Crypto Breaking

Brazilian crypto exchange Mercado Bitcoin says it will start restoring customer account access on Monday following a security breach that blockchain analysts estimated led to more than $46 million in stolen assets.
In an update provided to Cointelegraph, the exchange outlined a phased recovery plan that begins with read-only access for customers—such as viewing balances, statements, holdings and investments—before transfers, withdrawals and trading resume later after independent security testing.
Key takeaways
Mercado Bitcoin will restore customer access in phases, starting Monday with website access for viewing balances and holdings.
Withdrawals, transfers and trading are expected to come later, contingent on independent security testing.
The exchange says it is replenishing affected funds using company resources, with more than $15 million already frozen.
Mercado Bitcoin states its team is preparing repurchases in domestic and international markets to support the recovery process.
It also cited a strong cash position, supported by a $20 million investment from Tether.
What Mercado Bitcoin says is happening next
The restoration plan is designed to return customers to a safe baseline first. According to the exchange, Monday’s access will allow users to check their balances and account records via Mercado Bitcoin’s website. That includes statements and information about holdings and investments, but stops short of re-enabling any activity that could expose users to additional risk before the security review is complete.
Only later phases—“subject to independent security testing,” the exchange said—will bring back full functionality such as transfers, withdrawals and trading. For customers and market participants, the difference matters: viewing assets is not the same as moving them, and resuming trading in particular typically requires confidence that systems are secure enough to process orders and custody-related operations without further compromise.
Freezing stolen funds and using company resources
Alongside the account-access restoration, Mercado Bitcoin said it is taking steps to make customers whole where assets were affected. The exchange pledged to use company funds to replenish those impacted by the breach.
Mercado Bitcoin reported that more than $15 million of stolen funds had already been frozen with help from the industry. While the figure does not equal the full estimate of assets taken, it suggests that some portion of the stolen crypto was caught quickly enough—an outcome that often depends on how fast exchanges, compliance teams, and counterparties can detect suspicious flows and coordinate enforcement measures.
The exchange also said its trading desk is preparing to begin “necessary repurchases in domestic and international markets.” The practical effect is that recovery may involve acquiring assets to cover customer exposures rather than relying solely on what is recoverable from frozen funds.
How the hack worked and why liquidity remains in focus
The update follows Mercado Bitcoin’s initial disclosure of the incident on Monday, reported by Cointelegraph. In that earlier account, attackers allegedly moved funds from the exchange’s hot wallets and from customer deposit addresses using standard transfers.
This detail is important because it points to the mechanics of the compromise rather than a purely operational outage. If attackers can withdraw or transfer funds directly from hot storage and deposit addresses, the exchange’s immediate challenge becomes twofold: limit further loss and stabilize custody and account systems so customers can later access and reconcile balances accurately.
Mercado Bitcoin also addressed liquidity concerns. It said it had a strong cash position, bolstered by a $20 million investment from stablecoin issuer Tether intended to support operational expansion. While the investment is not presented as a direct “hack reimbursement,” it contributes to the exchange’s ability to keep operations running and support replenishment activities during the incident response window.
What customers should watch as trading returns
The phased approach means customers may get clarity sooner than trading functionality—while Mercado Bitcoin works through security testing before allowing withdrawals and active trading again. Traders, in particular, should treat the transition from read-only access to withdrawals and trading as a key milestone: it is where operational risk, custody controls, and system integrity become visible in day-to-day workflows.
Readers should also monitor how much of the estimated $46 million impact is recoverable or neutralized over time, especially given the company’s statement that over $15 million has already been frozen. The gap between the initial theft estimate and the frozen amount is likely to drive the pace and scale of replenishment, including any repurchases the exchange says it plans to conduct.
As Mercado Bitcoin moves from viewing-only access to full customer activity, the next signals to watch are the results of independent security testing and the schedule for restoring withdrawals, transfers, and trading—because those steps will determine how quickly trust in custody and exchange operations can be rebuilt after a breach.
This article was originally published as Mercado Bitcoin to Start Monday’s Phased Reopening, Cover Losses on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMart says it is dealing with a severely understaffed security operation after a new breach confirmed this week, with founder Sheldon Xia pointing to personnel retention challenges following restructuring and internal disputes. Xia also suggested the timing may be linked to a larger incident at Brazil-based exchange Mercado Bitcoin earlier this month.
Blockchain analytics firm Bitquery reported that it traced roughly $391,000 in suspicious transfers from wallets associated with BitMart across three blockchains. Bitquery further said one of the involved wallets had already appeared in connection with the more than $46 million Mercado Bitcoin hack disclosed around the same time.
Key takeaways
BitMart founder Sheldon Xia says the exchange’s security team is “severely understaffed” following restructuring.
Bitquery links about $391,000 in suspicious transfers to wallets associated with BitMart across three chains.
Bitquery reports a wallet overlap with the $46 million-plus Mercado Bitcoin hack, supporting BitMart’s preliminary suspicion of a connection.
The breach arrives as BitMart continues planning user recovery steps after announcing a wind-down of trading and later operations.
New breach raises staffing and safety concerns at BitMart
On X, Xia said the exchange continues to face “numerous attacks,” even while working to protect customer data and assets. He did not provide a specific figure for the Monday incident, but emphasized the practical difficulty of keeping specialized staff in place under heightened threat conditions.
According to Xia, threats directed at employees and alleged retaliation tied to former staff complicated efforts to retain technical personnel. He wrote that persuading key staff to remain required “considerable effort and individual conversations,” yet BitMart still lacks adequate security coverage.
While Xia characterized the amount involved in the hack as “small,” Bitquery’s on-chain analysis offered a more concrete figure: approximately $391,000 in suspicious transfers from wallets it said were mostly associated with BitMart.
Bitquery traces funds and identifies wallet overlap with Mercado Bitcoin
Bitquery’s investigation, published on Wednesday, focused on suspicious fund movements it linked to the BitMart incident. The firm said transfers occurred across three blockchains and were concentrated around wallets it associated with BitMart.
Crucially, Bitquery also reported that at least one wallet tied to these movements was implicated in the more than $46 million Mercado Bitcoin hack that occurred on Monday, Nov. 2. That overlap supports Xia’s preliminary claim that the two events could be connected, at least at the level of wallet attribution.
For traders and users, wallet-linkage analysis can matter because it helps distinguish isolated incidents from coordinated compromise patterns. Still, the evidence cited here points to connections at the fund-flow and wallet level, not to a confirmed cause or attacker identity.
BitMart’s operational uncertainty continues alongside its recovery planning
The security update lands during a long period of uncertainty for BitMart. In July, the exchange announced it would end trading on Aug. 26 and cease operations in January 2027. After the announcement, users reported delayed withdrawals and accounts being frozen, concerns that increased pressure on the exchange’s wind-down and customer recovery process.
In August, a Chinese-language BitMart X account alleged employees had gone unpaid and demanded explanations regarding customer funds. Xia dismissed those claims as fabricated, though it remained unclear who controlled the account at the time.
On Monday, BitMart also published a restructuring proposal that outlines three potential recovery options for users. The plan includes approaches such as distributing liquid assets and offering recovery-linked tokens, with the exchange indicating it would seek court approval in December or January.
Cointelegraph contacted BitMart seeking details about security staffing, the latest breach, and the restructuring, but did not receive a response by publication.
Industry-wide enforcement efforts weaken as major hacks continue
BitMart’s situation is unfolding as the broader anti-crime posture in crypto faces setbacks. Bloomberg reported on Wednesday that a crypto crime-fighting alliance formed by Tron, Tether, and TRM Labs has dissolved amid a wave of large industry hacks.
The alliance included the T3 Financial Crime Unit, which launched in September 2024 and later attracted Binance as a member. Bloomberg said the unit struggled with slow response times and poor coordination, citing people familiar with the matter. One source told Bloomberg the group had effectively disbanded in late August.
T3 had previously said it helped freeze more than $450 million in assets linked to suspected criminal activity since its 2024 launch, including actions connected to Tether. The dissolution comes as several high-profile breaches have dominated headlines, including last week’s $6.3 billion Binance breach, which Bloomberg described as the largest cryptocurrency theft on record.
For market participants, this matters because it underlines a gap between threat levels and the speed or coordination of mitigation efforts. When major incidents keep occurring, even well-publicized enforcement initiatives can lose momentum—especially if they fail to deliver timely, operational results.
Next, BitMart users and observers will be watching whether the exchange can stabilize its security posture while carrying out its planned recovery routes under court oversight. Equally important will be whether additional on-chain analysis clarifies the nature of the breach and how closely it mirrors the wallet patterns seen in the Mercado Bitcoin hack.
This article was originally published as BitMart Founder Says Security Team Was “Severely Understaffed” on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Australia’s upcoming overhaul of capital gains tax (CGT) rules is set to significantly increase the tax burden for crypto investors, with the removal of the long-standing 50% CGT discount for assets acquired after the relevant cutoff. The change, announced in the May budget, will effectively tax a larger portion of gains as income tax once the new regime takes effect.
The shift matters because cryptocurrency returns are largely driven by capital appreciation rather than income. That means the difference between taxing half of a gain versus taxing the full gain—after only an inflation adjustment—can materially change the after-tax outcome for holders who plan to realize profits years after buying.
Key takeaways
Australia’s CGT discount that taxes only 50% of capital gains will be removed for investments under the new rules coming into effect from July 1, 2027.
Under the new scheme, holders will generally pay tax at their marginal income tax rate on more of the gain, with only an inflation-related adjustment remaining.
Inflation indexing can help, but the benefits are smaller for assets that grow quickly—an issue investors may feel most acutely with crypto.
Tax planning options range from timing future sales to restructuring holdings through SMSFs or using borrowing strategies, each with trade-offs and risks.
From a 50% discount to full taxation
For more than two decades, Australian investors benefited from a rule that effectively reduced taxable capital gains by half. The policy change will end that advantage for qualifying investments, meaning more of a gain becomes subject to tax at the investor’s applicable income tax rate.
According to the article’s explanation of the planned income tax treatment, investors will face CGT rates aligned to their marginal income bracket—for example, 30% for income and gains between A$45,000 and A$135,000, 37% for the band between A$135,000 and A$190,000, and 47% above A$190,000. The piece also notes that people who are not on welfare—such as students and retirees—may face a minimum 30% CGT rate even if their gains are modest.
Instead of the 50% discount, the remaining relief is intended to account for inflation through an indexation mechanism. The article illustrates how the inflation adjustment works in a simple property example: if an asset is bought for A$1 million and later sold for A$1.5 million after 10 years, only the portion of gains attributable to inflation would be excluded from tax. In practice, this shifts the discount from “half the gain” to “the inflation component.”
Why the new rules may hit crypto harder
The article includes a key critique from Swyftx CEO Andrea Yuen: the inflation indexation approach tends to benefit assets with slower growth. In contrast, rapidly appreciating assets can see the taxable portion remain large because inflation accounting won’t offset most of the appreciation.
To make the point, the article uses a Bitcoin-style example: buying BTC for A$10,000 and selling 10 years later for A$100,000. It estimates that inflation indexing would reduce the taxable component by roughly A$3,439, compared with the much larger difference that would have existed under the former system—where tax would previously be applied to A$45,000 of gains rather than to A$86,561 under the new regime.
