Crypto Breaking

Strategy, the publicly traded Bitcoin holding company formerly known as MicroStrategy and led by chairman Michael Saylor, disclosed another sizable Bitcoin sale in an SEC filing. In the period from July 27 through Sunday, the company sold 1,638 BTC and used the proceeds to support capital-market obligations tied to its preferred stock financing structure.
According to the company’s Monday 8-K filing, the sale totaled $104.7 million at an average price of $63,957. Of that amount, $52.4 million was allocated to dividend payments on its STRC preferred stock, while $52.3 million funded STRC share repurchases.
Key takeaways
Strategy sold 1,638 Bitcoin from July 27 through Sunday, generating $104.7 million, per an SEC 8-K.
Dividend funding and STRC buybacks accounted for nearly all sale proceeds, underscoring how Bitcoin liquidity is being used to manage preferred-stock obligations.
The company says it now holds 842,138 BTC, bought at an aggregate cost of $63.5 billion.
Strategy also raised $290.6 million through MSTR share sales during the same period, increasing its US dollar reserve to $4 billion as of Sunday.
STRC trades below its $100 target value—something investors may watch because it can affect the attractiveness and efficiency of future STRC fundraising.
Bitcoin sales feed dividends and STRC repurchases
In the latest disclosure, Strategy characterized the July 27-to-Sunday transaction as one of its larger BTC sales for the year. The company’s filing indicates this was its second-largest Bitcoin sale of 2024.
Crucially, the proceeds were not used for general corporate purposes. Instead, they were split between two items linked to STRC: dividend payments on the preferred stock and STRC repurchases. Together, those allocations amounted to just over $104.7 million, leaving little room for other uses from this tranche.
Strategy’s total Bitcoin balance after the sale stands at 842,138 BTC, with the company reporting an aggregate acquisition cost of $63.5 billion.
How this compares with earlier reported BTC sales
The latest sale follows other previously disclosed events that frame Strategy’s approach to managing its capital structure.
Earlier coverage noted that Strategy sold 3,588 BTC for about $216 million on July 6. The company also disclosed that it sold 32 Bitcoin in early June—its first reported BTC sale since a 2022 tax-loss transaction.
While each sale reduces the company’s Bitcoin exposure, the repeated pattern of tying sale proceeds to STRC-related obligations suggests Strategy is treating Bitcoin liquidity as part of a broader financing and cash-management playbook rather than treating every sale as an isolated departure from its prior accumulation stance.
Cash buffer grows as USD reserve rises to $4 billion
Alongside the BTC sale disclosure, Strategy reported raising additional funds through MSTR share sales during the same period. According to the 8-K, it raised $290.6 million, with multiple allocations.
The filing states that $250 million of the MSTR proceeds was used to increase Strategy’s US dollar reserve, which stood at $4 billion as of Sunday. It also reports that $28.9 million funded STRC repurchases and $11.7 million was added to the company’s cash balance.
In a post on X on Monday, Michael Saylor said Strategy repurchased $81.2 million worth of STRC stock and extended its US dollar “runway” by 57 days to 2.3 years.
STRC trading below target and what that may imply
Strategy’s financing mechanism includes its perpetual preferred stock, STRC. Market data cited in the report suggests STRC was trading at $89.40 during Monday’s pre-market session, or about 10.6% below its $100 target value, according to Yahoo Finance data.
In the same period, the company’s common stock—MSTR—was indicated to have declined roughly 0.9% in pre-market trading, based on Yahoo Finance data referenced in the article.
Trading below STRC’s intended par has potential consequences for Strategy’s capital strategy. If STRC remains below target value, investors may view future fundraising through STRC sales as less efficient for Strategy—because selling preferred stock at a discount typically brings in fewer dollars per unit sold relative to the target. That, in turn, can increase the importance of the company’s dividend policy to attract buyers and provide support to STRC pricing.
Earlier comments from CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju had urged Strategy to pause Bitcoin purchases and replenish cash reserves after dividend coverage deteriorated. In a June 24 X post, Ju said the company should “pause Bitcoin purchases, rebuild cash reserves, and adopt a systematic framework for purchase timing.” Earlier reporting in the same context noted that dividend coverage had fallen to 14 months from seven years.
Strategy has previously responded to these concerns by laying out a framework for capital allocation. A June 29 8-K filing described a capital framework allowing Bitcoin sales to fund dividends, raised the annual dividend rate on STRC preferred stock to 12%, and disclosed that the US dollar reserve had grown to $2.55 billion.
What investors should watch next is whether the new $4 billion USD reserve and the disclosed approach—using Bitcoin sales to service STRC dividends and repurchases—continues alongside STRC trading conditions, particularly how far STRC remains below target and whether Strategy’s dividend and preferred-stock buyback activity accelerates or slows in subsequent filings.
This article was originally published as Strategy to Sell 1,638 Bitcoin for Dividends and STRC Buybacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Galaxy Research head Alex Thorn has hinted that Coldcard was hit by a fourth wave of attacks on August 3, estimating that the attackers moved 448.7 BTC from 709 wallets belonging to victims.
Thorn based his findings on blockchain analysis rather than device records, describing the addresses as “likely Coldcard victims.”
A Fourth Wave?
Thorn described the addresses hit by the suspected attack as “likely Coldcard victims,” adding that the unspent outputs and transactions matched the vulnerable wallet pattern. Galaxy’s initial snapshot covered blocks 960,778 through 960,792, identifying 218 transactions involving 388.9 BTC and 462 potential victim addresses. The updated estimate expanded the figures to hundreds of transactions involving 448.7 BTC and 709 potential victim addresses.
Thorn posted the findings on X:
LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURRING RIGHT NOW
THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS
pattern identified:
blocks…
— Alex Thorn (@intangiblecoins) August 3, 2026
“LIKELY 4TH ORGANIZED WAVE COLDCARD ATTACK OCCURING RIGHT NOW THERE ARE STILL SIMILAR TXS IN THE MEMPOOL WAITING TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE PREVIOUSLY-CONFIRMED TXS SIGNAL RBF OPT-IN, CHECK YOUR FUNDS, AND YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RBF YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS.”
According to Thorn, Galaxy measured 13.8 sweeps per block, a 45x increase compared to 0.3 sweeps per block measured during a pre-incident control period. The siphoned funds were sent to a new address instead of a shared wallet. Some of the stolen funds were subsequently moved to new addresses, making them difficult to track.
Previous Waves
Galaxy has already mapped three prior waves that siphoned 1,367.05 BTC from 4,585 addresses, with the first wave targeting 1,082.05 BTC across 1,196 addresses. The latest wave brings the total figures to 1,815.75 BTC across 5,294 addresses. However, the figures are yet to be confirmed by authorities, Coinkite, or the wallet owners. Additionally, it isn’t clear whether one entity was responsible for all four waves.
Thorn also added that there were transactions awaiting approval in Bitcoin’s mempool, giving holders an escape route. According to Thorn, Bitcoin Core documentation states that unconfirmed opt-in Replace-by-fee transactions can be replaced. This means a user still in control of an affected key could broadcast a conflicting transaction with a higher fee and send the funds to a secure wallet. However, it cannot be replaced once it enters the block, and a replacement is not guaranteed to succeed.
Coldcard Users Must Generate New Seeds
The ongoing issue arises from an RNG integration error that occurred during a March 2021 firmware change. Coinkite estimates that the affected Mk2 and Mk3 seeds have around 40 bits of effective entropy, while seeds generated on affected Mk4, Mk5, and Q releases have 72 bits instead of 128.
Additionally, an engineering team from Block discovered that the firmware called a deterministic MicroPython fallback instead of the hardware random-number generator. However, the Block team clarified they could not confirm exploitability without full empirical testing.
Meanwhile, Coinkite has released version 4.2.0 for Mk2 and Mk3, 5.6.0 for Mk4 and Mk5, 1.5.0Q for Q, and 6.6.0X or 6.6.0QX for Edge releases. However, simply updating the existing firmware does not fully address the vulnerability. Once updated, users must generate a new seed and verify the receiving address. Once verified, they must send a test transaction before migrating the complete balance.
Coinkite also clarified that seeds created using a minimum of 50 fair, private dice rolls are not considered at risk, and that a unique BIP-39 passphrase could serve as a second line of defense. However, it recommended that users complete the migration. The advisory does not cover TAPSIGNER, OPENDIME, and SATSCARD because they use separate codebases.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hit By Suspected Fourth Attack Wave As Losses Mount on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb says it is moving toward a public listing, with plans to apply for a preliminary listing review in 2027 and complete an initial public offering (IPO) in 2028. The timetable is described as flexible and could shift based on market conditions and the scheduling of relevant regulators.
In a statement released Monday, Bithumb linked its IPO roadmap to internal restructuring efforts designed to clarify responsibilities across business units and reduce potential conflicts of interest. The exchange also outlined operational changes it says are part of its preparation for the scrutiny that comes with becoming a listed company.
