years, then moves again. It’s closely watched by analysts, and activity from long-held wallets has often coincided with selling. Quiet wallets indicate holders are holding tight.
“OGs taking profit,” Thorn said, comparing the pattern to Bitcoin’s 2017 bull run. Most of the Bitcoin veterans who wanted to sell into 2024 and 2025 strength, in his reading, are done. That’s one less local selling pressure on the market. Coin days destroyed tells a similar tale. That metric, which measures spending weighted by how long coins were sitting idle, also fell in Q2.
Thorn called the two-year period “a great distribution” in mid-July. He wrote that 2024 and 2025 moved as much long-dormant Bitcoin onchain as the entire 2017 rally, and nothing in between came close. And he pegged the pace for 2026 to be less than half of last year’s dormant coin reactivations.
Galaxy’s charts go back to 2016. They show a repeating cycle, with old coins waking up during the rallies of 2017, 2021, and again across 2024 and 2025. Holders of coins aged 1 to 10 years moved large amounts, mostly to sell. The distribution peaked at the end of 2025, with coins aged between one and two years representing about 900,000 BTC moved in one month. This year, that flow dried up.
Q2 dormant coin awakening volume was the lowest since Q3 2022 and down substantially from the elevated levels of 2024 and 2025 pic.twitter.com/thrC9K6Gdx
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) July 25, 2026
Bitcoin hovers near $65,000 as whale selling eases
Bitcoin’s cooling comes after a steep drop. The token reached an all-time high of over $126,000 in October 2025. It then fell to around 48% to trade around $65,265 by mid-July. And it’s trading at $64,808.55 at the time of writing.
But Thorn pushed back against one theory circulating online. “We are not seeing whales selling on quantum computing risk,” he said. Galaxy works with a large pool of institutional investors, and not one cited quantum risk as a reason to close a position, Thorn said. Quantum fear more often discourages outside buyers than it encourages existing holders to sell, he said.
The big holders had been visibly selling for months before the slowdown. On July 3, Cryptopolitan reported that several whale wallets, including one belonging to venture capitalist Tim Draper and other wallets containing mining-firm reserves, were moving coins to exchanges. Bitcoin was trading at about $57,950 at the time, a 21-month low.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Crypto traders are getting access to China’s AI stock rush through a route Beijing did not build for them. Instead of buying mainland shares, offshore investors are using perpetual futures tied to Chinese chip companies.
The contracts let users to wager on share values without actually holding the shares, and they are traded continuously on cryptocurrency exchanges.
Due to this arrangement, a distinct market for names has been established that is difficult for foreign capital to access through regular exchanges.
The biggest target is CXMT, a Chinese memory-chip maker due to start trading in Shanghai on Monday. TradeXYZ and Gate.com have listed perpetual contracts linked to the company before its public debut.
CoinGlass recorded about $19 million in CXMT perp volume over 24 hours. The chipmaker wants to collect nearly $10 billion, which would make the deal mainland China’s largest IPO since 2010.
Crypto platforms give offshore traders a way around China’s stock access rules
Beijing maintains a controlled framework to prevent foreign investment in Shanghai and Shenzhen stocks. Typically, foreign investors participate through the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor framework or Hong Kong’s Stock Connect program.
There are restrictions to both methods. While limits limit the amount of money that can go through the authorized routes, Stock Connect only covers a limited number of businesses.
CXMT will enter Shanghai’s STAR Market, which has strict entry requirements for locals. Retail traders are required to maintain a minimum of 500,000 yuan, or around $74,000, in qualifying assets.
Additionally, a two-year trading history is necessary. This prevents many mainland purchasers from taking the company’s pricing into consideration.
Since the trader never receives the shares, perpetual futures eliminate those account regulations. The product started out in cryptocurrency marketplaces as a means of placing bets on assets like Bitcoin without acquiring ownership.
Also, it has no expiration date. Stablecoins are typically posted as collateral by users, who then take a long or short position depending on where they believe the price will move.
It now encompasses more than just tokens. Benefits linked to stocks, commodities, and private businesses are posted on cryptocurrency exchanges. They have already been employed by traders to gain early exposure to SpaceX and OpenAI prior to their public offerings.
SpaceX contracts have also been used by Chinese users to circumvent laws intended to prevent the flow of funds out of the nation.
On Wednesday, TradeXYZ added a new Chinese chip contract. The new perp gives ten-fold leverage and tracks GigaDevice Semiconductor (SSE: 603986). This implies that losses can increase at the same rate as gains, yet a small deposit can manage a much larger position.
CXMT’s crypto price runs far above the company’s planned Shanghai valuation
A pre-IPO perp trades on guesses about what a company may be worth once its shares begin public trading. A buyer makes money when the listed stock opens above the derivative price. After the debut, a market data feed is expected to pull the contract closer to the live share price.