The article also cites Stockspot analyst Chris Bryki’s comparison across asset classes, reported in The Australian. Bryki’s assessment places crypto at the bottom under the new framework because most of its return is tied to capital growth rather than to a form of yield that might align better with indexation.
“An already speculative investment is about to become less rewarding after tax.”
Timing, politics, and portfolio restructuring
For holders considering whether and how to act before July 1, 2027, the simplest lever is timing realization. The article states that any capital gains realized before July 1, 2027 would be taxed under the existing 50% discount arrangement. That encourages investors to track the value of crypto holdings at the relevant date—since gains realized later would be subject to the revised rules.
The piece also notes a more uncertain path: political change. Both the Coalition and One Nation are described as having promised to reverse the CGT changes. Even if government changes were to make reversal possible before the time of tax filings, the article highlights that legislative timing and Senate passage would be crucial. It also quotes Adrian Forza of Crypto Tax Australia cautioning that changes after a new calculation framework would make it difficult to perform multiple calculations.
On the restructuring side, one option discussed is shifting crypto exposure into a self-managed superannuation fund (SMSF). The article explains that superannuation can allow retirement withdrawals to be tax-free after age conditions are met, but retail super funds currently do not offer crypto investments—meaning investors would typically need to set up an SMSF if they want crypto held inside super.
Ben Simpson, founder of crypto advisory service Collective Shift (as quoted in the article), says he sees some high-net-worth clients investing through SMSFs. However, the strategy is not without practical constraints. The article emphasizes that crypto held in an SMSF generally can’t be accessed until retirement age, which limits flexibility for younger investors. It also describes significant compliance overhead, audit requirements, and ongoing costs—suggesting that larger balances may justify the expense more than small portfolios.
Borrowing against Bitcoin: a tax workaround with real risk
The article also covers borrowing strategies that aim to avoid a taxable sale—borrowing against Bitcoin rather than liquidating it. This approach, it notes, has long been used by wealthy asset owners. In Australia, the piece references lenders such as BlockEarner, Veild, and Swyftx that allow borrowers to use BTC as collateral.
Andrea Yuen suggests the concept can be broadened beyond ultra-wealthy investors, but the practical risk profile is central to the discussion. Borrowers face high interest rates, relatively short terms (the article cites 12 months as typical), and the possibility of liquidation if collateral value falls. The article also states that borrowers may not be able to borrow against the full value of their BTC; for example, it says Swyftx’s loan-to-value ratio is around 40%.
Simpson is quoted as not recommending the strategy for investors who are already heavily exposed to crypto without sufficient capital buffers. He frames borrowing as a leveraged bet on price direction and warns that it is risky for those who don’t understand what could happen during downturns.
The article adds an important caution: in certain circumstances, borrowing itself could trigger CGT events. It gives a DeFi example involving depositing ETH on Aave, where it can be swapped to WETH automatically, creating taxable activity; it states that withdrawing can create another taxable event. It also notes that borrowing from centralized lenders may still be unclear from an Australian Taxation Office (ATO) perspective, and that the ATO has not clarified whether some scenarios are taxable.
As reported, Swyftx says it has no private ruling and instructs clients to seek tax advice, while BlockEarner did not respond to a request for comment. The article claims Veild is the only Australian provider with a private ruling stating its product is not a taxable event.
Overall, the article frames crypto-backed lending less as a safe tax strategy and more as a complex tool suited to investors who can manage leverage and downside volatility. It even notes that Bitcoin’s drawdown over the past year would have made margin calls more likely for borrowers who opened positions during weaker periods.
What to watch before the deadline
With the new CGT framework scheduled to begin on July 1, 2027, Australian holders should focus on how their expected realization timing, holding horizon, and income tax bracket interact with the loss of the 50% discount. Just as importantly, investors considering SMSFs or borrowing should pay close attention to compliance costs, liquidity limits, and whether any borrowing structure could create taxable events under ATO interpretations—issues that remain a moving target as guidance evolves.
This article was originally published as How Australian Bitcoin Investors Can Plan for a 2027 CGT Hike (Part 1) on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miner Riot Platforms jumped more than 13% on Wednesday after unveiling what it described as its biggest step yet in building artificial intelligence infrastructure: a 15-year, $28 billion AI data center lease at its Corsicana, Texas site. The company framed the deal as a shift away from relying primarily on Bitcoin mining cash flow toward long-term contracted infrastructure revenue.
Riot’s plan also raises a familiar question for the sector—how quickly miners can translate mining-developed power and land assets into durable AI lease income—at a moment when peers are still working through the transition. Shares of Hut 8, another miner pursuing AI-related infrastructure, fell sharply earlier in the day after it reported weaker quarterly revenue.
Key takeaways
Riot signed a 15-year AI data center lease worth $28 billion covering 910 megawatts at its Corsicana, Texas facility.
Riot said the lease model is expected to drive nearly all of its expected cash flow from long-term agreements once currently executed deals are fully deployed.
Riot estimates total project capital costs at $5.5 billion, with delivery of the first phase expected in September 2027 and rental payments starting within 60 days of delivery.
Hut 8 shares dropped as the company reported third-quarter revenue that missed expectations during its AI infrastructure transition.
The contrast highlights a timing risk: lease revenue can lag behind financing and construction milestones even as miners reposition for AI.
Riot’s $28 billion lease marks a major AI pivot
Riot said the 15-year agreement covers 910 megawatts at its Corsicana facility and lifts its total future contracted data center revenue to roughly $38 billion across three leases signed in 2026. The company positioned the deal as a meaningful expansion of its AI strategy, leveraging infrastructure originally developed for Bitcoin mining.
On Wednesday’s earnings call, CEO Jason Les said the company is moving from a cash flow base heavily influenced by Bitcoin price to a model increasingly tied to long-term leases. According to Les, “a year ago” Riot’s cash flow depended on the price of Bitcoin, and with currently executed deals at full deployment, “nearly all” of expected cash flow would be generated by long-term leases with players in the AI ecosystem.
Land, power, and who runs the compute
Riot’s third-quarter earnings materials and regulatory filing provide key operational details. In its earnings release, Riot said it will supply land and power infrastructure originally developed for Bitcoin mining. The AI tenant—identified as Anthropic in Riot’s SEC filing—will own and operate the computing equipment and cover operating expenses.
Riot also estimated total capital costs for the project at $5.5 billion. The company said financing is expected to be primarily debt backed by lease payments, though it also stated that financing has not yet been secured. The first phase is expected to be delivered in September 2027, with rental payments beginning within 60 days of delivery, according to the company’s disclosures.
For investors, the structure matters because it shifts revenue visibility toward lease commitments while separating the miner’s role in power and site development from the tenant’s role in running the compute. At the same time, the timeline means that upside depends on delivery milestones and the ability to secure and execute financing without delays.
Mining revenue still plays a bridge role
Riot’s latest quarter underscored that Bitcoin mining remains part of the near-term financial engine. The company reported third-quarter revenue of $181.4 million, up about 1% year over year, and said it sold 10,599 BTC during the quarter to support its data center expansion plans.
During the Wednesday earnings call, Les also discussed how mining operations at Corsicana could change. He said Bitcoin mining at that site could begin winding down in summer 2027, aligning with the data center delivery schedule that Riot expects to culminate in September 2027 for the first phase.
That sequencing is likely to be a key monitoring point for the market: miners transitioning assets from mining to AI infrastructure need construction and commissioning timelines to line up with the monetization of lease payments, or else face periods where both mining output and revenue are under pressure.
Peer pressure: Hut 8 shares fall on slower revenue during transition
Riot’s upbeat AI deal arrived alongside a more cautious signal from another Bitcoin miner. Shares of Hut 8 dropped more than 22% at one point on Wednesday after it reported weaker-than-expected quarterly revenue linked to its shift toward AI infrastructure.
According to MarketBeat data, Hut 8’s third-quarter revenue fell 15% to $71.1 million, missing analysts’ estimates of $75.8 million. In remarks from Wednesday’s earnings call, CFO Sean Glennan attributed part of the decline to asset sales and lower revenue per Bitcoin mined, while noting that cash administrative expenses increased year over year.
Glennan added that the “legacy revenue base” is no longer expected to be the main growth driver, while larger contracted infrastructure revenues remain tied to delivery milestones. CEO Asher Genoot also pointed to the difficulty and cost of building traditional AI data centers at scale, describing many current facilities as complex and slow to deliver.
In its third-quarter earnings presentation, Hut 8 said it has secured $7.5 billion in project bonds to fully finance two major AI data center developments, though it noted that neither project has begun generating lease revenue yet. That detail helps explain the market reaction: even with funding in place, revenue can remain delayed until construction completes and contracts start paying out.
The divergence between Riot’s announcement-driven rally and Hut 8’s revenue disappointment illustrates a central tension in the miner-to-AI transition. Investors may reward firms that provide clear lease economics and near-term visibility, but they continue to scrutinize whether the revenue ramp will materialize on schedule.
What to watch next in the miner AI transition
With Riot’s first phase targeting September 2027 delivery and Hut 8’s projects still not generating lease income, the sector’s next updates will likely center on financing close, construction progress, and the timing of when power-and-site development turns into recurring lease revenue. For traders and long-term investors alike, milestone delivery and cash flow timing may matter as much as headline contract values.
This article was originally published as Riot Jumps on $28B AI Hosting Deal as Hut 8 Drops on Revenue Miss on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto-linked tokens tied to US political figures slid sharply on Wednesday after results from the US midterm elections shifted expectations in Washington—an undercurrent that stood in contrast to a broad market rebound.
According to CoinMarketCap data around 5:32 p.m. UTC, “Official Trump” (TRUMP) fell 17% over 24 hours to about $1.33, while World Liberty Financial (WLFI)—the governance token for the Trump family-backed DeFi project launched in 2024—dropped more than 7% to roughly $0.047. The moves came after the Democratic Party secured surprise wins, including in Texas, and ultimately won control of both the House and the Senate from Republicans.
Key takeaways
Trump- and Trump-family-linked tokens underperformed as Democrats gained control of both chambers of Congress.
Bitcoin and Ether rose on the day, highlighting a divergence between mainstream crypto assets and politicized memecoins.
Analysts suggest investor demand for political tokens may rely too heavily on political expectations rather than fundamentals.
The election outcome adds another layer of uncertainty around US digital asset legislation, including the stalled CLARITY Act.
Political tokens fall even as the broader market rises
While TRUMP and WLFI declined, the wider crypto market was moving higher. CoinMarketCap data showed Bitcoin increasing more than 4% over 24 hours to around $80,500, and Ether climbing about 6% to roughly $2,433. Other large-cap coins also posted gains, including BNB (+3%), XRP (+2.6%), and Solana (+2.5%). Overall market capitalization rose about 3.4% to $2.69 trillion.
The political-token drag extended beyond the two biggest laggards. MELANIA, a memecoin associated with Melania Trump, fell nearly 13% over 24 hours to about $0.066, while a token named after Vice President JD Vance (VANCE) dropped nearly 12%. The report noted that VANCE has no confirmed official connection to the vice president.
On the sector level, political memecoins softened alongside these individual declines. The group’s combined market capitalization fell more than 16% to $477 million, while trading volume jumped about 123% to $437 million, per CoinMarketCap data—suggesting heightened activity as traders reassessed exposure.