Key takeaways
Bithumb plans to pursue a preliminary listing review in 2027 and target an IPO for 2028, subject to regulatory and market timing.
The exchange says it reorganized its structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, to better separate responsibilities and limit conflicts of interest.
Bithumb is preparing to strengthen internal controls and transition from domestic accounting standards to K-IFRS.
The company’s listing push follows a separate incident in February involving an over-crediting error tied to a promotional reward mechanism.
Restructuring and accounting changes ahead of an IPO
Bithumb’s IPO plan is anchored in a set of organizational and compliance steps. According to the exchange, it has reorganized its business structure, including spinning off Bithumb Asset, with the stated goal of clarifying what each unit is responsible for. Bithumb said this approach is intended to reduce the risk of conflicts of interest before it enters the listing review process.
Beyond governance and structure, the exchange also said its preparations include upgrading internal controls. It further stated that it plans to move away from domestic accounting standards and adopt K-IFRS, the international accounting framework used by listed companies in South Korea.
While the company set out a broad timeline—application for preliminary review in 2027 and an IPO in 2028—Bithumb emphasized that the schedule is not guaranteed. It said changes could be required depending on market conditions and how quickly authorities complete their review processes.
A crypto market shifting toward traditional finance ties
Bithumb’s move toward going public is unfolding as several South Korean crypto exchanges tighten their relationships with traditional finance and technology groups. The exchange is among five South Korean platforms that offer fiat currency trading via real-name bank accounts, and it operates that service through a partnership with KB Kookmin Bank.
In the broader sector, the competitive landscape has increasingly reflected corporate and financial integration. Rival exchange Korbit saw a major change when Mirae Asset Consulting took control on July 23, while Upbit operator Dunamu is pursuing a share-swap arrangement that would make it a wholly owned subsidiary of Naver Financial, though the transaction is described as subject to regulatory and shareholder approvals.
For investors and market participants, these developments matter because they suggest that the “crypto exchange” category in South Korea is increasingly being treated like a mainstream financial business—one that attracts scrutiny around corporate governance, accounting practices, and the boundaries between crypto operations and affiliated entities.
The February “620,000 BTC” promotional error and governance implications
Bithumb’s listing ambitions arrive after a notable operational failure earlier this year. In a February promotional mistake, the exchange mistakenly credited customer accounts with balances totaling 620,000 Bitcoin instead of distributing 620,000 Korean won in cash rewards, according to earlier coverage. Bithumb later recovered 99.7% of the erroneous credits, but some customers sold about 1,788 BTC before account freezes were applied.
At a February 11 National Assembly parliamentary hearing, Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won said the exchange’s process for checking the planned distribution against actual holdings had failed. He also stated that the promotional amount had not been set aside in a separate account, a factor that complicated the detection and containment of the error.
While the episode appears to have been addressed through clawback of the majority of the mistaken credits, it is the kind of incident that regulators and auditors often consider when assessing internal controls—precisely the area Bithumb says it is upgrading as part of its IPO preparations.
Listing cleanup for Bithumb-linked public firms continues
Bithumb’s timetable for an IPO also intersects with governance and listing challenges involving entities connected to the exchange. Two Bithumb-linked listed companies have faced ongoing audit and listing issues, with their shares trading suspended since March 2023.
Yonhap reported that Bucket Studio, which indirectly controls Vidente (a major Bithumb shareholder), appointed a former police official as its standing auditor in June. Separately, Vidente has said it plans to appoint a former National Tax Service official to the same auditor role. According to Yonhap, South Korea’s Government Public Service Ethics Committee cleared both hires after concluding there was no close relationship between the officials’ previous duties and their new positions.
These developments are relevant to Bithumb’s listing ambitions because they show how tightly regulated the ecosystem can be in South Korea, not only at the exchange level but also across corporate relationships and audit oversight.
For readers tracking Bithumb’s path to the public markets, the next key indicators will be whether the exchange’s stated internal control upgrades and K-IFRS transition proceed on schedule, and how regulators respond to both the IPO review process and lingering questions raised by prior compliance and governance issues. The 2027/2028 targets are not fixed—so market conditions and authority review timing will likely determine what actually happens next.
This article was originally published as Bithumb Announces 2028 IPO Timeline After Internal Controls Overhaul on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple has announced two strategic investments aimed at expanding how regulated tokenized financial assets move across its XRP Ledger (XRPL). The company says the deals are intended to improve “collateral mobility” for tokenized funds—an issue that has become increasingly relevant as institutions look for more efficient ways to use on-chain assets within existing financial workflows.
In a Monday announcement, Ripple said it invested in Zilo, a global transfer agency asset solutions provider for wealth managers, and in Licuido, a tokenization solutions company regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority. Financial terms were not disclosed.
Key takeaways
Ripple’s new investments target the infrastructure around tokenized asset lifecycle events—transfer agency, issuance, and collateral usage—on XRPL.
Zilo is a UK-based transfer agency solutions provider for wealth managers; Licuido is a UK tokenization firm regulated by the FCA.
Ripple did not disclose investment amounts, leaving investors to assess impact based on the strategic integration of these partners into XRPL-based services.
The announcement arrives amid rising tokenized real-world assets activity, including new XRPL-based launches approved by regulators.
Why transfer agency and tokenization infrastructure matter
Tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) depend on more than issuance and settlement technology. For institutional participation, the operational stack must also support regulated lifecycle components such as transfer agency, issuance processes, and how assets (or their representations) can be pledged or reused as collateral.
Ripple’s stated goal is to bring “regulated transfer agency, issuance, and collateral mobility” into XRPL infrastructure. According to the company, the combination of the two investments is designed to address friction related to idle collateral by enabling tokenized funds to be used as collateral from the point of issuance.
While stablecoins and on-chain settlement get much of the attention, this kind of infrastructure push speaks to a broader theme in RWAs: institutions often need familiar controls, governance, and operational guarantees that mirror traditional market plumbing—only faster, more programmable, and easier to interoperate across counterparties.
Zilo and Licuido: what Ripple says it is buying into
The Zilo investment focuses on transfer agency capabilities for wealth managers. Ripple described Zilo as providing global transfer agency asset solutions, a function that can include administrative and compliance-heavy tasks tied to holding, transferring, and servicing investment products.
For market participants, transfer agency is especially significant because it determines how ownership records are managed, how subscriptions or redemptions are handled, and how compliance and reporting obligations are met. Bringing that layer closer to tokenized issuance and ongoing asset movement can reduce operational handoffs—often one of the major barriers for scaling tokenized offerings.
Licuido, by contrast, is positioned as a tokenization solutions provider that operates in a regulated environment. Ripple highlighted that Licuido is regulated by the UK Financial Conduct Authority, which could be relevant for firms aiming to structure tokenized products with compliance expectations baked into the system rather than added after the fact.
Neither investment’s size was disclosed by Ripple. However, the article notes that UK-based Zilo has raised $58.7 million in total equity funding, based on data compiled by Traxcn.
Momentum across XRPL as tokenized funds expand
Ripple’s move comes shortly after institutional activity on XRPL. Earlier, London-based asset manager Aviva Investors launched a tokenized share class of its US Dollar Liquidity Fund on XRPL, after receiving approval from the Central Bank of Ireland, according to earlier coverage. That development underscored that XRPL-based tokenization is not just a technical experiment—it is reaching regulated asset structures with supervisory sign-off.
The investments also follow Ripple’s own product push on the stablecoin side. Last month, Ripple launched Ripple Mint, a platform that gives institutions new ways to access, mint, redeem, and manage Ripple USD (RLUSD), its US dollar-pegged stablecoin. Together, these efforts indicate a two-pronged strategy: improve tokenized asset tooling around issuance and collateral use, while also expanding institutional access mechanisms for the stablecoin that often anchors value transfer.
At the network level, XRPL is part of a broader acceleration in tokenized RWAs. According to data from RWA.xyz referenced in the source, XRPL is the 11th-largest blockchain network by tokenized real-world assets, with $368 million in tokenized RWAs. Ethereum leads at $17.1 billion, per the same dataset.
Over the past 30 days, total RWA holders increased by 50% to 1.57 million, while total tokenized asset value rose by 1.5% to $37.3 billion. For investors, these figures suggest continued expansion, even as most networks compete on how efficiently they can support regulated asset workflows—not merely on-chain performance.
What to watch next for XRPL-based RWAs
Ripple’s latest announcements point to a practical focus: moving beyond token issuance to the operational lifecycle that institutions require, particularly where collateral reuse and collateral lock-ups can slow capital efficiency. The next question is how quickly these partner integrations translate into deployments—such as new tokenized funds, more standardized custody/transfer agency processes, or demonstrable reductions in collateral idling.
For market participants, attention should also be on whether future XRPL launches continue to follow regulator-approved paths and whether the tokenization stack expands toward wider categories of tokenized products—especially those that require complex transfer and compliance operations.