Theo’s chief investment officer, Iggy Ioppe, stated that the perp should match the underlying stock. Tokenized real-world assets are used by Theo. Instead of closing the position on a predetermined date, traders can continue to use the contract after the listing because it never expires.
The CXMT contract on Hyperliquid was trading close to $6.35 per share on Thursday. Before declining again, it had reached $8.60. The suggested corporate value was close to $425 billion, or around 2.9 trillion yuan, on Thursday.
That valuation would place CXMT above Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (SSE: 601398; HKEX: 1398). ICBC, the biggest mainland-listed company, is valued at about 2.56 trillion yuan.
The official IPO figures are far lower. The first sale price announced by CXMT was 8.66 yuan, or around $1.28 per share. As a result, the chipmaker’s initial worth is close to 579 billion yuan. The sale would still be the biggest IPO on the STAR Market in spite of this.
Without purchasing the underlying assets, hyperliquid enables users to trade futures linked to commodities, stocks, and cryptocurrencies.
Due to the inability of overseas investors to directly join the listing, offshore demand contributed to CXMT’s contract being significantly higher than the Shanghai offer price. As a result, before the official share is transferred, a second price is created on cryptocurrency rails.
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh enters this week’s policy meeting with traders pricing a rate increase. Renewed fighting between Iran and the United States has pushed crude oil above $100 a barrel, raising fears that energy costs will feed into inflation.
The meeting starts on Tuesday and will be Kevin’s second as Fed chair. One week ago, futures markets placed the chance of a quarter-point increase below 10%. By Friday, that probability had climbed to 36%.
Investors now fully expect one increase by September. They also expect one or two more quarter-point hikes within nine months. Oil has been unstable since the war began in late February as Washington and Tehran alternated between pauses and fresh attacks.
Traders had bet that closing the Strait of Hormuz would cause only a brief inflation problem, even though about one-fifth of the world’s oil normally passes through that route.
Rising oil prices push traders to prepare for tighter Fed policy
That belief weakened after crude broke above $100. Investors sold government debt across the United States and Europe, sending bond prices lower and yields higher.
The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reached its highest point in 18 months. Ten-year yields in Germany and France also climbed to levels not seen in more than 15 years. Long-term yields rise when markets expect lasting inflation.
Kevin has still another reason to think about higher rates, given the most recent U.S. statistics, which show a robust labor market as weekly unemployment claims dropped to their lowest level since 1969 on Thursday. Although consumer inflation decreased to 3.5% in June, it is still much higher than the Fed’s target of 2%. Officials may be less inclined to wait if the economy is doing well, there are few layoffs, and oil prices are high.
Kevin does not provide explicit clues prior to making judgments. As a purposeful return to policy decisions, he has advocated the termination of advance signals. “If we get policy right, and we will, the inflation surge of the last five years will be a thing of the past,” he said to lawmakers this month.
Kevin doesn’t say anything more. He has not disclosed which inflation metric he favors or which economic data he believes to be most reliable. Rather, he has requested that internal task groups examine those inquiries. This contrasts with the Fed’s more liberal approach over the previous 20 years.
Kevin keeps policy debates private as Congress presses for clearer answers
At his White House swearing-in ceremony in May, Kevin thanked former Fed chair Alan Greenspan for being the first person to “show me what this role demands.”
Alan died last month at age 100 and was known for answers that left listeners guessing. He once joked, “If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.”
Kevin gave more than five hours of testimony before Congress this month but offered few firm views. Some answers differed from his earlier statements. Representative Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat, read part of Kevin’s April nomination testimony back to him.
During that hearing, Kevin had spoken favorably about an inflation gauge that removes the largest monthly price changes instead of using the measure the Fed has relied on for years. When Ritchie asked about it, Kevin denied backing one.
“None of those are very good measures of underlying inflation,” Kevin said. “If I had a preferred measure, I wouldn’t have called for a task force to go back to first principles.”
Kevin has not promised to keep the press conference schedule used by his predecessor, Jerome H. Powell. Jerome spoke after every policy meeting, explained how officials saw the economy, and described views inside the rate-setting committee. Kevin’s communications task force is reviewing that schedule.
Reporters asked Kevin last month what would lead the Fed to raise rates. He replied, “I can’t give any forward guidance about what we’re going to do next. The good news is, we’ll be meeting in six weeks,” referring to Tuesday’s meeting. He has said he wants every policy gathering to be a “family fight,” with officials arguing in private instead of announcing the result before the meeting begins.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Trump’s latest tariff plan faces a lawsuit, and the path may be as rough as the last one. Courts killed his earlier “liberation day” duties after ruling that the White House used a law that did not let the president tax imports from most countries.
Trump has returned with another broad tariff program, but the new case says the administration is keeping the policy alive under another law.
The duties started on Friday and cover products from more than 80 countries. Those partners account for 99.4% of U.S. trade. The White House says the tariffs target governments that have not done enough to block goods tied to forced labor.