Why investors appear to be treating these tokens differently
One notable feature of Wednesday’s trading was the mismatch between a recovering market and persistent weakness in politically branded assets. Benjamin Sarquis Peillard, founder and CEO of Cap (a DeFi platform focused on stablecoin yields), told Cointelegraph that politically linked tokens can behave differently from established cryptocurrencies.
Peillard argued that assets like Bitcoin tend to react to liquidity conditions, institutional flows, and broader macroeconomic factors. By contrast, politically linked tokens may be more sensitive to changes in expectations around US politics.
He also cautioned that even if the overall market improves, politically themed tokens may still face selling pressure if investors begin reevaluating their risk—particularly if sentiment had been driven primarily by political narratives rather than usage or durable demand. In his view, the more important longer-term question is what can sustain interest beyond a token’s association with a political figure.
Congress control and the knock-on effects for crypto policy
The midterm results are also likely to affect the regulatory outlook for digital assets, not just trader sentiment. The article highlighted uncertainty around the future of US crypto legislation, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act—which has been stalled.
According to the source, the CLARITY Act failed to advance in the Senate earlier this year after it fell short of the 60 votes required. Democrats had been pushing for tighter ethical provisions and safeguards designed to address conflicts of interest tied to Trump’s crypto-related ventures, and four Republicans opposed advancing the bill.
Peillard said the midterm outcome creates an additional layer of regulatory uncertainty—particularly around how quickly any digital asset legislation might move and what direction it may take. For tokens whose investor demand is partly tethered to perceived political alignment, that uncertainty can translate into more immediate price pressure.
For the industry overall, his emphasis was on a broader goal: whether Congress can deliver a durable regulatory framework that offers clarity regardless of which party controls either chamber.
What to watch next
For traders and investors, Wednesday’s divergence underscores a key open question: whether political memecoins can attract sustained demand tied to fundamentals rather than election-driven expectations. The next signal to monitor will be how quickly lawmakers and regulators react to shifting congressional control—and whether any legislative progress, including on the CLARITY Act, meaningfully changes the perceived policy trajectory for the sector.
This article was originally published as Trump-Linked Tokens Drop as Democrats Win US Midterms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Circle’s latest quarterly results highlight a business in transition: stablecoin reserve earnings are under pressure from lower yields, while newer initiatives are beginning to contribute meaningful revenue. In its third-quarter report, the company said it recorded $182 million in revenue from its ARC token presale, helping lift overall earnings despite softness in income tied to USDC reserves.
Circle diluted earnings per share of $0.84, compared with $0.64 a year earlier and versus analysts’ expectations of $0.42. Total revenue and reserve income rose 17% to $865 million, but management noted that without ARC presale revenue, revenue would have declined year over year. Circle shares were down 0.84% to $74.59 at 16:05 UTC on Nov. 4, according to Yahoo Finance.
Key takeaways
ARC token presale revenue added $182 million in the quarter, materially offsetting declines in USDC reserve income.
USDC reserve income fell 8% to $657.6 million as average reserve yields declined, even as USDC circulation rose 8% year over year.
Circle’s stablecoin market share slipped to 27% by September, down 1.83 percentage points.
Management is preparing for new revenue streams tied to the payments network and potential staking rewards as Arc moves toward proof of stake in 2027.
USDC reserve income faces a yield headwind
Circle’s established earnings engine remains the interest generated on reserves backing USDC. That model links revenue to market interest rates and to how much USDC is outstanding. In the reported quarter, the company saw growth in circulation—average supply increased 8% year over year—but the yield earned on reserves declined sharply.
Circle said its reserve return fell by 61 basis points to 3.5%. As a result, reserve income dropped 8% to $657.6 million. The decline reflects a broader pattern in rates: even though the Federal Reserve raised its benchmark range by 0.25 percentage points to 3.75%–4% in September, that level was still below the 4%–4.25% range used for comparisons from a year earlier.
Circle’s reserve return also edged up from 3.48% in the previous quarter, but year-over-year pressure remained the dominant factor. USDC ended September at $73.9 billion in circulation. At the same time, USDC’s share of the stablecoin market decreased by 1.83 percentage points to 27%, underscoring the competitive environment Circle is navigating.
Payments and Arc economics begin to matter
Circle has been expanding beyond simple reserve-based stablecoin economics. The company launched its payments network in May 2025, designed to connect financial institutions that settle cross-border payments with stablecoin-based rails. Separately, Arc—Circle’s blockchain for financial applications—moved onto public mainnet on Sept. 16, 2026. Circle’s ARC token is intended to support security and governance as Arc progresses toward proof of stake targeted for 2027, while transaction fees are paid in USDC.
In the quarter, revenue from an ARC token presale became the key differentiator. Circle reported $182 million in presale revenue, which contributed to the stronger headline results. Management’s own framing makes the risk and opportunity clear: excluding ARC presale revenue, Circle’s total revenue and reserve income fell to $683 million, down roughly 8% year over year. That suggests the near-term earnings picture is increasingly dependent on the timing of monetization from newer products rather than stablecoin reserve growth alone.
The company also reported adjusted results that help show where the base business sits. Circle said adjusted EBITDA rose 85% to $317 million, but it added that without ARC contribution, adjusted EBITDA would have been approximately $135 million, down 21% from $171 million a year earlier. In other words, the stablecoin reserve business remains meaningful, but its yield-driven limitations are showing through in the numbers.
Competition widens as other stablecoin models gain traction
Circle’s USDC franchise is not operating in a vacuum. The company pointed to a broader market in which alternative stablecoin structures and ecosystems are expanding. Open Standard’s Open USD, for example, was reportedly live on Solana by Sept. 30, with partners including Coinbase, Mastercard, Shopify, Stripe, and Visa. While Circle did not present market share changes beyond USDC’s figures, the presence of major financial and payments brands in rival stablecoin frameworks reinforces that stablecoin distribution and partnerships are becoming more contested.
One key difference among models is how reserve earnings are distributed. Circle’s USDC economics are tied to interest generated on reserves, whereas Open USD’s approach—based on descriptions of how reserve earnings are allocated to partners after a management fee—offers businesses another route to access stablecoins and share in the economics. For investors, this matters because it affects how easily stablecoin providers can broaden adoption without relying solely on organic growth in token balances.
What Circle says it will do next
Circle’s strategy, as reflected in management commentary, is to build interconnected “flywheels” across stablecoins, payments, and blockchain applications. Chief Executive Jeremy Allaire described the goal as creating multiple reinforcing growth loops, where new members, builders, and assets increase the value of the overall platform.
The company is also positioning additional revenue sources as Arc matures. Circle said it anticipates staking rewards after Arc transitions to proof of stake, targeting 2027. That could provide another stream of token-related economics, though the outcome depends on network development and the timing of technical milestones.
Payments-network monetization is also on the roadmap. Circle’s CFO, Jeremy Fox-Geen, said the company expected material CPN revenue in 2027, indicating that near-term payments income is still not the core driver of results. Instead, the current quarter’s upside largely came from ARC presale revenue, leaving a clear watch item for future filings: whether ongoing ARC-related activity converts into sustainable operating income rather than one-time contributions.
Circle additionally disclosed organizational adjustments, including a reduction affecting approximately 5% of employees. The company said this was intended to align its structure with its operating model and strategic priorities—an indicator that management is balancing investment in new initiatives with cost discipline.
Investors and market participants will likely focus next on two questions: how quickly Circle can translate Arc and the payments network into recurring revenue, and whether USDC reserve yield pressure eases as interest rate expectations evolve. The quarter shows both the fragility of the reserve-based model in a lower-yield environment and the potential for Circle’s newer products to reshape its earnings mix over time.
This article was originally published as Circle’s ARC Token Sale Boosts Earnings as USDC Yield Drops on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake says the network’s post-quantum and “post-AI” transition should be largely wrapped up by December 2028—an accelerated target compared with the foundation’s previously published quantum-resistance deadline.
Speaking at Devcon 8 in Mumbai on Tuesday, Drake outlined a plan that hinges on developers delivering three additional network upgrades within roughly the next 24 months. The update is significant for Ethereum builders and risk managers because it narrows the window for implementing new cryptographic and systems changes that could otherwise take longer to ship, test, and deploy safely.
Key takeaways
Justin Drake targets December 2028 to complete Ethereum’s post-quantum and post-AI transition.
The earlier Ethereum Foundation roadmap set December 2029 as the goal for quantum resistance across execution, consensus, and data layers.
Drake’s Devcon remarks point to three additional network upgrades being delivered within about 24 months.
The foundation’s roadmap is still scheduled for reassessment in January 2027, suggesting this acceleration may evolve.
Other projects have criticized the later deadline and are pursuing independent post-quantum research paths.
Accelerated target for Ethereum’s cryptographic shift
Drake’s remarks place timing at the center of Ethereum’s post-quantum effort. According to his Devcon 8 comments, the goal is to “wrap up the full post-quantum and post-AI transition” by December 2028. He added that developers would have about 24 months to deliver three additional network upgrades—an implied ramp that compresses the schedule from what the foundation previously described.
The distinction matters operationally. A shorter implementation timeline can change how teams prioritize engineering resources, auditing bandwidth, and testnet coverage. It also affects how applications and infrastructure providers plan for compatibility—particularly if cryptographic primitives or protocol assumptions shift across multiple layers rather than in a single event.
How the December 2028 goal compares with the published roadmap
Ethereum’s September roadmap established December 2029 as the target for quantum resistance spanning Ethereum’s execution layer, consensus layer, and data layer. Drake’s new, earlier date therefore represents a meaningful shift in ambition—at least from the perspective of when “full” transition work should be completed.
Even so, Drake’s comments do not appear to formally replace the foundation’s existing roadmap. The document is still set for reassessment in January 2027, meaning the foundation may adjust the plan after reviewing progress, implementation feasibility, and security considerations. For investors and developers, that reassessment checkpoint is likely the moment when the accelerated narrative either solidifies into an updated schedule or is moderated by engineering realities.
What Ethereum’s internal sequence has been aiming for
Drake has previously tied the broader schedule to specific technical milestones. In August, he outlined plans for production-ready “leanVM” technology in 2027. In the following year—2028—he described moving toward post-quantum deployments across Ethereum’s three layers.
That earlier outline now aligns with the updated timing logic: a set of upgrades delivered over a roughly two-year window, followed by deployment work that completes by late 2028. The underlying takeaway is that Ethereum’s post-quantum transition is being treated as a staged protocol change rather than a single upgrade, which is consistent with the roadmap approach that addresses multiple layers instead of only one.
Why other teams are pushing back on later deadlines
The Ethereum Foundation’s December 2029 quantum-resistance target has not gone unchallenged. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson previously told Cointelegraph that the 2029 deadline was “too late,” warning that deadlines could slip.
Beyond critique, the broader ecosystem appears to be translating concerns into independent research directions. In October, Starknet’s community reportedly backed research into becoming an independent post-quantum layer-1 network—an approach that reflects a strategy of reducing dependence on Ethereum’s timeline while pursuing readiness for post-quantum cryptography.