This article was originally published as Ripple Backs Zilo and Licuido to Accelerate Tokenized Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Stablecoin transfers from South Korea to overseas crypto platforms surged again in June, underscoring how much demand from local users continues to flow outside domestic rails. According to Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) data cited by Yonhap News Agency, South Korea recorded stablecoin outflows of 560.3 billion won (about $367 million) to foreign exchanges—marking an 18-month streak of net outflows.
The same FSS data, obtained by People Power Party lawmaker Lee Jong-wook, points to a large volume of cross-border movement through the country’s five major exchanges: Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit and Gopax. In June, these platforms transferred 2.7 trillion won (about $1.81 billion) in stablecoins offshore while receiving 2.2 trillion won (about $1.44 billion) from foreign platforms.
Key takeaways
South Korea’s stablecoin outflows hit 560.3 billion won in June, extending a net outflow streak to 18 straight months.
The FSS figures cited by Yonhap show South Korean exchanges both exported and imported large stablecoin volumes in June, with exports exceeding imports.
Yonhap market participants linked the outflows to overseas products that may be restricted or unavailable domestically, including derivatives and certain DeFi and staking offerings.
Lawmakers and regulators are reviewing investor protection and cross-border supervision as authorities seek to finalize a broader digital-asset framework.
Regulatory discussions also include expanding crypto transfer reporting and tightening scrutiny of unregistered overseas exchanges.
Why stablecoins are leaving: availability and product access
In commentary collected by Yonhap, market participants attributed the cross-border stablecoin transfers to practical access differences between local and offshore venues. They pointed to demand for products that are either restricted or unavailable on South Korean exchanges, such as overseas derivatives, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), and various decentralized finance (DeFi) and staking products.
That framing matters because it suggests the outflows aren’t simply about holding stablecoins abroad—they’re tied to the ability to deploy them in specific strategies. If domestic platforms cannot offer comparable products under current rules, users may prefer the regulatory and product availability advantages of offshore exchanges.
Investor protection concerns rise as outflows persist
Lawmaker Lee Jong-wook used the June figures to argue that South Korea needs to re-examine how it safeguards investors across borders. As reported by The Korea Times, Lee called on the government to “comprehensively examine its investor protection and supervisory frameworks again and move swiftly to improve regulations.”
The core concern is that stablecoin users may be exposed to risks that aren’t fully addressed by domestic oversight once funds move to jurisdictions with different licensing and supervision standards. The persistent nature of the outflows—net outflows for 18 months—also increases pressure on policymakers to ensure the new regulatory framework can address the real-world behavior of market participants, not just domestic activity.
Policy work continues: phased stablecoin rules and a new digital-asset framework
The latest outflow data arrives as South Korea continues building a broader legal structure for digital assets. A policy report released this week recommended that authorities introduce interim licensing guidance and phase in stablecoin regulation before the Digital Asset Basic Act is finalized, according to earlier coverage on Cointelegraph.
If enacted, the proposed act would be South Korea’s first comprehensive digital asset framework, covering areas such as stablecoin issuance, required disclosures, and rules governing market activities. However, the reporting also highlighted that lawmakers are still negotiating how the framework should work in practice—particularly which institutions should be permitted to issue won-pegged stablecoins. Disagreements on that point have contributed to delays, leaving a window where the regulatory environment may still be incomplete for some market participants.
For users and investors, the uncertainty has direct implications: when licensing, issuance rules, and market-activity requirements are not fully aligned, offshore venues can remain more attractive—especially if they already support the products users want.
Reporting expansion and tighter scrutiny of offshore venues
Beyond stablecoin-specific rules, South Korea’s regulators are also targeting cross-border compliance. Cointelegraph previously reported that the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) sought to broaden reporting requirements for crypto transfers. On June 22, the FIU proposed extending Travel Rule reporting requirements to transactions below 1 million won (roughly $650).
The FIU also urged stronger enforcement against unregistered overseas exchanges serving South Koreans. The agency argued that uneven licensing and supervision across jurisdictions can create opportunities for regulatory arbitrage—effectively allowing users to route activity to less constrained environments.
That enforcement argument dovetails with the persistent outflow trend. If domestic supervision tightens while offshore compliance remains uneven, policymakers may expect some shift back toward regulated channels. But the data cited by Yonhap suggests the decision to move stablecoins offshore is also driven by product access; enforcement alone may not be enough if users still perceive offshore platforms as offering functionalities they cannot obtain at home.
As South Korea moves toward interim licensing and broader stablecoin regulation ahead of the Digital Asset Basic Act, investors and market participants should watch for two things: whether the promised phased approach closes gaps that currently push activity offshore, and whether expanded Travel Rule reporting and offshore enforcement meaningfully reduce regulatory arbitrage without constraining legitimate domestic market development.
This article was originally published as South Korea Sees $367M Stablecoin Outflows as Flows Shift on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

ZeroStack’s plan to fund operations through 0G token reward sales is in jeopardy after a sharp drop in the token’s value. The downturn has also cast doubt on the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
ZeroStack ended June with a $61.3 million first-half loss, negative working capital, and $2.6 million in cash.
ZeroStack’s Form 10-Q Disclosure
According to its Form 10-Q disclosure for the quarter ending June 30, ZeroStack held $2.6 million in cash, negative working capital of $600,000, an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million, and a $61.3 million net loss. The company also reported an accounting loss of $82.5 million after re-measuring its assets at fair value.
ZeroStack held 75.1 million 0G tokens with a fair value of $15.17 million and a recorded cost of $163.33 million. It also held a small Bitcoin (BTC) position, taking the total fair value of ZeroStack’s holdings to $15.21 million and the total recorded value to $163.43 million.
The downturn in the value of ZeroStack’s 0G tokens represents a 90% decline and has cast serious doubts on the company’s financial stability and its ability to continue operations without securing additional funding.
Staking Reward Sales To Fund Operations
ZeroStack received 6.62 million 0G tokens through staking rewards in the first half of 2026, earning $3.78 million in revenue. The company sold 4.94 million 0G tokens for $2.4 million and used $2.47 million in cash for other operational activities. The company plans to monetize staking rewards and fund operations.
It may also sell some of its underlying holdings. ZeroStack stated in its disclosure that the staked tokens are held in company wallets and can be withdrawn when needed. The company also noted that staking rewards could decline or disappear entirely, and that any sale depended on prevailing market conditions and token value.
However, ZeroStack’s strategy could be at risk due to the significant decline in the 0G token’s value. The token is currently trading at $0.14, declining nearly 5% in the past 24 hours.
Investor Confidence Shaken
ZeroStack’s 0G bet and the subsequent decline in the token’s value significantly impact its investors. The downturn could result in further write-downs, affecting stock price and investor confidence.
Investors will closely monitor ZeroStack’s next steps. The company can raise funds through asset sales, a capital raise, or restructuring efforts. However, its current model could fail if the 0G token’s value continues declining.
ZeroStack’s July 20 acquisition of Texas Blocker increased its 0G token holding to 223.77 million, amplifying its exposure to the token’s downturn.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as ZeroStack’s Ability To Continue As A Going Concern In Doubt After 0G Token Collapse on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Nasdaq-listed crypto treasury company ZeroStack has raised serious questions about its financial runway, warning in a recent SEC filing that “substantial doubt” exists about whether it can keep operating for the next year. The assessment marks a sharp reversal from its view just a quarter earlier, highlighting how dependent the company’s plan is on staking income and the liquidity of its Zero Gravity (0G) token.
In a Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, ZeroStack reported $2.6 million in cash and negative working capital of $600,000 as of June 30, along with an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million. The filing also detailed a major unrealized drag from its token treasury: an $82.5 million fair value loss on digital assets and a net loss of $61.3 million for the first half of 2026.
Key takeaways
ZeroStack now says there is substantial doubt it can continue operating over the next year, reversing its earlier “sufficient” outlook in a prior filing.
As of June 30, the company held 75.1 million 0G tokens, valued at $15.2 million versus an aggregate cost of $163.3 million (about 91% below recorded cost).
The company relies on staking rewards and sales of 0G tokens to fund operations, making its cash position sensitive to token price and trading liquidity.
ZeroStack reported $3.8 million in staking revenue in the first half of 2026, but it also recorded significant losses and could not conclude that its planned funding steps fully remove going-concern risk.
SEC filing flags going-concern risk
ZeroStack’s latest filing is notable not just for its headline loss figures, but for the governance and risk signal it sends to investors. Management stated that it could not conclude its plans would be enough to eliminate doubts about whether the company can continue as a going concern over the next year.
The company’s balance sheet underscores the pressure behind that conclusion. With $2.6 million in cash and negative working capital of $600,000 at June 30, ZeroStack’s near-term flexibility appears limited. It also reported an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million, reflecting losses that have compounded over time.
Beyond liquidity, the filing shows the company is carrying a large unrealized impairment in its digital asset treasury. ZeroStack disclosed an $82.5 million fair value loss on digital assets during the period, alongside a net loss of $61.3 million for the first half of 2026.