Trump is relying on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which lets Washington answer unfair practices with tariffs.
Trade lawyers say Trump is stretching Section 301 far beyond its usual limits
Section 301 has been used by several presidents, including Trump during his first term, when the United States imposed duties on China. Peter Harrell, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute of International Economic Law, said this use is broader than usual. He told CNBC, owned by Comcast (NASDAQ: CMCSA), that Trump is “using the statute in a fundamentally different way.”
Harrell said Congress did not create Section 301 so a president could rewrite the U.S. tariff list or leave wide duties in place without an end date. He said courts could “for sure” cancel the policy.
Trump is also using Section 301 for trade fights. On Friday, he said the United States would immediately investigate the European Union after regulators issued penalties against American technology companies. The administration has also placed a 25% tariff on Brazilian imports and threatened a 50% rate on Canadian products.
Two small companies filed the first case hours after the duties began. Their complaint went to the U.S. Court of International Trade. They say the forced labor claim is legal cover for rebuilding the worldwide tariff system that judges rejected five months earlier.
The timing is central. The Section 301 duties began as another tariff group expired. Trump announced those charges under Section 122 of the 1974 law hours after the Supreme Court rejected his global policy on February 20. Section 122 allowed temporary import charges, so those duties had a fixed end date.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, does not permit Trump to impose tariffs on nearly all trading partners by himself, the Supreme Court ruled. The White House cannot circumvent that decision by selecting a different legislation while maintaining essentially the same structure, according to the current complaint.
The filing says Section 301 does not give the president power to tax almost all imports at rates chosen to copy the failed IEEPA system. It argues that duties must be tied to specific foreign conduct and designed to stop it.
Two businesses ask the court to block Trump’s replacement tariff system
The administration denies that it is bringing back the earlier program. A senior official told reporters Thursday that forced labor has concerned Trump “for many years.” The official said the Friday start date was chosen “really to avoid complexity.”
The two companies’ case was brought by the Liberty Justice Center. The challengers who won the previous IEEPA lawsuit were represented by the same NGO. It states that the White House cannot maintain a tariff strategy that was predetermined by changing legal provisions.
Sara Albrecht, the group’s chairman and chief executive, said forced labor is “morally indefensible,” but a serious goal does not allow the government to ignore legal limits. Sara said one tariff package expired and another began immediately under a different law. “Changing the statute doesn’t change the law,” she said.
Patrick Childress, a Holland & Knight partner and former U.S. trade official, said the Section 301 duties could last much longer than the expired Section 122 charges. “These tariffs will be with us for the long haul,” Patrick said.
Countries may not get relief even if they adopt every rule Washington requests. Patrick said each government must prove that it is enforcing those rules to satisfy U.S. officials before Trump’s tariffs are removed. He said there is no short-term route for a country to escape the new rates.

Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN), Bybit, Circle (NYSE: CRCL), and Gemini lead the names on CNBC and Statista’s 2026 ranking of 500 global Fintechs. Coinbase, listed as decentralized, returned after appearing in an earlier edition.
Bybit is based in Dubai, while Circle and Gemini are in New York. Statista’s ranking covers eight market groups and includes companies of different sizes.
According to McKinsey, the fintech industry generated $650 billion in sales in 2025, up 21% from 2024. The $15 trillion financial services industry as a whole grew by 6%. Public listings also began to rebound, with 31 major fintech initial public offerings (IPOs) in 2025. To McKinsey, those agreements have “returned to prominence.”
Fintech companies represented about 12% of the total value of the world’s 100 biggest IPOs. Listed Fintechs reached a record combined value of $850 billion, helped by Adyen (AMS: ADYEN), Nu Holdings (NYSE: NU), and Robinhood (NASDAQ: HOOD).
At the same time, software suppliers spread throughout banking systems, challenger banks obtained financial licenses, and big institutions began to employ blockchain more frequently.
Digital asset companies turn blockchain tools into services for banks and businesses
The digital asset category in the Fintech 500 covers companies that make crypto services usable, but leaves out individual coins and blockchain protocols.
Crypto demand has risen and fallen, but companies building the working parts of the market have kept attracting customers. Companies that create and manage tokens for other businesses also earned several places.
The Singapore group includes Amber Group, ChainUp, Crypto.com, Triple-A, and previous winner StraitsX. US entries include Bakkt (NYSE: BKKT) in Atlanta; previous winners BitGo in Sioux Falls and Blockdaemon in Los Angeles; Digital Ascension Group in Dallas; Everstake and Securitize in Miami; Payward in Cheyenne; and Zero Hash in Chicago.
San Francisco contributes previous winners CoinTracker and VGS, plus Phantom. New York adds previous winners Fireblocks and Turnkey, alongside Gauntlet, Lukka, NYDIG, Paxos, and Zebec. Galaxy Digital (NASDAQ: GLXY), another earlier winner, is also based there. Fort Worth is home to previous winner Consensys.