These reactions matter because they highlight an asymmetry: Ethereum is coordinating a multi-layer transition with a roadmap and reassessment cycles, while other ecosystems hedge by exploring alternative deployment pathways. If Ethereum’s accelerated schedule advances smoothly, the divergence may narrow. If it encounters delays, the gap between “wait-and-implement” and “prepare-in-parallel” strategies could widen.
For readers tracking Ethereum’s post-quantum roadmap, the next signals to watch are the January 2027 reassessment of the foundation’s schedule and whether the “three additional network upgrades” framework solidifies in public development plans before the December 2028 target becomes definitive.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Roadmap Brings Quantum-Resistant Upgrades to 2028, Early on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin attempted to trim Wednesday’s losses after a sharp post-election dip, as traders digested results from the US midterm elections. After falling to $75,618—an area last seen in mid-September—BTC/USD rebounded toward the $78,000 zone, with analysts pointing to a key long-term support level near the 50-week moving average.
The move came alongside a broader risk-asset wobble: S&P 500 futures were down around 0.3% in early trading, mirroring the initial uncertainty seen in markets after the election outcome.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD tested $75,618 after Democrats won control of both the US House and Senate, before rebounding toward $78,039.
CoinGlass data showed late liquidation of BTC long positions below $76,000, with total crypto long liquidations at $288 million over 24 hours.
Analysts highlighted the 50-week simple moving average at about $75,733 as a critical “line in the sand” for buyers.
Overhead resistance around $78,000 appeared to limit upside after a failed push higher earlier this week.
Election-driven selloff meets muted leverage unwind
TradingView data showed BTC/USD slipping into Tuesday’s daily close as election results came in. According to earlier reporting tied to the election outcome, Democrats went on to win control of both the House and Senate.
On Bitstamp, BTC dropped to $75,618 during the selloff, then recovered over the next few hours, reaching as high as $78,039. Despite the volatility, institutional trading research suggested the reaction was closer to what options markets had already anticipated.
In comments sent to Cointelegraph, Kelly Ye, head of research at institutional digital asset trading platform Talos, said markets had largely priced the election outcome. She noted that Bitcoin moved roughly 1.7% after polls closed, close to the ~1.8% implied by options, and that there was no broad “leverage flush” that would suggest a systemic squeeze or forced unwind.
CoinGlass data reinforced the idea that the decline did not turn into a disorderly cascade, but it did show a clear pocket of liquidation activity: late BTC long liquidations below $76,000 and a supply wall that helped cap upside below $78,000. Over the past 24 hours, CoinGlass recorded total crypto long liquidations of $288 million.
US stock futures reflected a similar pattern. S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures were each down about 0.3% at the time of writing, with early weakness followed by partial recovery.
Why macro concerns still matter for crypto traders
Beyond election headline risk, equity-market commentary also pointed to potential implications for the broader investment cycle—particularly around data-center spending. Anthony Saglimbene, chief market strategist at Ameriprise Financial, told CNBC that concerns about data-center buildout and wider AI-related capital expenditure were contributing to an adverse reaction to the Democratic gains.
In the same vein, political signals appeared to be shifting toward cooperation. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, US President Donald Trump—who previously said he could become “Mr. Veto” to block Democratic initiatives—took a more conciliatory tone, saying he expected to work with Democrats.
For crypto investors, the practical takeaway is that BTC’s near-term trading behavior is still closely tied to how markets price policy and capital-spending expectations, not only to crypto-specific catalysts. Even when the initial election move is broadly “priced,” the follow-through depends on whether investors interpret policy as supportive or restrictive for the sectors that dominate equity sentiment.
Key technical focus: defending the 50-week moving average
Technically, the BTC selloff aligned with a widely watched benchmark: its 50-week simple moving average (SMA). Multiple traders cited this level as the near-term threshold that could determine whether the market stabilizes or slides further.
In a post on X, Keith Alan, co-founder of crypto trading suite Material Indicators, described the 50-week SMA as a “line in the sand” for Bitcoin bulls. The argument was straightforward: if BTC fails to hold that trendline support, it could encourage a more meaningful correction rather than a quick mean reversion.
That view also fits the context of price action around $78,000. Crypto analyst Rekt Capital, who had earlier flagged the risk of BTC dipping below $76,000 after a failed breakout attempt above $78,000, continued to emphasize overhead resistance on the three-day chart. In Wednesday commentary on X, Rekt Capital suggested that “3-Day Lower Highs” could guide price back toward the approximately $75.5k area over time.
With the 50-week SMA sitting near $75,733, the market effectively faces a two-sided technical problem: bulls need to defend support quickly to prevent a deeper drawdown, while buyers also need to reclaim the $78,000 ceiling to prove the rebound has real momentum rather than short-covering.
What to watch next as volatility settles
Traders will likely focus on whether BTC can hold the 50-week SMA area around $75.7k and break through the $78,000 resistance zone. The next signals may come from follow-through in liquidations and price structure—specifically whether the market prints higher lows after the liquidation-driven dip, or whether repeated rejection near $78,000 pushes bids back toward the mid-$75k range.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Rebounds After 7-Week Low as Democrats Sweep Congress, Back Near $76K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin reclaimed the $80,000 level at the Wall Street open on Wednesday as broader risk sentiment improved following US midterm election results that shifted power toward Democrats. The rebound was mirrored in equity index futures, while oil prices eased on growing hopes that tensions linked to the US-Iran conflict could cool.
According to TradingView data cited in earlier market coverage, BTC/USD rose more than 4% and moved back above $80,500 during the start of Wednesday’s trading session, rebounding from its lowest levels in roughly seven weeks.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin pushed back above $80,000 and $80,500 as equities recovered from an early dip tied to midterm election headlines.
S&P 500 futures rebounded sharply after falling to a three-month low around 7,490, a move The Kobeissi Letter described as a “textbook bear trap.”
WTI crude slid below $93 per barrel, with weekly losses of up to 11.9%, as market participants reacted to signals of reduced Iran-related risk.
CoinShares research head James Butterfill said Bitcoin’s near-term performance is still likely driven more by macro factors—real yields, dollar liquidity, and exchange-traded product flows—than by politics alone.
Bitcoin rides a broader “risk-on” turn after midterms
Crypto’s move higher tracked a sudden improvement in US markets. TradingView figures referenced in the source show BTC/USD gaining more than 4% after slipping to lower levels earlier in the run-up to the election period.
Equity futures set the tone. S&P 500 futures, which had dropped as low as 7,490—its lowest level since late July—then rose quickly toward roughly 7,690, approaching new month-to-date highs. The Kobeissi Letter attributed the initial weakness to a “textbook bear trap,” arguing that the market initially overreacted to the news flow around Democratic gains.
The Kobeissi Letter pointed to the scale of the political shift, stating the Democrats had flipped seven seats in the Senate and 25 in the House of Representatives—one of the largest changes in US political power in nearly two decades, according to the post cited in the source.
What changes—and what doesn’t—for crypto markets
While election outcomes helped spark the immediate turnaround, CoinShares’ James Butterfill suggested investors should not assume politics will be the dominant driver for long. In comments carried in the source, Butterfill argued that for Bitcoin, factors such as real yields, dollar liquidity, and the direction of Bitcoin exchange-traded product (ETP) flows continue to matter more than elections once uncertainty fades.
This framing matters because it highlights a common pattern in macro-driven crypto rallies: even when headlines trigger the first leg of momentum, follow-through often depends on whether traditional financial conditions are improving in a way that supports risk assets broadly. In other words, the midterm result may have served as a catalyst for sentiment, but the sustainability of the rebound still hinges on liquidity and rates-related indicators.
That makes Wednesday’s move important for traders not just as a headline-driven bounce, but as a test of whether crypto can hold gains as attention shifts from political uncertainty to the macro variables Butterfill flagged.
Oil eases on Iran-war hopes, potentially lowering inflation pressure
Commodity markets added another layer to the risk-on backdrop. The source reports that Iran’s reaction to the Democratic election outcome helped push US WTI crude to its lowest levels since mid-October.
In an X post referenced in the source, Iran’s speaker of parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, wrote that voters had “said NO TO WAR, and we endorse this message.” Separately, the source also noted that earlier, US President Donald Trump acknowledged that the Iran conflict was partly responsible for Republican election losses.
As a result, WTI dipped below $93 per barrel during Wednesday trading, down as much as 11.9% for the week. Brent crude moved toward sub-$100 levels for the first time since Oct. 7, according to the same report.
Economist Robin Brooks, quoted in the source, said oil markets had priced in a risk premium that was “too high” before the midterms. He also framed the post-election question around whether the US president will dial back on war-related escalation or pursue a tougher stance, writing that the key issue is whether policy moves in response to the new pricing of geopolitical risk.
In a market environment where crude prices influence inflation expectations, lower oil can translate into more moderate rate-hike expectations—one reason macro investors may treat commodity declines as supportive of wider risk appetite.
What to watch next for BTC and macro-linked sentiment
For readers tracking the durability of Wednesday’s rebound, the next focus is whether Bitcoin’s gains hold as equity futures stabilize and as the market continues to reprice geopolitical risk. CoinShares’ Butterfill specifically pointed to real yields, dollar liquidity, and Bitcoin ETP flows—watching those metrics alongside broader rate expectations may offer clearer signals than headlines alone.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Surges to $80.5K as US Stocks Rally Post Midterms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

France is moving to tighten crypto reporting rules as lawmakers negotiate the 2027 Finance Bill. The National Assembly adopted an amendment that would require taxpayers to declare self-custodied crypto assets to tax authorities once holdings cross a high threshold.
Separately, the Assembly also voted down a proposal aimed at shielding small crypto payments from tax, reinforcing that France’s approach remains focused on taxable events rather than de minimis exemptions.
Key takeaways
The National Assembly adopted amendment I-2701 requiring disclosure of self-custodied crypto holdings of at least €100,000, based on asset values as of Dec. 31 of the tax year.
The reporting rule is part of the 2027 Finance Bill and must remain in the final legislation to take effect.
A separate amendment proposing a €1,000 exemption for crypto payments for goods and services was rejected by lawmakers.
Budget timing remains a live risk: the Assembly postponed a revenue-section vote again, and one public affairs executive warned that a likely rejection could sink the entire bill.
Earlier votes in the Assembly included both exit-tax measures for unrealized gains relating to relocating tax residence (rejected) and a new tax treatment for converting crypto into certain stablecoins (approved).
Self-custody reporting heads toward final legislation
On Tuesday, the French National Assembly approved amendment I-2701, which would make it mandatory for taxpayers to report self-custodied crypto holdings once they reach €100,000 (about $112,000). According to the Assembly’s official voting record, the amendment passed by 150–44, with eight abstentions.
The measure is intended to standardize disclosure for people who hold crypto outside traditional custody arrangements. The amendment specifies that the threshold would be evaluated on Dec. 31 of the relevant tax year—meaning taxpayers will likely need to track custody status and asset values at that point rather than rely only on transaction activity throughout the year.
The amendment is documented in the Assembly’s legislative materials under Amendment I-2701, and the vote is recorded in the Assembly’s official voting record.
Crypto payments exemption proposal fails
In a second vote, the Assembly rejected an amendment that would have carved out a tax exemption for gains generated from using crypto to pay for goods and services. The rejected proposal would have limited the exemption to payment activity totaling no more than €1,000 (about $1,120) within the tax year.