A treasury strategy tied to 0G’s market
ZeroStack’s operating model depends heavily on 0G token performance and the token’s market depth. The company reported that it holds 75.1 million 0G tokens with an aggregate cost of $163.3 million and a fair value of $15.2 million as of June 30. Put differently, the holdings were valued about 91% below their recorded costs.
That gap matters for both accounting and funding. If the company intends to finance operations through token sales—especially during periods of weak liquidity—its ability to raise cash could be constrained even if balances appear large on paper. The company explicitly linked its funding capacity to both the 0G price and trading liquidity, according to the filing.
ZeroStack’s management also described reliance on staking rewards and token sales. In practice, staking income can provide periodic cash flow, but it may not be sufficient in periods when token markets are illiquid or when valuations fall further.
Staking revenue helps—yet the runway question remains
During the first half of 2026, ZeroStack reported $3.8 million in staking revenue. After validator commissions, the company said it earned about 6.6 million 0G tokens from staking activity.
To support expenses, ZeroStack sold nearly 4.9 million 0G tokens for $2.4 million over the same period. The filing indicates that these cash inflows—staking-related and sale-related—are central to its ability to pay forecast operating costs.
ZeroStack also said that, if needed, it could sell some of its treasury holdings. However, management’s conclusion did not fully reassure the markets: it said it could not determine that those actions would be enough to address going-concern doubts.
The tension here is straightforward. When a company’s main treasury assets have experienced steep valuation declines, the theoretical ability to raise cash by selling holdings can become less effective in the real world—particularly if market pricing and liquidity do not support the volume and proceeds management may be counting on.
Backtracking from earlier filings
Perhaps the most consequential element of the news is the reversal in ZeroStack’s assessment. In its first-quarter Form 10-Q filing, the company stated that its cash and staking rewards would be sufficient to meet its working capital requirements and obligations for at least another year.
In the most recent filing, it no longer reaches that conclusion and instead flags substantial doubt about continued operations over the next year. The shift suggests that circumstances changed—or that management’s confidence in the sustainability of its funding plan weakened as results and valuations evolved.
ZeroStack’s corporate background also provides context for how the company arrived at this point. The filing notes that the company was previously Flora Growth, a cannabis and CBD products firm. On Sept. 19, Flora announced $401 million in funding for a 0G treasury strategy, including $35 million in cash and equivalent commitments and more than $366 million in in-kind digital assets. The company later rebranded as ZeroStack and retained its Nasdaq listing.
Those details underline why investors are likely to focus on token treasury outcomes: the strategy is fundamentally designed to monetize staking and manage liquidity through sales. When 0G’s fair value diverges sharply from recorded cost, the difference can translate into both accounting losses and real constraints on financing flexibility.
What readers should watch next is whether ZeroStack provides further clarity on how it plans to balance staking, token sales, and liquidity needs—particularly given its much narrower margin for error after the “substantial doubt” disclosure. Investors will also likely track changes in 0G trading conditions, since the company’s own filings tie its funding outlook directly to token price and market liquidity.
This article was originally published as ZeroStack Flags Survival Risk After $82.5M Crypto Loss on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Nasdaq-listed crypto treasury firm ZeroStack has told the market that “substantial doubt” exists about whether it can keep operating over the next year, according to a recent SEC filing. The warning marks a notable shift from the company’s earlier assessment, where it said its liquidity position was expected to support operations for at least another year.
In a Form 10-Q filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Friday, ZeroStack reported $2.6 million in cash as of June 30, negative working capital of about $600,000, and an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million. The company also recorded an $82.5 million fair value loss on digital assets and posted a net loss of $61.3 million for the first half of 2026. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
Key takeaways
ZeroStack’s filing introduces “substantial doubt” over its ability to continue operating, reversing an earlier liquidity outlook.
As of June 30, the firm reported $2.6 million cash and negative working capital of roughly $600,000.
0G token holdings were valued at about $15.2 million versus an aggregate cost of $163.3 million—an indicated ~91% decline relative to recorded cost.
The business model depends on staking rewards and token sales, leaving funding levels tied to 0G price and market liquidity.
In the first half of 2026, ZeroStack generated $3.8 million from staking revenue and sold nearly 4.9 million tokens for $2.4 million.
What the SEC filing says about liquidity
The company’s latest Form 10-Q provides a snapshot of a treasury-led model facing tightening economics. ZeroStack disclosed $2.6 million in cash at the end of the first half of 2026 and negative working capital of approximately $600,000. It also reported an accumulated deficit of $339.1 million.
Beyond headline balance sheet metrics, the filing points to major valuation pressure on the company’s digital asset exposure. ZeroStack stated it recorded an $82.5 million fair value loss on digital assets during the period covered by the report. It also posted a net loss of $61.3 million for the first half of 2026. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
The company’s token treasury is central to the funding story. ZeroStack holds 75.1 million Zero Gravity (0G) tokens, with an aggregate recorded cost of $163.3 million and a fair value of $15.2 million as of June 30. That puts the holdings at roughly 91% below their recorded costs based on the fair value disclosed. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
Staking revenue and token sales: the funding hinge
ZeroStack said it relies on staking rewards and token sales to support operations. That structure creates a direct link between the company’s runway and two market variables: the price of 0G and the ability to sell tokens with sufficient liquidity.
In the first half of 2026, ZeroStack reported $3.8 million in staking revenue. The company also stated it earned about 6.6 million 0G tokens after validator commissions. During the same period, ZeroStack sold nearly 4.9 million tokens for $2.4 million to help cover operating expenses. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
Management said it expects cash on hand and staking reward sales to cover forecast operating costs. The filing also indicates the company could sell part of its treasury holdings if additional funds are needed. However, the key line for investors is that management could not conclude those plans would be enough to eliminate the “substantial doubt” about its ability to continue operating. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
Reversal from earlier liquidity guidance
The new warning is not the company’s first liquidity assessment this year. ZeroStack’s latest stance reverses what it told investors in its previous reports.
In its first-quarter Form 10-Q, ZeroStack said it expected its cash and staking rewards to be sufficient to meet working capital requirements and obligations for at least another year. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q (Q1))
In the latest filing, the company’s conclusion becomes more cautious. While ZeroStack points to operational funding coming from staking and potential token sales, the company’s inability to rule out a going-concern risk suggests the funding mix—when measured against current balance sheet realities and valuation losses—may be less reliable than earlier estimates.
Context: 0G treasury strategy and the cost-to-fair-value gap
ZeroStack’s current identity is tied to a broader pivot into 0G-centered treasury operations. The company was previously known as Flora Growth, a cannabis and CBD products firm. On Sept. 19, Flora announced a $401 million funding plan for a 0G treasury strategy. That plan included $35 million in cash and commitments, alongside more than $366 million in in-kind digital assets. The company later rebranded as ZeroStack while keeping its Nasdaq listing. (Source: Earlier coverage on Flora Growth’s 0G treasury announcement)
From an investor perspective, the most striking element in the latest report is the gap between the recorded cost of 0G holdings and their disclosed fair value. As of June 30, the tokens were booked at an aggregate cost of $163.3 million but marked at $15.2 million in fair value, implying the portfolio’s valuation has compressed sharply relative to its initial recorded basis. That gap matters because it directly affects how much capital the treasury can generate if token sales are needed to fund operating requirements—especially if liquidity is uneven or prices remain pressured. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
ZeroStack’s report therefore reads less like a one-off accounting update and more like an operational stress test of a staking-and-sales model. When the fair value of the underlying treasury declines so dramatically, even steady staking inflows may not translate into enough liquidity to cover burn and obligations without meaningful downside risk from continued token sales.
Going forward, investors should watch for whether ZeroStack can stabilize cash levels through staking reward performance and token sale capacity, and whether future filings confirm that the going-concern doubt diminishes or expands—an outcome that will likely depend on 0G liquidity and price rather than on the company’s ability to generate rewards alone. (Source: SEC Form 10-Q)
This article was originally published as ZeroStack Flags Survival Risk After $82.5M Crypto Treasury Loss on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coldcard’s five-year seed-generation flaw has become more than a single-vendor incident, with Kraken’s chief security officer Nick Percoco arguing that it highlights a structural gap in how hardware wallets are independently tested. In particular, he says security reviews often verify that the “right” entropy source exists in the codebase, but may not confirm that production firmware actually calls the validated randomness path.
Percoco’s warning follows an ongoing exploit campaign widely believed to target weak seed phrases produced by affected Coldcard devices. As of Sunday, more than 4,500 addresses were reported impacted, with losses estimated at nearly $90 million in Bitcoin, according to Cointelegraph’s ongoing coverage.
Key takeaways
Kraken’s Nick Percoco says hardware wallets are often not subject to end-to-end verification that the approved entropy/RNG source is the one production firmware executes.
Coldcard’s vulnerability traces to a process change approved in March 2021, after Coinkite integrated a new cryptographic library.
Coinkite’s postmortem describes a shift where seed generation relied on a weaker MicroPython generator instead of the intended TRNG most of the time.
Percoco points to established standards like NIST SP 800-90B and BSI AIS-31 as models for how entropy sources should be validated.