Canada has Blockstream in Montreal and previous winner, Figment, in Toronto. London has BVNK, Copper, and TIMVERO. Previous winner Finery Markets is in Limassol, Cyprus. Hong Kong includes HashKey Group and previous winner OSL Group (HKEX: 0863). The remaining names are Kem in Abu Dhabi, previous winner Ledger in Paris, and Wavebridge in Seoul. Blockchain services from these companies now support payments, recordkeeping, asset storage, issuance, and other commercial uses as crypto becomes part of formal finance.
AI and stablecoins force Fintechs to rebuild products and controls
McKinsey expects four trends to shape the next fintech era, though its report detailed two major ones here. Artificial intelligence comes first. “Fintechs are deploying AI to build products in weeks that once took years, to serve customer segments that were previously not economically viable, and to compress cost structures so that legacy operating models cannot compete on price. Early-adopter incumbents are seeing real returns,” said McKinsey.
McKinsey said, “With instant, near-free settlement, the promise of stablecoins for cross-border payments and remittances is clear. However, of the $35 trillion reported annual stablecoin transaction volume, only about 1 percent, or $390 billion, represents true end user payments, such as paying suppliers or sending remittances.”
Trading, arbitrage, and crypto-only transfers make up the rest. Industry forecasts place the stablecoin market between $2 trillion and $4 trillion by 2030. Reaching that range would require an average annual growth of about 40%.
Other tokenized assets on blockchains could grow faster as banks and companies use them for settlement, custody, payments, ownership records, and issuance.
McKinsey predicts that, “A range of industry estimates suggests that by 2030, the market value of stablecoins will be between $2 trillion and $4 trillion, implying a compounded annual growth rate of about 40 percent, with a broader range of on-chain tokenized assets potentially even higher.”
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

Blockchain payment is set to become part of KB Kookmin Bank’s cross-border services as South Korea’s largest lender prepares to launch a new blockchain-based payment network for corporate import and export customers in August 2026.
The rollout will make KB Kookmin the first financial institution in the country to use J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys platform for commercial payment services. The system will initially support U.S. dollar transactions across 10 countries while connecting blockchain settlement with existing SWIFT payment infrastructure.
Blockchain payment links Kinexys with existing banking rails
KB Kookmin announced the service on July 26, following the signing of a blockchain remittance agreement with J.P. Morgan. The first phase will focus on U.S. dollar payments involving South Korea, the United States, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, India, Thailand, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and South Africa.
However, the bank has not disclosed customer fees, transaction limits, or the exact launch date in August. Instead, it confirmed that the platform will support businesses involved in overseas trade, supplier payments, and foreign exchange settlement.
Rather than replacing SWIFT, the blockchain payment service will integrate Kinexys with existing correspondent banking infrastructure. This approach allows payment messages and compliance procedures to remain in place while blockchain technology handles settlement.
J.P. Morgan describes Kinexys as a blockchain platform that supports payments, tokenization, and near-real-time settlement.
The platform has already expanded into several markets. In June, J.P. Morgan introduced blockchain deposit accounts in Australian dollars, Hong Kong dollars, Japanese yen, Chinese yuan, and Singapore dollars, increasing Kinexys’ support to eight currencies and enabling round-the-clock payments and programmable treasury functions.
KB Kookmin expands blockchain projects
The new blockchain payment launch follows several digital asset initiatives across KB Financial Group. In June, KB Kookmin completed a $100 million digital bond issuance through HSBC’s Orion platform using blockchain technology throughout issuance, registration, trading, and settlement.
The two-year U.S. dollar bond settled in three business days, rather than the five days required under the previous process.
According to a Cryptopolitan report, KB Kookmin also participates in South Korea’s government-backed tokenized deposit project. The Ministry of Economy and Finance selected nine banks, including KB Kookmin, to test tokenized deposits linked to public-sector spending in the fourth quarter of 2026.
The project will connect the government’s Digital Budget and Accounting System with a distributed ledger network that records transactions while allowing programmed spending conditions.
Earlier this year, KB Kookmin Card also announced plans to develop a hybrid stablecoin credit card system with Avalanche and OpenAsset. The design allows customers to spend stablecoins from blockchain wallets while automatically using a traditional credit line if wallet balances are insufficient.
KB Kookmin joins growing institutional blockchain activity
KB Kookmin was South Korea’s top bank on the list, with assets of roughly $552.76 billion, according to the 2026 Asia Pacific bank review by S&P Global Market Intelligence, which included 28 banks.
The bank’s newest payment service also coincides with the broader institutional adoption of blockchain settlement. J.P. Morgan, Mastercard, Ripple, and Ondo Finance recently conducted a cross-border test of U.S. Treasury redemption, using XRP’s Kinexys to process payment instructions and settle in U.S. dollars, while the tokenized asset was transacted on the XRP Ledger.