That amendment was defeated 69–14, according to the Assembly’s session transcript transcript. The outcome suggests lawmakers are not willing to create a broad “small payments” exception that would reduce the need to account for taxable events tied to crypto usage.
What happens next: committee deadlines and the Senate calendar
Both votes occurred in the context of the 2027 Finance Bill drafting process. The reporting requirement will not become law automatically; it must be retained in the final version of the legislation. The Assembly is expected to complete its first reading by Nov. 17, according to a deadline listed by the Assembly’s leadership documents. The Assembly provided this timing in a meeting conclusions note.
On the next legislative stage, Senate debate is scheduled to begin Nov. 20, based on the Senate’s posted order of business.
Broader budget uncertainty could affect multiple crypto provisions
The Assembly’s crypto votes are occurring alongside broader budget maneuvering. The National Assembly postponed Tuesday’s scheduled vote on the budget’s revenue section for the second time, as lawmakers continued debating amendments. The vote was originally set for Oct. 20, but was delayed again, with no final decision yet.
While one postponement alone may not change the substance of the crypto debate, the risk is procedural: if the revenue section is rejected, it could jeopardize the entire bill package. Faustine Fleuret, global head of public affairs at lending protocol morpho, told Cointelegraph that a “likely rejection” of the revenue section could “result in the rejection of the entire bill in the National Assembly, including provisions adopted by way of amendments.”
Separately, the Assembly also rejected proposals on Friday that would have applied exit taxes to unrealized crypto gains when taxpayers transfer their tax residence abroad. Earlier in the drafting cycle, lawmakers approved an amendment on Oct. 16 that would tax gains from converting crypto into certain stablecoins. That approved amendment targets stablecoins classified as electronic money tokens under EU rules, while still requiring retention in the final legislation.
For readers tracking the legislative arc, earlier reporting from Cointelegraph highlighted France’s move toward automatic sharing of crypto tax data as well as the stablecoin and exit-tax debate. In this same vein, Cointelegraph noted that the Assembly postponed the 2027 budget vote and discussed how the process could affect crypto-related provisions; see Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage.
Investors and builders should watch two things as the bill moves: whether the Assembly manages to keep the self-custody disclosure amendment intact by the Nov. 17 first-reading deadline, and whether the Senate’s scheduled Nov. 20 debate and the Assembly’s budget voting outcome reshapes or removes other crypto tax provisions already adopted in committee.
This article was originally published as France Moves to Support Reporting for Self-Custodied Crypto Over €100K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tron founder Justin Sun is asking a federal court to impose $263,821.20 in sanctions on World Liberty Financial and its lawyers, arguing the company misled the court about who ultimately owns it during an ongoing dispute tied to Sun’s $45 million investment in WLFI tokens.
In a filing submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Sun and two co-plaintiffs claim World Liberty first disclosed Florida as its sole citizenship and then amended its disclosure nearly three months later—adding a chain of 22 individuals and entities, including parties associated with the United Arab Emirates.
Key takeaways
Justin Sun seeks $263,821.20 in sanctions, tied to what he says was an initially misleading ownership/citizenship disclosure by World Liberty Financial.
Sun alleges World Liberty’s citizenship disclosure changed nearly three months after the original filing, expanding an ownership chain to 22 parties and entities, including those connected to the UAE.
The dispute has also included arguments over whether the case belongs in federal court or should be moved to arbitration.
Sun says he intends to refile in California state court after the sanctions motion is resolved; a hearing is scheduled for Dec. 10.
Sanctions request centers on alleged ownership disclosure changes
Sun’s sanctions bid points to how World Liberty reported its citizenship for jurisdictional purposes. According to the court filing, World Liberty initially listed Florida as its only citizenship and later revised that position to reflect a more complex ownership structure.
The amended disclosure, Sun’s team alleges, came close to a procedural milestone: six days after a federal judge questioned World Liberty’s effort to move Sun’s claims into arbitration. World Liberty’s lawyers then argued that because foreign parties were allegedly included in the company’s ownership chain—via UAE citizenship—the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
Sun said in a public post that World Liberty “presumably always knew who its owners were,” adding that when asked about how the disclosure changed, the company declined to explain.
World Liberty Financial did not immediately respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment.
Why the UAE connection matters for jurisdiction and procedure
At the heart of Sun’s complaint is the procedural impact of World Liberty’s amended disclosure. In the exhibits submitted with the case, World Liberty’s lawyer Sam Cleveland stated in an Aug. 26 email that his team had “recently” learned of additional citizenship information.
Sun’s attorneys dispute that narrative. They argue World Liberty already had UAE citizenship when the lawsuit was filed in April and contend that World Liberty’s legal team provided limited documentation about its ownership structure while declining to explain why the original court disclosure omitted the UAE-linked information.
Sun’s court filing seeks to scrutinize not only what World Liberty disclosed, but when it learned the information and how that change aligns with the company’s attempt to steer the dispute toward arbitration.
How the sanctions figure was calculated
The amended disclosure dispute quickly evolved into a sanctions fight. Sun’s side says the request for $263,821.20 reflects attorney fees for work aimed at opposing arbitration—specifically tied to four attorneys.
Sun’s representatives also state that the amount sought does not include other legal fees and costs related to jurisdictional discovery and the sanctions motion itself.
Sun’s attorneys are effectively arguing that the alleged disclosure issue forced additional legal work, including efforts to preserve the case in federal court and resist arbitration, and that the court should compensate for those expenses through sanctions.
Timeline of the wider legal conflict around WLFI tokens
The sanctions request sits within a broader pattern of litigation involving Sun and World Liberty Financial.
Sun sued World Liberty in April, alleging fraud and the unlawful freezing of his tokens. World Liberty responded by filing a defamation lawsuit against Sun in May, alleging false statements and violations of token-sale terms; Sun denied those allegations.
The legal wrangling follows a deal described in earlier reporting involving an Abu Dhabi-backed investment vehicle that agreed to purchase a 49% stake in World Liberty for $500 million. Sun previously backed the Trump family’s crypto ventures—both by investing in World Liberty and by buying President Donald Trump’s TRUMP memecoin.
According to the dispute filings described in earlier coverage, Sun’s involvement and the way the ownership of World Liberty was structured have become central issues not only on the merits but also on where the case should be heard.
What happens next
A hearing on the sanctions motion is scheduled for Dec. 10. Sun has also said he plans to refile in California state court once the sanctions process is resolved, meaning the next steps could determine not only whether sanctions are imposed, but also where the underlying claims are litigated and how jurisdictional arguments will shape the case.
This article was originally published as Justin Sun Requests $264K Sanctions Over World Liberty UAE Disclosure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Canton Network’s native token, Canton Coin (CC), jumped about 4% on Wednesday after the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Corporation Finance issued a no-action letter that, in the agency staff’s view, treats the asset as a “digital commodity.”
At 10:27 am UTC, CC was trading around $0.098, according to CoinMarketCap, though it remained down roughly 4.2% on the week. The move is notable not just for the price reaction, but because the SEC’s staff explained why, based on the token’s proposed issuance and distribution, it does not anticipate enforcement action tied to the current structure.
Key takeaways
The SEC staff’s no-action letter indicates it views CC as a “digital commodity,” tied to network usage rather than profits from a central team.
The letter suggests the SEC would not recommend enforcement action over CC’s issuance without securities registration, if tokens are created under the conditions outlined by Canton.
Canton’s filings emphasize that participants earn CC through operating infrastructure and applications, with protocol rules governing minting based on activity.
This outcome aligns with the SEC’s March guidance distinguishing digital commodities from securities—while still leaving room for securities-law risk in how tokens are offered and sold.
Why the SEC staff letter moved the market
In a Tuesday letter, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance accepted Canton’s explanation that the token’s value is driven by how the network operates and by demand for CC-linked access or participation, rather than by efforts by a promoter expected to generate profits for holders.
While such letters are not a formal court ruling or a binding determination of legal status, they can be market-relevant because they reflect the SEC staff’s current enforcement posture under specific fact patterns. For token issuers and investors, that distinction matters: it can reduce near-term regulatory uncertainty, but it does not eliminate the need to analyze sales, marketing, and secondary-market behavior under securities laws.
How Canton says CC is earned and minted
The regulatory context of the letter centers on the mechanics of CC’s issuance. In a Friday filing to the SEC, Canton developer Digital Asset stated that network participants earn CC by operating infrastructure and applications, with the protocol determining token minting limits based on activity.
That framing is designed to address a core question regulators often ask in crypto cases: whether the economic reality resembles an investment contract—where profits depend on the efforts of others—or a commodity-like asset whose value is linked primarily to network usage and market demand.
The no-action letter also states that SEC staff would not recommend enforcement action over CC’s issuance without securities registration, provided tokens are issued under the conditions described by Canton in its submission. For market participants, the practical implication is that adherence to those conditions remains central; changes to token distribution or how participants are compensated could affect how the letter applies.
Digital commodities vs. securities: the SEC’s March framework
The Canton decision sits within a broader SEC approach laid out earlier this year. The SEC issued guidance in March distinguishing digital commodities—such as Bitcoin and Ether—from securities. The agency’s position in that guidance is that while certain tokens may not be securities themselves, the way they are offered and sold can still trigger securities-law obligations.
That nuance matters for holders and exchanges. Even if SEC staff describes a token as a digital commodity for purposes of enforcement risk in a particular issuance scenario, market actors still need to consider whether fundraising, promotion, distribution, and trading practices introduce securities-law concerns.
The SEC staff’s letter to Canton also carries an important boundary: it reflects the views of staff and the specific request presented. As the filing materials and SEC posture indicate, it is not a binding ruling that permanently settles the question for all circumstances.
No-action letters continue to set guardrails across the sector
Earlier token-related no-action letters from SEC staff show a pattern of targeted regulatory engagement with crypto projects. The SEC staff previously issued no-action guidance to projects including DoubleZero (2Z) in September 2025 and the Solana-native decentralized physical infrastructure network (DePIN) project Fuse in November 2025.
For investors and builders, these letters function less like blanket approvals and more like guardrails: they can clarify what structures regulators are willing to tolerate under current enforcement priorities. They also underscore that the SEC’s focus is not solely on the token’s underlying technology, but on how economic benefits are produced and distributed.
In Canton’s case, the SEC staff’s acceptance of Canton’s explanation—centering network operation and participant activity—helps reinforce the agency’s commodity framing when a token’s economics are sufficiently tied to decentralized participation rather than a profit-seeking managerial effort.
Looking ahead, market participants should watch whether Canton’s issuance and operating incentives continue to match the conditions described in the SEC staff letter, and whether any changes to token distribution, promotion, or participation rules could alter the regulatory risk profile. As always, the question is unlikely to end with a single letter—particularly given the SEC’s longstanding view that securities concerns can arise from the offer and sale, even when a token is characterized as more commodity-like.
This article was originally published as Canton CC Token Jumps 4% After SEC Staff Flags It as a Digital Commodity on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Grayscale says the fallout from Binance’s reported $6.3 billion hack may wobble confidence in crypto markets in the short term, but could ultimately push the industry toward more rigorous security standards—especially around how assets are safeguarded by larger investors.
In a report published Tuesday, Grayscale head of research Zach Pandl argued that the incident highlights why institutional custody solutions—commonly used through US spot crypto exchange-traded products—matter for risk management during major exchange disruptions.