Coinkite says it halted shipments of affected devices and destroyed remaining units containing the vulnerable firmware, while advising users not to dispose of hardware immediately.
Why the Coldcard case is a test-process problem, not just a bug
In an X post on Sunday, Percoco characterized the Coldcard issue as a “wake-up call” for hardware-wallet manufacturers. His core point was that consumers are asked to rely on a vendor’s implementation of the system’s most critical function—secure randomness—without a corresponding independent check that the validated randomness path is actually what ends up running in production.
“Consumers are asked to trust a manufacturer’s implementation of the single most critical function in the system, with no independent verification that the approved entropy path is the one actually executing,” Percoco wrote, arguing that this gap can allow critical cryptographic expectations to be silently violated.
He contrasted the state of digital-asset self-custody testing with practices in other security-critical sectors. As he framed it, industries that handle sensitive authentication hardware and cryptographic modules typically require more rigorous verification of entropy sources than what is commonly enforced in the hardware-wallet ecosystem.
What Coinkite says went wrong in March 2021
Coldcard’s broader timeline centers on changes made in March 2021. Coinkite disclosed that a software flaw had been present since then, when Coldcard altered its seed-generation approach as part of integrating a new cryptographic library.
According to Coinkite’s postmortem, the migration inadvertently routed wallet creation through a weaker MicroPython generator that already existed in the codebase, rather than using Coldcard’s intended true random number generator (TRNG). The company’s account describes a situation where the TRNG code was present and could be reviewed and confirmed, but it was not the primary source used during seed generation.
Coinkite summarized the problem by saying that “the bulk of randomness on the COLDCARD was coming from a PRNG that I didn’t know was actually in the source code base,” while the carefully crafted TRNG code was being used only “by chance” and “only for less important things.”
This distinction matters because it reframes the vulnerability: rather than the TRNG being entirely missing or nonfunctional, the risk appears to stem from the firmware executing a different randomness source than the one reviewers might reasonably assume would be used for security-critical seed creation.
Standards exist—yet Percoco says they aren’t applied end to end
Percoco said the failure to detect the issue for years is consistent with how many wallet evaluations are structured. He argued that while code reviews can establish that a TRNG is included and appears to work, there is often no systematic check that verifies the entropy source actually invoked by production firmware matches the entropy that was validated.
He pointed to requirements used for physical true random number generator design and validation, citing NIST SP 800-90B, a US standard for cryptographic randomness validation, and BSI AIS-31, an analogous German standard from the Federal Office for Information Security.
“Such checks are already standard across the rest of the security industry,” Percoco said. His broader critique was that hardware wallets currently lack an equivalent, universally enforced process that forces end-to-end validation of the RNG path—from approved design, to tested behavior, to the exact call executed at runtime.
For investors and security-focused users, the implication is straightforward: if independent testing does not verify the operational link between validated randomness and deployed firmware, the security model can be weakened even when the codebase contains the correct components.
Coldcard and Coinkite response: halted shipments and guidance to users
Following disclosure of the underlying flaw, Coldcard said Sunday it has halted all device shipments since confirming the vulnerability on Thursday. Coinkite also stated it destroyed remaining units at its facilities that contained the affected firmware.
At the same time, Coinkite advised users with affected devices not to dispose of them, noting that they “may become essential if funds are recovered.” The company also said its legal team will coordinate, as warranted, with law enforcement across multiple jurisdictions to support efforts to identify those responsible.
The ongoing nature of the exploit makes the guidance more than a technical footnote. When seed phrase weaknesses are involved, practical remediation often depends on forensic details and the potential recovery process, which can be complicated if devices are discarded.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph has described the exploit as targeting weak seed phrases generated by affected Coldcard devices, with additional analysis of theft totals and affected addresses. The scale reported as of Sunday—over 4,500 addresses impacted and losses approaching $90 million in Bitcoin—adds urgency to both user instructions and improvements to how wallets are tested before release.
What to watch next
For the market, the key question is whether this incident drives a measurable shift in independent validation practice—specifically, whether future hardware-wallet reviews will include end-to-end confirmation that production firmware uses the validated entropy source for seed generation. Until that standard becomes routine, incidents like Coldcard’s may continue to reveal weaknesses that are invisible to partial audits.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Vulnerability Highlights Hardware Wallet Testing Gaps, Kraken on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea extended a long-running outflow trend as stablecoins continued to leave the country for offshore trading platforms. In June, the nation recorded net stablecoin outflows of 560.3 billion won (about $367 million), keeping South Korea’s streak of monthly net outflows at 18 consecutive months.
The latest numbers, reported by Yonhap News Agency using data from the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), point to large-scale transfers by South Korea’s biggest crypto venues. Yonhap said the five major exchanges—Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit and Gopax—sent 2.7 trillion won (about $1.81 billion) in stablecoins overseas in June while receiving 2.2 trillion won (about $1.44 billion) from foreign platforms.
Key takeaways
June net stablecoin outflows from South Korea totaled 560.3 billion won (about $367 million), extending 18 straight months of monthly net exits.
South Korea’s five largest exchanges collectively transferred 2.7 trillion won in stablecoins offshore in June while receiving 2.2 trillion won from abroad.
Yonhap reported that demand for products unavailable or restricted domestically—such as certain derivatives, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), DeFi, and staking—was cited as a driver of the transfers.
Opposition lawmakers and regulators are calling for stronger oversight and updated investor protection rules as cross-border activity continues.
Policy proposals discussed alongside the outflows include interim stablecoin licensing guidance and potential phasing of stablecoin regulation before a broader Digital Asset Basic Act is finalized.
Stablecoin exits keep growing despite ongoing regulation work
According to Yonhap, the June figure comes directly from FSS data shared with a lawmaker. The data was obtained through People Power Party lawmaker Lee Jong-wook, who has repeatedly raised concerns about how the government supervises cross-border crypto activity.
While the net outflow headline is negative, the underlying exchange-level flows highlight a more nuanced picture. Yonhap said local exchanges exported stablecoins to offshore platforms at a higher pace than they imported them—2.7 trillion won sent versus 2.2 trillion won received—resulting in the net outflow position.
Market participants quoted by Yonhap tied the transfers to practical constraints for users operating within South Korea’s market structure. They pointed to demand for services or token products that are restricted, not yet available, or otherwise limited on domestic venues. Those categories included overseas derivatives, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), decentralized finance, and staking products.
Lawmakers push for a fresh look at investor protection
The stablecoin outflows have drawn renewed pressure on regulators to address investor protection gaps. Lee Jong-wook urged the government to re-examine its supervisory framework for how investors are protected when activity shifts offshore and users access services subject to different rules and oversight.
As reported by The Korea Times, Lee said authorities must “comprehensively examine” investor protection and supervisory frameworks and “move swiftly to improve regulations” in response to continuing stablecoin outflows.
The core tension for policymakers is straightforward: if domestic rules or product availability are slower to develop than offshore options, users may route capital abroad rather than use locally supervised services. That dynamic can leave regulators chasing activity after it has moved to less directly controlled venues—especially when stablecoins are used as on-ramps for broader crypto strategies.
Proposed stablecoin rules and reporting expansions
The outflows are unfolding while South Korea works toward a fuller legal framework for digital assets. Cointelegraph reported earlier that Thursday’s policy report recommended authorities introduce interim licensing guidance and phase in stablecoin regulations before the Digital Asset Basic Act is finalized, rather than waiting for the full law to take effect.
Under the proposed approach referenced by Cointelegraph, the Digital Asset Basic Act would aim to create South Korea’s first comprehensive digital asset framework, covering stablecoin issuance, disclosure standards, and market activity rules. However, the report also underscores that lawmakers have yet to reconcile multiple proposals—particularly disagreements about which institutions would be authorized to issue won-pegged stablecoins, a point flagged as a contributor to delays.
Separately, Cointelegraph noted that South Korean regulators have sought to expand reporting requirements for crypto transfers. On June 22, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) proposed extending Travel Rule reporting requirements to transactions below 1 million won (roughly $650). The Travel Rule proposal is part of an effort to improve traceability of crypto transfers across jurisdictions, reducing the ability to move value without the expected reporting coverage.
Yonhap’s coverage also reflected the FIU’s broader concern: it urged stronger action against unregistered overseas exchanges serving South Koreans. The FIU argued that licensing and supervision can vary widely across jurisdictions, creating opportunities for regulatory arbitrage—an issue that the continuing stablecoin outflows bring into sharper focus.
What investors and traders should watch next
As South Korea’s stablecoin outflow streak continues, the next milestones will likely be the details of how interim stablecoin licensing is implemented and how quickly reporting rules and enforcement measures are tightened for cross-border activity. For market participants, the key question is whether regulatory changes will narrow the gap between what users can access domestically versus offshore—without simply pushing activity into new, less supervised channels.