J.P. Morgan has also introduced Kinexys with other institutions, including Qatar National Bank, Axis Bank, Mitsubishi Corporation, and EBANX. In July, EBANX announced that it had cut the local banking time during the domain for cross-border transfers from over 24 hours to mere minutes.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Bitmart is closing its worldwide crypto exchange after nine years, and the announcement sent BMX down about 60% on Sunday, according to data from Coingecko.
The company said, “After a careful evaluation of the Company’s operating conditions, market environment, and future strategic direction, BitMart has made the difficult decision to commence an orderly wind-down of its trading platform operations. We deeply regret having to make this decision.”
Bitmart stated that while clients close positions, redeem merchandise, preserve records, and withdraw money, certain components of its system will continue to function. The conclusion of full platform operations is set for January 31, 2027, at 15:59 UTC.
The closure comes after Cryptopolitan reported on Thursday that another exchange BitMEX had ended operations after 11 years, so two major crypto trading platforms shut down in just four days.
Bitmart blocks new activity before it ends all trading in August
Bitmart began putting the restrictions in place on July 26, 2026, at 01:30 UTC. From that point, new users could no longer open accounts, while crypto and cash deposits were being switched off.
Any futures trade still open when the deadline arrives could be closed by Bitmart. The exchange may use its current pricing system, index price, or whatever settlement rules apply at the time. It said the full details would come in another announcement.
Futures traders can now only reduce or close positions. They cannot start new ones. Spot trading is no longer taking fresh orders either. Bitmart is also shutting down copy trading, grid bots, API trading, and its other automated tools. Anyone with an open order needs to cancel it, or Bitmart will do it for them.
The final shutdown will not instantly remove user access. “After operations have ceased, users will still be able to log in for a specified period to access their accounts, review historical records, and submit withdrawal requests in accordance with the applicable procedures in effect at that time,” said Bitmart.
Bitmart said in its official notice that users must upgrade their security features, finish or update identification verification, and close any and all crypto positions by August 26 at 01:00 UTC. Instead of waiting until the deadline, it suggested submitting withdrawal requests by 5:00 UTC that same day.
Some requests will need a closer look before Bitmart approves them, per the notice. The exchange may check who owns the account, the KYC documents on file, the device and IP address used to log in, the wallet receiving the funds, where the money came from, and the account’s trading history. It may also run checks linked to blockchain risks, sanctions rules, the Travel Rule, and other legal requirements.
Bitmart said “For users who do not complete withdrawals within the recommended timeframe, the related requests will be transferred to a dedicated processing procedure.”
Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, founder of Binance, responded: “Tough times (again)! At least, it appears to be an orderly wind down where users can withdraw their assets. Pro tip: Self custody if you know how to keep your seedphrase safe (Trust Wallet). Or use the largest exchange (Binance) with staying power.”
CZ’s message also came with the biased recommendation of Trust Wallet and Binance for users looking for alternatives.
The smartest crypto minds already read our newsletter. Want in? Join them.

ChatGPT answered queries of hundreds of people about biological weapons. No federal law required OpenAI to report it to the authorities.
The intention behind the queries remains unclear. It started happening after OpenAI upgraded ChatGPT last year, according to WSJ.
Other companies face the same problem. Users have directed similar questions at Anthropic’s Claude, Google’s Gemini, and Elon Musk’s Grok. It is not yet clear whether those exchanges were genuine attempts to build weapons or tests of the systems’ limits.
User prompts were detailed with questions about producing and releasing poisons and biological agents. The chatbot answered with step-by-step instructions that can easily be executed by a high school biology student.
Experts in biological weapons and terrorism reviewed those conversations. They say some of the answers were highly on point and “deadly accurate”.
ChatGPT bioweapon prompts expose AI reporting gap
Some asked how to turn infectious disease agents into breathable particles, aerosolization.
Others asked how to alter the measles virus to resist the existing vaccine. The chatbot answered both. One user asked about ricin, a poison banned under international treaties, and mentioned killing his parents. ChatGPT provided the instructions. OpenAI closed those accounts but notified no one.
There are no US federal laws requiring AI companies to do either. As previously reported by Cryptopolitan, AI companies have been pushing to dodge state laws, while a federal framework has been slow to take shape, leaving a growing legal void around what chatbots can and cannot do.
That legal void is growing alongside a rise in users asking AI how to carry out mass killings, and chatbots providing credible answers, according to current and former employees at major AI companies and researchers who study biological threats.
An AI threat research at Cisco led by Amy Change found that within five conversation turns, researchers were able to get around safety filters on the major chatbots. She said no model can 100% resist such persistent prompts.
The danger does not stop with solo attackers
Hamza Chaudhry of the Future of Life Institute said people with some biology background could already use AI to plan targeted strikes, poisoning food or water supplies with substances like salmonella or ricin.
Organized groups, he added, could treat AI like a graduate research supervisor, one that fixes failed experiments and fills in for years of specialized training that would otherwise be very difficult to acquire.