Key takeaways
Grayscale views Binance’s hack as a near-term confidence test that could catalyze stronger exchange security practices.
According to Grayscale, institutional custody typically relies on state-chartered banks, qualified custodians, offline storage, multi-signature controls, SOC attestations, and insurance.
The FBI attributed the Binance attack to North Korea, while North Korean official Kim Yo Jong dismissed the claims as “absurd rhetoric.”
Market sell pressure followed the hack, but total crypto capitalization later rebounded, according to reported market tracking data.
Bitwise’s research head linked US spot Bitcoin ETF outflows to a short-term “risk-off” environment rather than a longer-lasting shift in institutional demand.
Why Grayscale connects the hack to custody standards
Grayscale’s Pandl framed the hack less as an isolated failure and more as an illustration of how custody design can affect outcomes for different market participants. In the report, he pointed to institutional custody models—such as those used by US-based crypto exchange-traded products—as a key buffer during periods of heightened operational risk.
Grayscale described these vehicles as holding assets at state-chartered banks and through qualified custodians. It also emphasized that such setups typically incorporate offline storage, multi-signature wallet structures, SOC attestations, and insurance policies, all of which are intended to reduce the chance that a single compromise can quickly translate into permanent losses.
What happened around the Binance incident
Binance disclosed a record $6.3 billion hack on Thursday and said it would cover all customer losses.
In parallel, the FBI attributed the attack to North Korea. Kim Yo Jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, rejected the allegations, calling them “absurd rhetoric.”
Sell-off, rebound, and what it means for broader market behavior
Following the announcement, the incident was reported to be followed by a market sell-off. Reportedly, Bitcoin fell below $77,000, while BNB dropped more than 8% over a 24-hour period into early Friday.
By Wednesday, the broader market had partially recovered: total crypto market capitalization reportedly rebounded 2% over 24 hours to about $2.63 trillion after touching a weekly low near $2.55 trillion. Even with the rebound, the market remained about $100 billion below its Oct. 28 level.
This sequence—sharp initial risk reduction followed by a measured rebound—fits the pattern of how large cyber events can trigger short-term liquidity and sentiment pressure while investors look for stabilization signals.
ETF flows suggest caution, not a structural institutional shift
Grayscale’s custody-focused argument also intersected with ongoing developments in regulated crypto exposure. Bitwise’s head of research, André Dragosch, told Cointelegraph that recent outflows from US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds were “related to a short-term risk-off environment rather than a structural change in institutional sentiment.”
That distinction matters for investors who track ETF flows as a proxy for broader demand. If outflows are driven by temporary market stress, risk management may dominate decision-making; if they reflect a structural shift, longer-term positioning could change more persistently. Dragosch’s comment points to the former—at least in the immediate aftermath of the broader uncertainty triggered by the Binance hack and market volatility.
As the investigation and remediation efforts around Binance continue, investors should watch whether the episode leads to concrete changes in custody and exchange security practices—particularly those that can be operationalized quickly across platforms. Equally important will be monitoring follow-through in ETF flow data and broader market capitalization to determine whether the current “risk-off” tone fades or evolves into something more durable.
This article was originally published as Grayscale’s Pandl: Binance Hack Could Be a Temporary Market Setback on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) saw net outflows of more than $1 billion over three trading days, according to SoSoValue data, but Bitwise argues the movement is more consistent with a short-term risk-off reaction than a durable shift in institutional demand.
Another $116 million left the funds on Tuesday, taking net outflows since Friday to $1.16 billion, SoSoValue data shows. Bitwise’s head of research, André Dragosch, told Cointelegraph that the withdrawals appear tied to weaker sentiment rather than any widespread institutional concern about whether ETF holdings are safe.
Key takeaways
SoSoValue reports Tuesday’s $116 million withdrawal brings three-day net outflows to $1.16 billion.
Bitwise says the pattern aligns with a short-term risk-off mood, not a structural retreat by institutional investors.
Dragosch links the ETF flow weakness to broader market sentiment that worsened after Binance’s $6.3 billion hack was reported.
Outflows appear to be moderating as Bitcoin sentiment improves and the Crypto Fear & Greed Index rises within the “Fear” zone.
Flows weaken, but Bitwise sees no lasting institutional break
Bitwise frames ETF flows as a blend of long-term adoption and shorter-term sentiment swings. Dragosch said the latest withdrawals reflect changes in how investors feel about risk during volatile periods rather than a fundamental reassessment of Bitcoin ETFs’ role for institutions.
To support that view, Bitwise pointed to a survey of 15 institutions in which none reported reducing their Bitcoin ETF exposure during the bear market. Dragosch also referenced US regulatory filings indicating that most institutional investor categories—excluding hedge funds—largely held their positions.
At the same time, Dragosch emphasized that retail investors still account for the majority of Bitcoin ETF holdings. Retail participation tends to respond more sharply to day-to-day market volatility, which can amplify flow swings when sentiment deteriorates.
Tuesday’s outflows slow as sentiment ticks up
Tuesday’s $116 million net outflow marked a slowdown compared with earlier sessions. Cointelegraph previously reported Monday saw $399 million in outflows and Friday $643 million, extending the withdrawal streak to three trading days.
Despite the outflows, sentiment signs have been less pessimistic than earlier in the week. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index rose to 34 from 26 on Monday, though it remained in the “Fear” category. Over the same period, Bitcoin gained about 1.6% over 24 hours to trade near $78,000 at the time of publication, according to CoinGecko.
On Bitwise’s framing, this combination—still-negative sentiment but improving price action—helps explain why withdrawals have continued while potentially losing momentum.
After Binance hack, custody questions resurface—Bitwise draws a line
The sharp turn in flows followed the report of Binance’s $6.3 billion hack on Thursday. The incident reignited worries among some observers about crypto ETF custody, especially given the industry practice of relying on a limited number of custodians.
Dragosch said the market’s reaction appears more focused on immediate confidence than on systemic ETF custody risk. He explained that the Binance hack impacted “hot wallets,” which are connected to the internet, rather than cold wallets. In his view, this distinction matters because it more closely resembles a different threat model than the arrangements used by institutional fund custodians.
“In contrast, institutional funds held at Coinbase custody are custodied in cold storage which, by definition, are not connected to the internet,” Dragosch said, making the case that exchange incidents and institutional custody infrastructure are not directly interchangeable.
The broader point for investors is that ETF flow volatility can be driven by headlines and confidence shocks, even when the underlying custody mechanics differ. Still, the industry debate highlights a gap: even if cold-storage custody reduces certain risks, incidents that involve large exchanges can quickly influence investor behavior—at least in the short term.
What to watch next for Bitcoin ETF demand
For now, Bitwise’s message is that institutional exposure looks resilient, while retail-driven sensitivity continues to amplify short-lived drawdowns. Investors will likely watch whether outflows persist after sentiment stabilizes and whether any further custody-related narratives emerge that could extend the risk-off cycle rather than letting ETF demand normalize.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs See $1.16B Outflows as Bitwise Targets Short-Term Selling on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockchain tracking indicates the team behind Binance’s massive 2026 hack has continued moving and converting much of the stolen Solana-linked proceeds, with laundering flows increasingly routed through the cross-chain swap protocol THORChain.
According to Arkham data cited in reporting, wallets associated with the “Binance hacker” group now hold 182,443 SOL (about $16.9 million), and the broader attacker cohort has already moved roughly 81% of the 970,522 SOL reportedly stolen during the exploit—an amount linked to at least part of the laundering pipeline described by investigators.
Key takeaways
Arkham-reported wallet clusters tied to the Binance hack hold 182,443 SOL, valued at about $16.9 million.
Tracking cited by Lookonchain suggests the attackers have advanced conversion steps that include SOL → USDC → bridging to Ethereum → ETH → BTC via THORChain.
THORChain resumed swaps on multiple networks after a halt triggered by an Ethereum block reorganization that exposed a refund bug.
Chainalysis has said the halt inadvertently delayed laundering activity, while other on-chain analysts estimate a large portion of related transactions were automated.
Authorities attributed the hack to North Korea-linked actors, which North Korean officials denied, while investigators continue to watch THORChain’s role in laundering from other major breaches.
Attacker holdings and the “conversion ladder”
The latest movement patterns come as researchers map how stolen assets are split across wallets, converted, and bridged across chains. Arkham’s entity-level monitoring, as referenced in the report, links a cluster of wallets to the Binance exploit and places their SOL holdings at 182,443 SOL—roughly 18.8% of the 970,522 SOL attributed to the hack.
Lookonchain, in its Wednesday update, described a multi-step path the attackers used: SOL was distributed across multiple wallets, then sold for USDC, after which the stablecoin proceeds were bridged to Ethereum to buy ether (ETH). The final step described involves swapping ETH for bitcoin (BTC) through THORChain, a cross-chain exchange designed to enable asset conversion without relying on traditional centralized order books.
For investors and traders, these details matter because they illustrate how hackers can turn a large, volatile crypto haul into multiple liquid representations across ecosystems—often before defenders can react or freeze funds. It also helps explain why cross-chain liquidity rails like THORChain frequently become a focus of monitoring during major incidents.
Binance breach details and the hunt for attribution
Binance disclosed that its systems were compromised after attackers gained access to employee devices using fake job interview lures and malicious software downloads. The exchange characterized the incident as a record-setting hack and said later that it replenished 98% of affected tokens and would absorb remaining losses.
On the investigative side, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) attributed the attack on Saturday to North Korea’s TraderTraitor hackers, and urged crypto service providers—explicitly including THORNode operators—to block transactions linked to stolen assets.
North Korea’s response was swift. Kim Yo Jong, sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, dismissed the FBI’s accusations as “absurd rhetoric,” according to coverage linked in the source reporting.
While attribution disputes are not unusual in cyber cases, what is notable here is the operational specificity: regulators and investigators have pushed for targeted transaction blocking across parts of the cross-chain infrastructure, suggesting authorities believe the laundering route is not merely incidental.
THORChain’s swap halt and why it slowed (then restarted) laundering
THORChain’s ability to process swaps became part of the story once services were paused and later restored. Earlier coverage cited in the report notes that THORChain halted trading on Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other chains after an Ethereum-related issue: a block reorganization exposed a refund bug.
When THORChain resumed trading on Wednesday, the restart enabled cross-chain swaps to continue across multiple networks. Chainalysis, as referenced in the report, said the halt inadvertently delayed laundering activity tied to the Binance attackers—an important practical point. Even when hackers prepare multi-step plans, operational pauses in the rails they rely on can buy time for monitoring, coordination, and potential risk controls.
In parallel, analysts attempted to quantify the attackers’ execution style. SomaXBT estimated that around 54% of the attackers’ more than 47,600 transactions on Tron and Solana were automated, underscoring the likelihood of scripted swapping and distribution rather than purely manual movement.
Expanded laundering routes and what to watch next
The reported laundering pattern also points to geographic and chain-level flexibility. Binance hackers reportedly expanded activity to Solana on Sunday after emptying most of their temporary holding wallets on Tron. Chainalysis estimated that roughly $500 million in total value moved through Tron, including repeated transfers among wallets—behavior consistent with attempts to obscure fund provenance through rapid, iterative movement.