This article was originally published as South Korea Sees $367M Stablecoin Outflows in June, Report Shows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coldcard’s five-year seed-generation issue has turned into a wider debate over how hardware wallets are independently verified, according to Kraken’s chief security officer Nick Percoco. In an X post on Sunday, Percoco said the incident should prompt makers of self-custody devices to require end-to-end checks that confirm the randomness source reviewed in testing is the same one actually executed by production firmware.
The comments arrive amid an ongoing exploit believed to target vulnerable Coldcard devices by abusing weak seed phrases. By Sunday, more than 4,500 addresses had reportedly been affected, with losses estimated at nearly $90 million in Bitcoin, according to Cointelegraph’s reporting linked in the original article.
Key takeaways
Kraken’s Nick Percoco argues hardware wallet certification should include verification that the approved entropy path is what production firmware uses in practice.
Coldcard’s RNG-related flaw allegedly persisted for years after a seed-generation change introduced an unintended reliance on a weaker generator.
Percoco cited existing standards used in the broader security and payments industries—such as NIST SP 800-90B and BSI AIS-31—as models for what should be standard for crypto self-custody.
Coinkite says affected firmware has been halted in shipments and that remaining units containing the vulnerable code were destroyed, while it advised users not to discard certain devices.
A hardware wallet “wake-up call” for entropy verification
Percoco’s central point is about trust boundaries. Hardware wallet users are asked to rely on a manufacturer’s implementation of the randomness function that ultimately underpins seed phrase generation—yet, he said, there is often no independent method to confirm that the verified randomness source is the one the device will actually call in production.
“Consumers are asked to trust a manufacturer’s implementation of the single most critical function in the system, with no independent verification that the approved entropy path is the one actually executing,” Percoco wrote in his Sunday post.
He described this gap as an industry-wide weakness rather than a one-off mistake, noting that while some certifications exist for hardware components and secure elements, they do not “systematically force end-to-end verification” of the entropy source through to production code execution.
Percoco contrasted the crypto self-custody space with practices in other sectors. He pointed to the payments industry’s use of independent lab testing for devices that collect sensitive inputs, and to government expectations in the US around cryptographic module validation and entropy source testing.
How the Coldcard flaw allegedly slipped through
According to the original reporting, the vulnerability traces back to a software change disclosed by Coinkite. The company said the relevant issue has existed since March 2021, when Coldcard altered its seed-generation process as it integrated a new cryptographic library.
The update, per Coinkite’s postmortem referenced in the article, unintentionally routed wallet creation to a weaker MicroPython generator already present in the codebase. Coinkite’s explanation indicated that Coldcard’s intended true random number generator (TRNG) code existed and could be present and functioning, but was not reliably the one used for the core randomness needed for seeds.
In other words, reviewers could verify that the TRNG code was present and worked—but, without a mechanism to ensure the device actually called that TRNG during seed generation, the system could still produce outcomes derived from a different generator than intended.
The practical consequence is that seed phrases generated under the affected conditions may become more predictable than they should be. That predictive weakness is widely viewed by the security community as especially dangerous in wallet designs because compromised seeds can enable theft without needing to break keys directly.
Attack fallout and what’s changing for users
The ongoing exploit believed to target weak seed phrases generated by affected Coldcard devices has already resulted in extensive on-chain activity. As of Sunday, Cointelegraph’s figures cited in the original article reported over 4,500 impacted addresses and losses approaching $90 million in Bitcoin.
Coldcard (Coinkite) said it has halted all device shipments since confirming the vulnerability on Thursday. It also stated it destroyed remaining units at its facilities that contained the affected firmware.
At the same time, the company advised users with affected devices not to dispose of them immediately, saying doing so might become “essential if funds are recovered.” The company also indicated its legal team would coordinate with law enforcement across multiple jurisdictions to support efforts identifying those responsible.
For affected owners, the new information underscores a key operational point: device handling decisions may need to be aligned with recovery processes rather than treated as purely disposal or cleanup tasks. While that doesn’t eliminate the security risk of continuing exposure, it suggests an active incident-response posture where retaining evidence or workable hardware could matter.
Standards exist—what’s missing is enforcement
Percoco’s critique points to a tension that many investors and builders may recognize: crypto security often emphasizes reviewing code paths and cryptographic primitives, but not always the end-to-end behavior under production conditions—especially the specific entropy source used at runtime.
He referenced NIST SP 800-90B, which sets requirements for designing, testing and validating physical true random number generators for cryptographic security, and BSI AIS-31, a similar standard from Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security. In his view, such frameworks make it more difficult for systems to “pass review” without proving that the approved randomness pathway is actually used for critical operations.
Whether regulators and certifiers will adapt those expectations to consumer self-custody products remains uncertain. However, the Coldcard case demonstrates why the distinction matters: even when a correct TRNG implementation exists in the codebase, the seed-generation workflow can still be compromised if production firmware routes randomness differently than what independent review assumes.
Next, investors and users should watch for two things: clarification from Coinkite on exactly how to identify which devices/firmware are affected and what remediation steps best reduce future risk, and whether independent testers or certifiers move toward stronger “entropy source at runtime” validation—an area Percoco argues should not remain optional in digital asset custody.
This article was originally published as Coldcard’s 5-Year Flaw Shows Hardware Wallet Testing Gaps, Kraken Chief on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy’s preferred stock tracker, STRC, ended July trading well below its $100 par value, but management signaled that the company’s next preferred dividend rate will not rise. Executive chairman Michael Saylor said the August dividend will remain at 12%, continuing a payout level that was set after a June performance dip.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor confirmed the dividend will hold at 12% for August. He also noted the company will keep its semi-monthly payment cadence for the second straight month after shareholders approved that change in June, following the earlier decision to increase the dividend by 50 basis points to 12%.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s executive chairman said the August STRC dividend will remain at a 12% rate, not increase.
STRC has continued to trade below its $100 par value throughout July, despite a monthly price rebound that began after the June dividend hike.
Management reiterated a longer-term objective for STRC to trade near $99–$100, without specifying a timeline.
Strategy reported building a large cash reserve—cited as $3.75 billion—to support preferred stock payouts and related obligations.
Dividend holds at 12% as preferred shares stay below par
Although STRC shares did not reach par in July, the stock did gain momentum over the month. The shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, up 5.42% for the month that started with the dividend adjustment.
Earlier, management had lifted the dividend rate in response to weak performance in June—raising it by 50 basis points to 12%. After that change, Strategy’s preferred payout strategy moved toward semi-monthly distributions, a structure that takes effect for the second month in August after the June shareholder vote.
Trading activity on Friday was also notably lighter than typical: volume was about two-thirds of the Nasdaq-listed shares’ daily average, according to the figures referenced in the report. That detail matters because it suggests the month’s rebound did not coincide with a surge in participation, even as investors processed the dividend update.
Management’s $99–$100 target meets a lower-than-par reality
Even as the next dividend stays flat, Strategy’s leadership continues to frame STRC around a valuation target. On Friday, CEO Phong Le reiterated that management’s “corporate objective” is for STRC to trade at $99–$100 over time, without adding specifics on when that goal might be reached.
That position is important to read in context: shareholders were told the dividend rate would not increase in August, even after the company adjusted payouts earlier in the quarter. Investors looking for signals that STRC might close the gap toward par have therefore had to balance two competing inputs—management’s longer-term pricing objective and the near-term decision to keep the dividend at the same level.
Cash reserve and buybacks aimed at supporting payouts
While the dividend rate message was unchanged, Saylor’s social-media activity pointed to continued capital management efforts tied to Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury strategy. On Sunday, he posted “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” accompanied by a familiar chart of Strategy’s BTC buying activity as tracked by Saylortracker.com.
The emphasis on liquidity and coverage aligns with what Strategy disclosed in its latest reporting. The company recently reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, driven primarily by an $8.32 billion unrealized loss on its Bitcoin holdings as the cryptocurrency’s price declined during the quarter.
Against that backdrop, Strategy said it has built a $3.75 billion cash reserve intended to support preferred stock payouts following the launch of its BTC monetization program. In the same vein, the company described a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve sufficient to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and related interest obligations.
Strategy also disclosed that it repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and said it intends to keep buying the securities while they trade below $100. For investors, the practical takeaway is straightforward: management is pairing a coverage plan with an active buyback strategy, presumably to reduce pressure on valuation while the preferred shares trade under par.
However, the gap between par value and the prevailing market price remains the key issue. Management’s stated intent to buy more when the shares trade below $100 suggests the company believes the market offers an entry point—but without a near-term dividend increase, investors will likely focus on whether buybacks and reserve policy can translate into sustained movement toward the $99–$100 trading range.
What to watch next for STRC holders
With the August dividend rate confirmed at 12% and STRC still trading below $100 par, the next signal for holders will likely come from any further updates on Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury actions and whether cash-reserve coverage and buybacks continue at a pace that supports improving market pricing. Investors should also watch whether management provides clearer timing around its $99–$100 objective, since it currently remains framed as a long-term goal rather than a defined schedule.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% STRC Preferred Dividend Despite Below-Par Price on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy CEO Michael Saylor told investors that the preferred dividend tied to Strategy’s STRC shares will stay at 12% for August, despite STRC trading well below its $100 par value through July.