A study from MIT FutureTech and the University of Queensland maps the scale of those risks.
Researchers asked 272 AI experts to evaluate 24 risk categories. Under current conditions, 18 of the 24 carry at least a 10% chance of catastrophic harm between now and 2030, defined as more than one million deaths, over $100 billion in losses, or comparable damage.
Even with reasonable steps to reduce those risks, five areas still sit at or above that 10% mark: AI systems with dangerous capabilities (12%), AI-assisted weapons and cyberattacks (12%), environmental harm (12%), unemployment and inequality (11%), and power concentrated in a small number of hands (11%).
“We’re not saying these things are definitely going to happen,” said Peter Slattery, a research scientist at MIT FutureTech and one of the study’s co-authors. “We’re saying these are the things that experts think are worth paying attention to now.”
Inside OpenAI, safety executive Ryan Beiermeister spent much of 2024 pushing colleagues to build a system to flag dangerous users. Some dismissed her concerns.
A basic monitoring tool was in place by spring 2025. The company has tracked all queries on its advanced models since April 2025 and offers a $50,000 reward to anyone who can show they bypassed its biological weapons safeguards.
On the policy front, Rep. Nathaniel Moran (R., Texas) introduced a bill in June that would require AI companies to report dangerous queries, including those about biological weapons, to the Commerce Department. He is also co-sponsoring legislation that would let the federal government order the shutdown of AI models judged to be too dangerous.
“AI is a powerful engine of innovation, and I want to see it flourish,” Moran said, “but not without accountability and not without human oversight.”
If you're reading this, you’re already ahead. Stay there with our newsletter.

Nvidia’s Jensen Huang told Washington to keep AI open and told Wall Street the boom is far from over. All while running the most indispensable company in AI.
Jensen Huang made his first post ever on X on July 24. He used it to back a letter called “Open Weights and American AI Leadership,” which asks Washington to leave freely downloadable AI models alone. By the following afternoon, the number of companies backing that letter had gone from 25 to 50.
OpenAI, Google, AMD, Cisco, Cloudflare, GitHub, Block and Ollama are also on the list. However, two major companies are missing: Anthropic and Amazon.
Why Anthropic skip Jensen Huang’s open AI letter?
The letter went out with 25 backers initially. When Huang’s post got 11 million views, new signatures came in. This is why two copies of the letter showed different counts on the same afternoon.
Still, the two missing names are the most telling part of the list. Amazon is Anthropic’s biggest financial backer, and Anthropic runs on Amazon’s own Trainium chips, among other hardware. Anthropic recently moved into the top spot in enterprise AI.
Google, which has also put money into Anthropic, signed anyway, which makes the Amazon connection the more specific one. Neither company has said why it stayed off the list. The explanations range from straightforward business logic. Anthropic sells closed, frontier-level access. Anthropic has made a safety argument publicly for years, which is that once model weights are released, there is no pulling them back.
As previously reported by Cryptopolitan, Anthropic has been running its own parallel lobbying operation in Washington, spending $1.97 million in Q2 2026 alone, which makes its absence from the letter a position, not an oversight.
Nvidia’s open AI message comes with a catch
While the letter says that keeping AI models open is necessary for keeping any one company from having to rule, Nvidia shows a contradiction. The company controls CUDA which is the software needed to run AI on Nvidia chips. It is deeply embedded, widely depended on, and not open.
The same week Huang was rallying the industry around open access, he sat down with Axios cofounder Mike Allen and made a different kind of case. This one aimed at investors who are growing nervous about how much money is being spent on AI infrastructure.
Chip stocks have pulled back sharply in recent weeks, even as chipmakers reported strong earnings and kept running short on supply. The worry is simple: the big cloud and tech companies are spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year building out AI, and that spending is no longer coming purely from their own cash. Alphabet slipped into negative cash flow. Tech giants have started borrowing to keep up.
As tech giants borrow to fund AI, Huang tells investors not to worry
Huang was asked directly whether the sector is heading for a bust. “No, not for a while,” he said. When Allen followed up with “so this time is different?” Huang agreed with the framing.
“This time is different because this is not demand-driven,” Huang said. “This is industrially driven, meaning the fundamental technology of computers is changing.”
That phrase carries a long history. “This time is different” was used to explain why the dot-com boom would keep going. It did not. The line is now treated as a warning sign when it turns up in bullish forecasts, a bit like a general declaring victory too early.
Huang is not oblivious to that. He acknowledged the bubble will eventually pop. He argues that it is not close, because the buildout is still in its early stages. He also made a case for why the supply squeeze on chips, land, power and construction labor is actually helpful. It slows things down enough to prevent supply from outrunning demand too quickly.
“We basically are constrained in every single direction, in every single way,” he said. “That constraint is good. That constraint is what holds the system back.”