The report also situates THORChain within a broader, persistent laundering narrative. North Korea-linked hacking groups have been suspected of using THORChain in laundering proceeds tied to other major hacks, including the $1.4 billion Bybit hack mentioned in the source.
For readers, the key uncertainty going forward is whether authorities can effectively disrupt the laundering pipeline without impairing legitimate cross-chain use. The immediate watch items are (1) whether stolen-asset conversion continues to shift toward other liquidity venues, and (2) how quickly operational controls and monitoring tools can identify and deter repeat use of similar cross-chain routes.
This article was originally published as Binance Hackers Shift 81% of Stolen SOL, Use THORChain to Route Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Democrats have secured control of both chambers of the US Congress following the 2026 midterm elections, a shift that could significantly alter the political trajectory for digital-asset regulation and oversight of President Donald Trump’s administration.
Multiple reports indicate Democrats won House seats in districts where Trump defeated Democratic challengers by margins as large as 18 percentage points in 2024, while the party also flipped at least seven Senate seats across a range of states, including Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, and South Carolina, according to the Associated Press.
Key takeaways
Democrats taking both chambers increases the likelihood of faster committee action on crypto and related policy questions.
Control of House committees from January 2027 gives Democrats stronger subpoena and investigation tools.
Election results could bring heightened scrutiny of Trump-linked digital asset businesses and enforcement priorities.
Prediction markets had leaned toward a Democratic sweep, with Kalshi and Polymarket pricing Democrats’ odds at about 75% before results were announced.
Congress changes hands as Democrats expand legislative leverage
The practical impact of Democrats winning control of the House and the Senate is straightforward: a new majority typically reshapes what legislation moves, what oversight becomes a priority, and which political narratives gain institutional backing. For crypto participants, the timing matters because committees drive much of the work—drafting, hearings, and the early stages of bill momentum—before proposals reach full votes.
In its live coverage, the Associated Press reported that Democrats flipped at least seven Senate seats, naming specific states including Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, and South Carolina. That geographic spread matters because it reflects a broad electoral swing rather than concentration in only a handful of regions.
Separate commentary from NBC News pointed to Democrats gaining House committee control starting in January 2027, opening the door to subpoenas and investigations involving the Trump administration, including matters tied to the president’s family and business interests, according to NBC News.
Why crypto policy could feel the difference soon
While crypto legislation has historically advanced through a combination of bill text and political negotiations, US oversight often becomes a catalyst—especially when new committee leadership takes office. According to the reporting cited above, Democrats’ committee leverage could translate into more frequent inquiries into digital-asset industry practices and the administration’s connections to related businesses.
That potential scrutiny is notable because it is not limited to whether Congress passes new crypto-focused laws. Even without immediate sweeping reforms, investigations can influence how regulators and lawmakers interpret existing rules, pressure companies to adjust compliance programs, and shape the policy agenda for the next legislative cycle.
The article’s framing also suggests a shift in accountability expectations. With Democrats positioned to control committee agendas, the set of hearings and requests for information could change quickly, particularly around allegations of conflicts, enforcement gaps, or political entanglements involving digital-asset firms.
Election narratives and market odds: what traders expected versus what happened
Alongside the policy implications, the election produced familiar debates about what drove voters and how parties position their messages. The Kobeissi Letter highlighted affordability as the defining election issue, citing high energy costs and renewed interest rate increase concerns.
On the political side, David Gokhshtein, founder of Gokhshtein Media, attributed the result to Republican candidates failing to connect with voters. He wrote on X that Republicans had “got their asses handed” to them and suggested expectations had been wrong on his part, as posted on X.
Meanwhile, election markets appeared to anticipate a Democratic sweep. The article notes that prediction markets on Kalshi and Polymarket had priced the probability of Democrats winning both chambers at roughly 75% on Tuesday, before the results were announced. That matters for readers because it indicates market participants weren’t treating the outcome as an outlier; they were already pricing it as more likely than not.
For crypto traders and portfolio managers, that can be relevant even if it doesn’t determine price directly. When political outcomes move from “unlikely scenario” into “base case,” it often changes how quickly traders adjust to prospective regulatory timelines—especially around committee leadership and potential oversight hearings.
What to watch next for digital assets
In the near term, investors and builders should focus less on broad promises and more on process signals—committee staffing, hearing scheduling, and the specific topics that leadership chooses to pursue once January 2027 begins. If Democrats use their subpoena and investigation capacity as NBC News described, that could quickly set the agenda for enforcement and legislative priorities affecting exchanges, custody services, stablecoin ecosystems, and other parts of the sector.
Another key area to monitor is how Congress balances legislative activity with oversight. Even when major laws take time, targeted inquiries can create momentum for rulemaking or accelerate negotiations among stakeholders. As a result, the coming months may reveal whether this political shift leads to visible policy outputs—or primarily to a more intense scrutiny environment.
The next signals to track are the first committee moves after the new Congress is seated and which crypto-adjacent issues become hearing priorities. Until those specifics emerge, the direction is clear—Democrats now have the institutional tools to shape both legislation and oversight, but the exact regulatory path for digital assets will depend on how committees translate political control into concrete action.
This article was originally published as Democrats Take US House Majority, Securing Control After Midterms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized stock trading is once again hitting a familiar roadblock: the companies whose shares would be turned into blockchain instruments are increasingly pushing back on whether—and where—that trading should occur. SpaceX has now joined the growing list of issuers objecting to proposed listings of tokenized versions of its shares on OKXICE, a trading venue formed by crypto exchange OKX and Intercontinental Exchange (ICE).
In a public notice dated Nov. 2, OKXICE says SpaceX has objected to the planned listing, according to the notice. The objection matters because, under the SEC’s five-year Innovation Exemption introduced in September, venues like OKXICE can offer trading in tokenized US stocks without registering as national securities exchanges—but issuers still get a procedural right to block proposed tokenized-share listings.
Key takeaways
SpaceX filed an objection to OKXICE’s proposed listing of tokenized versions of its shares, adding to a wave of corporate resistance.
The SEC’s Innovation Exemption is not a free pass: companies can object within a 30-day window, limiting which tokenized instruments can trade on a given venue.
Tokenized SpaceX shares are already active offshore: trading volumes were reported in June via non-US platforms, showing demand exists.
Regulatory design is driving friction: fragmentation and shareholder value concerns have been raised by other market participants as tokenized trading expands.
More objections may be coming: OKXICE leadership previously suggested companies may be waiting to avoid being first movers.
Why SpaceX’s objection is significant for onchain equity
The SEC Innovation Exemption rolled out in September created a pathway for tokenized stock trading without requiring a full national exchange registration. For investors, the practical promise is access to equity exposure onchain—often with faster settlement and the possibility of trading outside typical stock-market hours depending on the tokenization structure.
However, the same framework also gives issuers influence. The filing window is central: companies have 30 days to object to proposed trading of their shares tokenized by third parties. In effect, an objection can keep the tokenized version of that security off the venue, even if tokenization infrastructure exists.
SpaceX’s participation in that process underlines how tokenized equities are evolving: it is not just a technical or market-structure question, but also a corporate-governance question. Companies appear to be using the exemption’s procedural controls to manage legal and economic risk—particularly where rights for tokenholders may not mirror traditional shareholder rights.
Where the “right to block” is reshaping plans
OKXICE is not the first venue to face issuer pushback. According to the OKXICE notice referenced in the report, SpaceX joins Tesla and Amazon among 56 companies that have objected to the proposed listings.
That number matters because it suggests the resistance is not isolated. It also changes the calculus for tokenization platforms and exchanges: building tokenized equity markets may require not only regulatory alignment, but also issuer cooperation—or a strategy for dealing with objections as a recurring hurdle.
OKXICE co-chair Andrew Cuomo—formerly New York’s governor—told Cointelegraph on Oct. 20 that the venture expected more objections as companies avoided being the first to test the model. The logic is straightforward: once a precedent exists, firms gain visibility into how tokenization affects trading behavior, legal posture, and shareholder economics.
Offshore trading signals demand—but US listings still face barriers
SpaceX’s pushback comes even though tokenized versions of its shares are already trading outside the US. The report notes that activity has been significant since the company’s June public offering.
Two outside services prepared tokenized SpaceX share products ahead of the proposed US listing. Backpack Securities and crypto exchange Kraken—through its xStocks offering—each reportedly offered tokenized instruments designed to be backed by actual shares. The June figures cited in the report were $1.08 billion in onchain trading volume for Backpack’s SPCX token and $852 million for Kraken’s SPCXx token.
Those numbers highlight the market’s appetite for onchain equity exposure. They also clarify what is at stake for OKXICE: a US listing would potentially broaden access to tokenized exposure to the world’s largest equity market by capitalization, as the report frames it, potentially expanding the investor base beyond existing offshore venues.
At the same time, the fact that tokenized SpaceX shares can trade offshore suggests issuer objections in the US may reflect more than simple product demand—they may be tied to the specific venue structure, the regulatory path, or how rights attached to tokenized instruments are defined.
Liquidity fragmentation concerns and the issuer debate
Regulators and market participants are watching not just whether tokenized equities can exist, but how they could affect broader market quality. Nasdaq, for example, warned issuers in September that they “must be cautious about their participation.” Nasdaq’s concern, as cited in the report, was that tokenized stock trading could fragment liquidity and potentially undermine long-term shareholder value.
That warning speaks to a core tension in tokenized securities: even if trading is technically feasible and user demand is present, splitting order flow across multiple venues—especially when some are onchain and operate continuously—could change the economics of price discovery and liquidity concentration.
OKXICE leadership, however, has suggested opposition will diminish as benefits become clearer. At an Oct. 30 press conference, Cuomo said that as people see the benefits of tokenization, “you’ll see more and more companies participate.” SpaceX’s objection indicates that, at least for now, the transition is not frictionless and corporate participation may remain uneven.
What to watch next for tokenized stock listings
With SpaceX joining a growing set of corporate objections, the immediate focus should be on which companies ultimately permit tokenized listings and how OKXICE and other venues navigate the 30-day objection process as more issuers weigh in. Investors should also watch for how market structure concerns—such as potential liquidity fragmentation—play out in practice as onchain equity trading expands under the SEC’s Innovation Exemption.
This article was originally published as SpaceX Blocks Tokenized Stock on OKX Amid Offshore Trading Surge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake says the network’s transition to quantum-resistant infrastructure should be finished by December 2028—an accelerated goal compared with a previously published Ethereum roadmap deadline of December 2029.
Drake made the comments at Devcon 8 in Mumbai on Tuesday, outlining a schedule that would task developers with delivering three additional network upgrades within the next 24 months. The remarks suggest the research and engineering pipeline for “post-quantum and post-AI” work is moving faster than the foundation’s earlier public milestones, even as the formal roadmap remains in place.
Key takeaways
Drake’s target for completing Ethereum’s “post-quantum and post-AI transition” is December 2028, one year ahead of the foundation’s September roadmap deadline.
The accelerated plan hinges on developers delivering three more network upgrades over the next 24 months, according to Drake’s Devcon remarks.
The Ethereum Foundation’s September protocol priorities still point to December 2029 for quantum resistance across execution, consensus, and data layers.
Drake’s update does not replace the roadmap and the foundation plans to reassess in January 2027, leaving room for further revisions.