In a Saturday post on X, Saylor framed STRC as an income-oriented vehicle that he says can help investors “stretch your income,” while indicating that the semi-monthly dividend schedule approved earlier this year will continue. Strategy’s chief then reiterated a longer-term target price range for the preferred shares, even as market pricing suggests investors are still demanding a discount.
Key takeaways
Strategy’s STRC preferred dividend will remain at 12% for August, according to Michael Saylor.
August will mark the second month in a row that STRC dividends are paid semi-monthly, following a June shareholder vote.
STRC shares closed at $89.46 on Friday, trading below $100 par value throughout July.
Management has continued to state a corporate objective for STRC to reach and hold around $99–$100 over time.
Strategy says it has built a sizable cash reserve to fund preferred payouts as it monetizes Bitcoin.
Dividend guidance holds steady even as STRC trades at a discount
While Strategy’s STRC preferred shares ended July below their stated $100 par value, shareholders were told that the August dividend will not increase. Michael Saylor made that point in a Saturday X post, continuing the company’s pitch that STRC is designed to provide a steady income stream for investors.
The 12% dividend rate is not a one-off adjustment: it follows a dividend change earlier in the cycle. In June, Strategy shareholders approved changes that moved STRC to a semi-monthly payment cadence. As a result, August will be the second month that the dividend is paid on that more frequent schedule.
On the market side, STRC ended Friday at $89.46, up 5.42% for the month that began with a dividend increase. According to the article, the daily trading volume on Friday was about two-thirds of STRC’s usual daily average—suggesting participation was fairly active, but not at peak levels.
Management’s messaging has also stayed consistent with its longer-term plan. On Friday, Strategy CEO Phong Le reiterated that the company’s “corporate objective is for STRC to trade at $99-$100 over time,” without offering a specific timeline for when that target could be met.
Cash reserve strategy tied to Bitcoin treasury and preferred obligations
Beyond dividend arithmetic, the company’s stability message appears to be supported by its Bitcoin treasury and liquidity planning. Saylor posted on Sunday that “Bitcoin Drive engaged,” a phrase he used alongside a chart of Strategy’s BTC purchases from Saylortracker.com, signaling the company’s ongoing buying activity.
That matters because Strategy’s preferred dividend economics are linked to how it finances obligations while its Bitcoin holdings remain exposed to market volatility. Last week, Strategy reported an $8.22 billion second-quarter net loss, which the report attributed largely to an $8.32 billion unrealized loss tied to movements in the price of its Bitcoin holdings during the quarter.
Even with that drawdown, Strategy said it has built a cash reserve intended to help cover preferred stock payouts after the launch of its BTC monetization program. The figures cited in the article include a $3.75 billion U.S. dollar reserve. Strategy also stated that the reserve is enough to cover more than two years of preferred dividend payments and interest obligations.
In practical terms, that guidance is meant to reduce concerns that near-term Bitcoin price fluctuations could immediately disrupt the dividend. Traders may still price STRC based on expected returns and relative risk, but a defined liquidity buffer can influence how investors interpret the sustainability of the payout.
Discount-to-par repurchases and the $99–$100 over-time goal
Another point investors are watching is how Strategy manages the preferred share discount. The article says Strategy recently repurchased $25 million of its STRC preferred shares at a discount to par and intends to continue buying the securities while they trade below $100.
This approach aligns with management’s public objective for STRC to trade closer to par over time. However, the market continues to price the shares significantly lower: with Friday’s close at $89.46, the gap to $100 remains substantial. That spread reflects uncertainty about timing—how quickly any pathway to par could play out, and whether dividends alone are enough to close the valuation gap.
Le’s repeated comment that the objective is $99–$100 over time, without specifying when, highlights the central tension: Strategy is emphasizing financial buffers and ongoing BTC-driven support, while the preferred market is still setting prices around a discount that persists through July.
Investors therefore have two parallel items to track. First is the dividend rate itself—now confirmed to stay at 12% for August. Second is whether Strategy’s buybacks and any treasury policy changes translate into steady demand for STRC preferred shares that could narrow the discount.
What to watch next for STRC holders
Going forward, STRC investors should monitor the next dividend payment cycle for August and pay close attention to whether Strategy follows through on continued preferred repurchases while the shares remain below par. At the same time, any updates related to “BTC monetization” and treasury allocation could influence how markets assess the company’s ability to fund preferred obligations during periods of Bitcoin volatility.
This article was originally published as Strategy Maintains 12% Preferred STRC Dividend Despite Discount on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin has seen a spike in very small transfers—moves of less than 1 BTC—that match the intensity last observed around the collapse of FTX. The renewed activity comes as researchers continue to track a suspected Coldcard wallet-related hack, underscoring how quickly users are reacting when self-custody tools appear compromised.
According to CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno, Friday recorded the highest daily level of sub-1 BTC transfers since November 2022, with 39,600 BTC moved. The total was just 300 BTC below 39,900 BTC transferred on Nov. 16, 2022, shortly after FTX filed for bankruptcy. Moreno framed the comparison as a sign of urgency and said users appear to be “taking action.”
Key takeaways
Daily Bitcoin transfers below 1 BTC hit their highest level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard incident caused estimated losses of 1,367 BTC across 4,585 addresses, after identifying a further 207.7 BTC taken in an additional wave.
Galaxy’s Alex Thorn warned that the attack was still ongoing and urged affected users to move funds immediately from Coldcard-generated addresses.
The incident is reigniting debate over whether self-custody is safer than relying on third-party platforms, with executives arguing the impact differs across user approaches.
Small-transfer surge echoes the post-FTX era
While large market moves often capture headlines, the current data point focuses on behavior at the granularity of everyday wallet operations: sub-1 BTC transfers. Moreno’s analysis suggests the market is seeing a level of small withdrawals not observed since the period following FTX’s bankruptcy filing.
The comparison matters because it points to reflexive user behavior—moving funds in smaller increments—rather than a single, coordinated “whale” action. In the wake of FTX, exchange-related uncertainty drove users toward faster, more defensive moves. Here, the catalyst is different: ongoing concerns tied to Coldcard-generated addresses.
Moreno’s observation that these transfers had not occurred at similar daily intensity since the FTX collapse suggests that the Coldcard incident may be triggering a comparable sense of immediate risk. That doesn’t prove equivalence in scale or cause, but it does show that user reaction can look similar even when the underlying event is distinct.
Galaxy Research details additional theft wave
Galaxy Research, part of Galaxy Digital, reported Saturday that it had identified another attack wave tied to the suspected Coldcard hack. In that wave, an additional 207.7 BTC was drained—valued at roughly $13.2 million at the time Galaxy cited.
Including the newly identified activity, Galaxy estimated total losses of 1,367 BTC, affecting 4,585 addresses. Galaxy’s reporting suggests the incident is not a single moment of exploitation, but an ongoing process where both victims and attacker infrastructure continue to emerge as investigators refine their tracking.
Galaxy also points readers to a Coldcard-focused tracking resource, “Coldcard Watch,” as part of the broader transparency around wallet activity connected to the suspected incident.
“Still ongoing” warnings push users toward immediate withdrawal
Alex Thorn, Galaxy Digital’s head of firmwide research, said in an X post on Sunday that the attack remained active. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn added that his team continues to identify both new victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also noted that reports from users have helped investigators and authorities track stolen funds, reinforcing a practical implication for readers: in incidents where on-chain patterns are evolving, user-provided information can accelerate investigative work.
The warning is also a reminder that self-custody isn’t only about holding assets—it’s about operational readiness. When wallet-generated addresses are implicated, the “time to react” becomes part of the security model, whether users follow best practices or not.
Self-custody debate returns as commentators argue “failure” vs “risk control”
The suspected Coldcard hack has again pulled the conversation toward the long-running fault line in crypto security: self-custody versus third-party custody. Self-custody is a foundational principle in Bitcoin, emphasizing user control without dependence on intermediaries. Yet security incidents involving consumer-grade tools can complicate the narrative and raise fresh questions about usability and safety.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that “self-custody is over.” He argued that because self-custody is distributed, users have time to respond as threats are identified. Neuman also estimated that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
That position reframes the debate from whether an incident can occur at all to how the system responds once the risk becomes visible. In Neuman’s view, the existence of ongoing victims does not negate the defensive advantage that self-custody can provide—especially when users monitor, verify, and act on warnings.
Others took the issue in a different direction. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued via X that Bitcoin exchange-traded funds may offer a safer and more convenient alternative for many users, pointing to the longer operating history of ETFs.
In contrast, critics of that argument say the Coldcard episode reflects a failure of a specific wallet provider or implementation rather than a fundamental breakdown of self-custody itself. The tension here is important for readers to recognize: “self-custody” is not a single technology—it’s a set of practices and tools—so incidents can be interpreted as either systemic or localized depending on what readers believe broke down.