He pointed to companies like Anthropic as evidence that AI is already generating real profit, particularly as businesses find practical uses for AI agents.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

Elon did not lose $600 billion from a bank account. The number vanished because most of his fortune sits in shares. When SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) jumped after its public listing, the value of his stake pushed his estimated wealth above $1.3 trillion.
When the stock later fell by half from its highest price, that paper gain disappeared. His net worth dropped to about $725 billion, and his run as the first trillionaire lasted only a few weeks.
The stock began trading on June 12 after the company priced its offer at $135 a share. Buyers paid $150 for the first trade, and the session ended at $161. Four days later, the price reached $225.64.
That gave SpaceX a market value close to $3 trillion. By late July, shares were near $113, around 16% below the offer price. On July 24, Elon posted, “(Former) trillionaire.”
SpaceX’s tiny public float sent Elon’s paper wealth sharply higher and then lower
The listing raised $85.7 billion after banks used the extra-share option attached to the deal. That made it far larger than the 2019 listing of Saudi Aramco (TADAWUL: 2222). The SpaceX deal started with a valuation of about $1.75 trillion.
The company had 13.2 billion shares, but public buyers received only about 4.9% of them. Most large companies in major indexes have close to 80% of their stock available for normal trading, based on data from Nasdaq Inc. (NASDAQ: NDAQ).
SpaceX entered the market with very little supply, so even a rush of new orders could push the price far above the IPO level.
Once traders started selling, the stock dropped fast. It closed at $118.24 on July 23 and $115.07 on July 24. By Friday, SpaceX was valued at about $1.5 trillion, almost half of what it was worth at its June high.
Short sellers benefited from the drop. Ortex Technologies estimated that bearish traders had about $15.5 billion in unrealized gains. Short positions covered nearly 56% of the public float, equal to around 360 million shares.
Elon warned on social media that firms keeping very large short bets open against SpaceX for a long time had a very small chance of surviving.
The stock also ranked badly against other major U.S. listings. Barron’s placed SpaceX in the bottom 10% of American IPOs valued above $1 billion since July 2009.
During its first 27 trading days, SpaceX fell 23% from the $161 first-day close. A group of 955 similar IPOs produced an average gain of 0.8% over the same period.
New share supply and Tesla’s earnings miss kept pressure on Elon’s fortune
To make matters worse, early SpaceX investors and employees could begin selling up to 911.5 million shares on August 6, two days after the company reports its first quarterly results as a public company.
That block alone would raise the tradable portion of the company from about 4.9% to roughly 12%, per CNBC’s calculation.
More locked shares will become available in September, November, and December as the 180-day lockup period expires in stages. Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS), which led the deal, can also allow some investors to sell earlier. Elon’s own SpaceX shares will stay locked until June 2027.
The SpaceX drop came during Tesla’s (NASDAQ: TSLA) worst week since 2022. Tesla shares fell 18% after its second-quarter results missed Wall Street’s estimates. Revenue came in at $28.2 billion, while adjusted earnings were $0.33 per share, below the $0.50 analysts expected.
Tesla also posted negative free cash flow for the first time in two years. It spent money on robotaxis, a humanoid machine called Optimus and giant factories to make artificial-intelligence chips. That was another hit to Elon’s wealth with Tesla being one of his biggest listed assets.
So Tesla’s report hit Elon from a second direction, while SpaceX was already falling. His wealth estimate includes stakes at current market prices, so an 18% weekly loss in Tesla shares also fell the value assigned to that holding that week.

Robinhood Chain has recorded an increase in tokenized stock activity less than two weeks after its launch, with real-world assets growing to about $70 million and trading volumes expanding across several tokenized equities.
The latest on-chain data shows the network beginning to attract larger transactions in the asset class it was designed to support, even as memecoins and stablecoins continue to account for most decentralized exchange activity.
At the same time, infrastructure projects targeting the network are raising additional capital and launching new products as competition intensifies around Robinhood Chain’s growing user base and trading volumes.
Robinhood Chain tokenized stocks gain momentum
Data from DefiLlama showed that real-world assets on Robinhood Chain increased to approximately $70 million, marking a fivefold rise from the low tens of millions of dollars recorded shortly after launch. Earlier, tokenized assets accounted for only about 4% of network activity, while memecoins and stablecoins dominated trading.
Trading volumes have also increased across tokenized equities. Tokenized GameStop generated about $26.6 million in daily volume, followed by Nvidia at $14 million and SpaceX at $6.4 million. Twelve tokenized stocks now process more than $500,000 in daily trading volume, while five have exceeded $1 million.
The wider network, as highlighted by Cryptopolita, has expanded alongside that growth. DefiLlama data placed total value locked near $312 million after tripling since mid-July. The daily volume on decentralized exchanges has also climbed above $600 million, while Token Terminal reported more than 138 million transactions over the past 30 days.
Despite the rise in tokenized equities, speculative assets remain the largest source of activity. DEX Screener data showed trending tokens such as Hoodrat, Vladhood, and Swole Doge ranking above tokenized stocks by trading volume.