From 2029 to 2028: why the timeline matters
Ethereum’s push toward quantum resistance is tied to the broader idea that future advances in computation could undermine cryptographic assumptions used today. In practical terms, timelines affect how quickly developers need to coordinate upgrades across Ethereum’s ecosystem, from client implementations to application-layer cryptography planning.
Speaking at Devcon 8, Drake said the foundation’s “hope” is that Ethereum can “wrap up the full post-quantum and post-AI transition” by December 2028. He further stated that developers would have 24 months to deliver three additional network upgrades to support that end date.
That framing is significant: it turns a target date into an implementation cadence, encouraging the community to plan around multiple staged changes rather than treating post-quantum migration as a single monolithic overhaul.
The foundation’s published deadline still stands
While Drake’s accelerated target is earlier, the Ethereum Foundation’s September roadmap—published in a “protocol priorities” post—keeps a December 2029 milestone as the deadline for achieving quantum resistance across Ethereum’s execution, consensus, and data layers.
Drake’s remarks, according to the article’s context, therefore function more as a push for faster execution than as a formal replacement of the existing roadmap. The foundation also signaled that its roadmap will be reassessed in January 2027, meaning the December 2028 target may ultimately be confirmed, modified, or treated as an aspirational schedule rather than a binding commitment.
For developers and users, this distinction matters. Build and integration timelines—especially for wallets, staking infrastructure, and application cryptography—depend on whether deadlines are contractual roadmaps or engineering goals subject to change.
Earlier engineering signals: leanVM and 2027–2028 deployment plans
The December 2028 framing aligns with earlier discussions by Drake about a technology progression that begins with work on leanVM and then expands into broader post-quantum deployment.
In August, Drake outlined production-ready leanVM technology with a 2027 target and described subsequent post-quantum deployments across Ethereum’s three layers in 2028, as reported in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph (including a report focused on the “production-ready leanVM” plan and a 2027/2028 pathway).
That sequence is important because it suggests the foundation is not only thinking about cryptographic changes in the abstract, but is tying them to concrete execution environments and layered system components. If leanVM improvements land on schedule, the earlier December 2028 “wrap up” date could become more achievable—though Ethereum’s upgrade coordination remains a complex, multi-client process.
Competition and criticism: other networks question Ethereum’s timing
Ethereum’s quantum-resistance timeline has already drawn scrutiny from developers outside the Ethereum ecosystem. The acceleration announced by Drake may help address some of that pressure, but it also highlights the lack of consensus on what “enough time” looks like.
Earlier reporting noted that Starknet developers have been evaluating their own path to post-quantum capabilities. In October, Starknet’s community backed research aimed at becoming an independent post-quantum layer-1 network, according to the referenced coverage.
StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson previously told Cointelegraph that Ethereum’s 2029 target was “too late,” warning that deadlines could slip. That critique reflects a common tension in post-quantum planning: timelines must balance engineering reality (coordinating audits, client releases, and migrations) with the urgency of preparing for cryptographic transitions before risk becomes acute.
Drake’s new target could be read as an effort to preempt that critique by narrowing the gap between research goals and public milestones. Still, since the foundation’s published deadline remains December 2029 pending reassessment, investors and builders should treat December 2028 as an ambitious endpoint rather than a finalized replacement date.
What to watch next
With the foundation scheduled to reassess the roadmap in January 2027, readers should watch for whether the December 2028 target is echoed in updated protocol priorities and whether Ethereum’s planned upgrade packages align with Drake’s stated “three additional network upgrades” over the next 24 months.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Core Devs Aim for Quantum Resistance by 2028 Early on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Fuze Finance and HBL Asset Management Limited have announced they will jointly explore tokenising investment products and distributing them to Pakistani diaspora investors globally.
The companies said the initiative follows a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between the two parties. The project is described as exploratory and any future product launch would depend on legal assessment, regulatory approvals and definitive agreements.
Tokenisation to widen access to eligible investment products
Fuze Finance, described as a regulated digital assets infrastructure provider, and HBL Asset Management Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Pakistan’s HBL, said the collaboration will focus on ways Pakistani investors abroad, estimated by the companies at 13 million people worldwide, could access selected investment products through tokenisation.
The announcement says HBL Asset Management Limited would identify and structure investment products that could be suitable for tokenisation. Those products are listed as mutual funds, REITs (real estate investment trusts) and other eligible yield-generating investment assets.
According to the release, Fuze would provide the regulated digital asset infrastructure and distribution layer intended to make such products available through compliant channels.
Proof of concept to cover compliance, custody and settlement
The companies said they will initially develop a proof of concept to test technical, operational and regulatory requirements for the proposed model. The scope includes investor eligibility checks, KYC and AML controls, custody arrangements, settlement processes, and the issuance, holding, transfer and redemption of tokenised assets.
On settlement flows, the release states that potential subscription and settlement could involve fiat currencies and selected stablecoins, subject to applicable regulatory requirements.
Market research cited on growth of tokenised funds
To frame the effort, the announcement cites PwC expectations that global tokenised fund assets under management could grow at a compound annual rate of 41% to reach US$715 billion by 2030, as asset managers explore how tokenisation may improve distribution and operations.
Company statements
Fuze Finance CEO and co-founder Mohammed Ali Yusuf (Mo Ali Yusuf) said in the release that tokenisation can provide investors with access to regulated financial products while maintaining institutional standards, adding that the collaboration with HBL Asset Management Limited is intended to expand access through digital asset rails with compliance and regulatory requirements built in from the outset.
HBL Asset Management Limited CEO Mir Adil Rashid said tokenisation could create new channels for asset managers to reach eligible investors beyond domestic markets, and that the companies believe there is an opportunity to connect investor audiences across “corridors” in a way that is accessible, secure and compliant. He also said they look forward to working with Fuze for the regulated digital asset infrastructure needed to meet HBL Asset’s institutional standards.
Exploratory stage and conditional next steps
The announcement emphasizes that the agreement remains at the exploratory stage. Any move toward a tokenised product offering would require legal and regulatory review and final agreements between the parties.
Fuze’s release also includes a disclaimer stating it does not constitute an offer or solicitation to buy, sell or deal in virtual assets or provide investment advice, and that virtual assets involve significant risks such as price volatility and regulatory uncertainty.
This article was originally published as Fuze Finance and HBL Asset Management explore tokenising investment products for Pakistani diaspora investors on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Democrats have taken control of the U.S. Senate after winning Senate seats previously held by Republicans, according to the Associated Press. The shift came as Democrats flipped seats in Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kansas and Iowa, and was ultimately finalized when Democrat Senator Josh Turek won the Iowa race, giving Democrats and independents who caucus with them 51 seats.
For the crypto industry, the new balance of power matters because it directly affects prospects for stalled federal legislation—most notably the CLARITY Act—and can influence which lawmakers oversee committees relevant to digital assets. It may also shape how lawmakers scrutinize crypto-related businesses and regulators’ decisions, alongside downstream effects on confirmation of future nominees to regulatory roles.
Key takeaways
Democrats secured a 51-seat bloc in the Senate after flips across multiple states, including a decisive win in Iowa, setting the stage for committee leadership changes.
The outcome reopens debate over the stalled CLARITY Act, which previously fell short of passage in a Senate procedural vote in September.
Industry advocates say future legislation will likely require cross-party support to overcome procedural and timing hurdles.
Some expected priorities from Democrats—such as conflict-of-interest rules and enhanced customer protections—could align with frameworks already in place internationally.
Crypto stakeholders warn that making U.S. crypto policy a strictly partisan issue could delay regulatory clarity for years.
Why Senate control could change crypto’s legislative math
The immediate practical impact of a Senate majority is legislative agenda-setting: majority control affects which bills gain traction and who chairs or leads committees that oversee industries, including financial regulation and market infrastructure. The Associated Press reporting on the election results underscores how the new majority was assembled through a combination of seat flips and the final Iowa outcome.
That matters in a space where timing and procedural votes can decide outcomes as much as substance. An editorial point echoed by industry figures: even if lawmakers agree on certain principles, passing legislation requires maintaining coalition support through the Senate’s process.
The CLARITY Act faces a renewed test
Central to crypto’s Washington timeline is the CLARITY Act, which one industry advocate said has already met a procedural barrier. Jerome de Tychey, president of Ethereum France and co-founder of EthCC, told Cointelegraph that the bill failed its Senate procedural vote in September by a margin of 49 to 50.
De Tychey also highlighted an urgency tied to the legislative calendar: if the bill is not passed by January, the next Congress would begin from scratch. In other words, the new Senate landscape may improve the odds of action, but it does not eliminate the underlying challenge of assembling the necessary votes quickly.
From an investor and operator perspective, this is more than a political update. Clearer federal rules would affect how compliance programs are designed, how uncertainty is priced into business planning, and how quickly companies can scale without relying on a patchwork of enforcement-led outcomes. The practical question now is whether the CLARITY Act can secure enough durable support to move beyond procedural setbacks.
Expectations of tougher scrutiny—and a push for bipartisan support
Senate control can also alter how aggressively Congress examines the crypto sector. The shift in power could bring more congressional scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto businesses and regulators’ decisions, according to the original reporting’s framing of what the new majority could mean.
However, De Tychey cautioned against treating crypto policy as a party-only issue. “It’s too early to say exactly what this means for crypto, but one thing is clear: nothing will pass without cross-partisan support,” he said, adding that the industry would need to “go back to the table” and make its case again, on substance.
Fred Hsu, co-founder and CEO of D3—described as a core contributor to Doma Protocol—echoed the idea that lasting regulation depends on support from more than one political coalition. In comments provided ahead of the election, Hsu said the midterms should be a reminder that the industry “can’t rely on one party to deliver them,” and that companies should be engaging lawmakers on both sides now rather than later.
This emphasis on cross-partisan cooperation is particularly relevant given how close the CLARITY Act’s previous procedural vote was. When measures are separated by only a single vote, the coalition’s composition—who supports the bill and why—can become the decisive variable.
Potential policy priorities: conflict rules and customer protection
Even if Democrats regain leverage in the Senate, de Tychey suggested that some proposed regulatory priorities could ultimately strengthen the industry rather than undermine it. He pointed to “conflict-of-interest rules and customer protection obligations” as examples of requirements that a mature sector should be able to accommodate.
De Tychey drew a comparison with the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regime, noting that similar expectations already exist in Europe. That comparison highlights a broader theme for U.S. policymakers: whether American rules will converge with internationally established compliance norms—or diverge in ways that increase friction for global firms.
At the same time, de Tychey warned that even good-faith policy demands could become counterproductive if they become entrenched along party lines. His concern was that turning crypto regulation into a partisan flashpoint could “set the US back several years,” delaying legal clarity and reducing the likelihood of coherent, long-term standards.
For market participants, the key watch item is whether the new Senate majority translates campaign-era priorities into legislation that can withstand procedural hurdles, timing constraints, and the need for votes beyond a single party.
What to watch next
With Democrats now controlling the Senate, crypto advocates should focus on whether the CLARITY Act can build a cross-party coalition quickly enough to avoid the “reset” risk tied to the January deadline. The next crucial signals will be committee agendas, changes in leadership, and whether lawmakers move from scrutiny and debate toward a bill that can actually clear the Senate process.
This article was originally published as Democrats Say They Control the U.S. Senate After Election Results on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.