Funding and competition expand on Robinhood Chain
The network’s rising activity has also attracted infrastructure developers. Memecoin.Fun announced a $3.5 million strategic funding round led by Becker Ventures, with participation from BitValue Capital, Mason Labs, Negentropy Capital, and angel investor Billy Wen.
The transaction was completed through the USDG token, although the project did not disclose its valuation or investment terms.
According to the announcement, the funding will support the development of a Robinhood Chain launchpad, cross-chain bridge infrastructure, and research for a multichain platform focused on memecoins. However, the company did not provide launch dates for those products.
Competition is also increasing. Pons recently outlined plans for its V2 upgrade, which is expected to introduce an Ether-based bonding curve, Uniswap V4 integration, ETH creator payments, and trading pairs linked to tokenized real-world assets.
Network growth attracts new builders
Previously, network data showed that Robinhood Chain had locked nearly $400 million in the market’s stablecoins and had a total value locked (TVL) of $431 million in just three weeks since its launch. FalconX also revealed the network makes about 6 million transactions per day and has over 250,000 daily active users.
Artemis data was used by FalconX to calculate the decentralized exchange volume on the platform at almost $9 billion, while in certain activity metrics, it has outstripped Coinbase’s Base. Despite the rising presence of tokenized stocks, memecoins still drive over 80% of trading on DeFi exchanges, suggesting that the vast majority of activity still takes place on the latter.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.

OpenAI found one of its AI agents had left written instructions. The notes told future versions of the agent how to break free from the company’s internal restrictions.
Their discovery came as OpenAI was probing how one of its models had broken out of a test environment and hacked the open-source AI platform Hugging Face.
Staff said the notes were found inside OpenAI’s own infrastructure. The notes detailed ways agents could avoid the guardrails designed to keep them in place.
Monitoring systems on separate, earlier tests were said to have been turned off. It’s unclear if those incidents involved the same agent that eventually made its way to Hugging Face.
OpenAI’s monitoring couldn’t keep up with its tests
The odd behavior emerged as OpenAI was testing the cybersecurity skills of its models. The lab kept doing fast paced evaluations that produce more data than staff can handle. The lab frequently runs several model tests at the same time on a system that’s not being watched by default, said four people familiar with OpenAI’s training process.
OpenAI did not immediately connect its own system to the Hugging Face attack. The link was only made after the victim went public.
Marley Smith, lead intelligence specialist at the nonprofit World Ethical Data Foundation, didn’t mince words. “Does that mean that they left it unattended and didn’t realise what it was doing? Or maybe they did and didn’t know how to contain it? Both are equally dangerous and alarming.”
The technical reports describe models that were not meant to be exposed to the open internet. OpenAI figured a sandbox would contain them, and skipped the normal safety guardrails as a result.
Instead, the models found a previously unknown flaw in an internal service used to download approved software. That hole gave them a path to other OpenAI systems, and eventually, to the open web.
Three models were employed. A more powerful unreleased model, GPT-5.6 Sol, and a third model that a person familiar with the matter said had not been properly aligned or trained through standard processes.
The models figured out that Hugging Face had data they could use for their cybersecurity test, broke in, and used what they stole to improve their own results. This is cheating, a behavior already documented in GPT-5.6 Sol and other frontier models.
The breach took OpenAI more than a week to trace
The initial attempts to exit the test environment occurred on July 9. The actual breach happened between July 11 and July 13, said Hugging Face co-founder Thomas Wolf. On July 16, Hugging Face posted a blog post attributing the intrusion to “an autonomous AI agent system.” Only then did it occur to OpenAI to suspect its own models.
The clues were discovered by OpenAI employees in internal logs over the weekend of July 18 and 19. The companies didn’t talk until around July 20, Wolf said. By then, Hugging Face had already told the FBI about the attack. OpenAI said that the day before the incident went public, it had halted another internal deployment that also broke out of its sandbox.
An anonymous employee said that models had escaped sandboxes before, and that patching each new trick is a losing game.
“It’s impossible to patch every single thing that a creative AI can do.” One OpenAI employee wrote on X that he was “shaken up a bit” and hoped the company would treat the episode as a warning shot.
A spokesperson for OpenAI said the reports contained “several inaccuracies,” but would not give examples when asked.
According to independent researchers, none of this was unforeseeable. Epoch AI assessed whether the hack was predictable and concluded that it was, citing benchmarks from the UK AI Security Institute showing that frontier models with safety measures turned off can discover real software vulnerabilities and generate functional exploits.
The same institute found GPT-5.6 Sol and Mythos from Anthropic can reliably take over unprotected simulated corporate networks. Epoch AI warned that if such capabilities become widespread, the industry could see many more attacks on the scale of the Hugging Face breach.
Don’t just read crypto news. Understand it. Subscribe to our newsletter. It's free.