What to watch next
With Galaxy saying the attack is still unfolding and continuing to identify new victim and attacker addresses, the next key signal will be whether transfer patterns and wallet-specific indicators stabilize as users move funds. For investors and builders, the bigger question is how quickly the broader community can validate affected addresses and coordinate response—because in cases like this, speed is part of the security outcome.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Fallout Widens as Bitcoin Losses Hit $88.6M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company behind the Truth Social platform, has continued trimming its Bitcoin exposure, according to on-chain tracking shared by Lookonchain. The latest activity adds to a months-long pattern of sales that have significantly reduced the company’s reported BTC balance.
In transfers identified by Lookonchain using Arkham data, Trump Media-linked wallets sent 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com. The move is reported to be worth roughly $165 million, extending a selling cycle that began about seven months ago.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets reportedly transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165M) to Crypto.com, per Lookonchain’s analysis of Arkham data.
Lookonchain estimates Trump Media has sold a total of 7,281 BTC over the past seven months, worth roughly $545M.
Arkham wallet data cited by Lookonchain shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC, worth about $269.8M at the time of reporting.
Current scrutiny is taking place alongside broader legislative debate over the CLARITY Act, which has drawn attention for its ethics provisions around digital asset activity.
New Crypto.com transfers cut into remaining Bitcoin
Lookonchain reported that Trump Media has executed another batch of Bitcoin sales via transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis attributes the transactions to Trump Media-linked wallets and cites Arkham’s wallet and transaction information.
In this most recent set of moves, Arkham data referenced by Lookonchain points to two transfers: one for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC.
Taken together, Lookonchain said these transfers total 2,628 BTC, valued at about $165 million based on the prevailing price assumptions used in its reporting. This latest reduction follows earlier transfers to Crypto.com reported on May 22, when the company-linked wallets moved a combined 2,650 BTC, worth roughly $205 million.
Seven-month selling spree shrinks reported holdings
Lookonchain frames the most recent transfer as the continuation of a broader liquidation strategy. The tracker said Trump Media purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before beginning to sell portions of its holdings around seven months ago.
Based on the same dataset, Lookonchain estimates cumulative sales of 7,281 BTC over that period, worth approximately $545 million. The analysis also calculates an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC for those transactions.
After the latest outflows, Arkham data referenced in the report indicates Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings stand at 4,261 BTC, valued at about $269.8 million at the time of publication. That implies the company’s reported BTC balance has fallen by roughly 63% compared with the initial purchase total cited by Lookonchain.
Why the timing matters amid ethics and ownership debates
Beyond the on-chain mechanics, the sales arrive as lawmakers debate the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a proposal that has attracted scrutiny for its approach to ethics rules and the question of whether officials’ digital asset activity could create conflicts of interest.
Critics have pointed to a range of Trump-linked crypto initiatives discussed in the broader public policy debate, including memecoins such as Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA), as well as World Liberty Financial’s governance token WLFI and a USD1 stablecoin. The controversy centers on the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings or products.
Recent CLARITY Act discussions, as described in coverage referenced by Cointelegraph, have focused on tightening ethics provisions—particularly rules governing when officials could issue or sponsor digital assets. However, as the source notes, the legislation remains under consideration and does not mandate that companies sell existing holdings.
That distinction is important for investors and compliance watchers: even if a law ultimately changes future behavior for officials or connected entities, it may not retroactively affect the ability of companies to keep, liquidate, or otherwise manage already-held crypto.
What to watch next for Trump Media-linked wallets
For market participants, the key signal in this story is not simply that Bitcoin is being sold, but how steadily it is being done and through which counterparties—here, Crypto.com—based on wallet and transaction clustering reported through Arkham data by Lookonchain.
Readers should watch for whether additional transfers continue to appear from the same Trump Media-linked wallet set, and whether the remaining 4,261 BTC balance changes further. At the same time, political and regulatory attention around the CLARITY Act suggests that disclosure, governance, and ethics standards for digital asset participation may remain a live topic even if near-term changes do not compel immediate sales.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Moves 2,628 BTC to Crypto.com, Wallet Drops to 4,261 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent of Truth Social, has continued to reduce its reported Bitcoin exposure with another batch of transfers to exchange infrastructure. According to Lookonchain, the company sold 2,628 BTC—valued at roughly $165 million at the time of the transfers—via movements to Crypto.com, based on blockchain data compiled from Arkham.
The latest activity adds to a broader pattern of selling observed over the past seven months, shrinking the company’s reported holdings and feeding into ongoing political scrutiny of Trump-linked crypto projects and the ethics questions surrounding digital asset ownership.
Key takeaways
Trump Media-linked wallets transferred 2,628 BTC (about $165 million) to Crypto.com, according to Lookonchain’s analysis using Arkham data.
Over the past seven months, reported Bitcoin sales total 7,281 BTC (about $545 million), per Lookonchain.
Arkham wallet data shows remaining holdings of 4,261 BTC (worth about $269.8 million at the time of reporting).
Recent transfers include an Arkham-documented transaction for 2,429 BTC and another for 198.9 BTC moving to Crypto.com.
The selling comes amid congressional discussion of the CLARITY Act, which targets ethics and digital asset rules but does not compel companies to liquidate existing holdings.
Another Crypto.com-linked transfer reduces reported BTC
In a Sunday post on X, Lookonchain said Trump Media sold 2,628 BTC through transfers to Crypto.com. The analysis was based on on-chain visibility attributed to Trump Media-linked entities, with Arkham used as the data layer for identifying the wallet activity.
Lookonchain further reported that Trump Media had purchased 11,542 BTC at an average price of $118,522 before starting to sell portions of its holdings about seven months prior to the latest transactions.
How much Bitcoin has been sold—and what remains
Lookonchain’s tally places total reported sales over the same seven-month window at 7,281 BTC, valued around $545 million, with an average selling price of $74,855 per BTC based on its methodology.
Arkham’s wallet figures cited by the analysis indicate that Trump Media’s remaining Bitcoin holdings were 4,261 BTC at the time of publication, worth approximately $269.8 million.
The most recent movements to Crypto.com, according to Arkham wallet data referenced in the report, included two notable transfers: one transaction of 2,429 BTC and another of 198.9 BTC. These transfers follow earlier activity that Lookonchain linked to the same selling program, including two movements recorded on May 22 totaling 2,650 BTC (worth about $205 million at the time).
Why repeated selling matters for investors watching disclosures
For market participants, the practical significance of these transactions is less about the immediate price impact of any single sale and more about consistency, transparency, and how quickly a large holder can reduce exposure. When a corporate-linked balance sheet shows continued liquidation of a major volatile asset like Bitcoin, investors often interpret it as a shift in treasury strategy, liquidity planning, or a risk-management decision.
Just as importantly, the reported activity draws attention to how on-chain transfers by identifiable entities can affect expectations around future flows. If more transfers to exchange-linked addresses continue, traders may look for repeated liquidity events that can complicate execution for both spot and derivatives participants—particularly if the market perceives the sales as part of a longer unwinding rather than one-off diversification.
CLARITY Act debate keeps ethics questions in focus
Beyond the on-chain movements, the latest Bitcoin sales land at a time when lawmakers are weighing the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. In the broader debate, attention has turned to ethics provisions, conflicts of interest, and how public officials should handle relationships with digital asset issuers and related ventures.
Critics have pointed to a cluster of Trump-linked crypto interests discussed in policy circles, including the Official Trump (TRUMP) and Melania (MELANIA) memecoins, as well as World Liberty Financial’s WLFI governance token and USD1 stablecoin. The issue raised by opponents is the overlap between political influence and private crypto holdings—particularly where governance or issuance incentives could be perceived as benefiting affiliated interests.
While current CLARITY Act discussions have focused on tightening ethics rules—such as restrictions on officials issuing or sponsoring digital assets—the legislation remains under consideration and, according to the report’s framing, does not require companies to sell existing crypto holdings.
That distinction is likely to matter in how the market interprets these developments. Even if policymakers move toward stricter disclosure or conflict-of-interest standards, treasury actions already in motion—like the sell-through described by Lookonchain and supported by Arkham wallet data—may continue on a timetable driven by corporate liquidity decisions rather than by immediate regulatory requirements.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for whether additional exchange-linked transfers continue from the same Trump Media-linked wallets and whether lawmakers’ CLARITY Act deliberations progress in a way that clarifies disclosure and ethics obligations for officials and affiliated entities. Until then, the main signal remains the on-chain pattern: reported Bitcoin balances appear to be shrinking in measured batches, supported by repeated wallet movements documented through Arkham and aggregated by Lookonchain.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Cuts Another 2,628 BTC; Wallet Drops to 4,261 BTC on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin appears to be seeing a renewed pattern of rapid, smaller transfers—an on-chain behavior not observed at similar levels since the immediate aftermath of the FTX collapse. On Friday, transfers below 1 BTC surged to the highest daily level since November 2022, totaling 39,600 BTC, according to research shared by CryptoQuant head of research Julio Moreno on Saturday.
Moreno’s comparison is stark: the figure sat just 300 BTC under the 39,900 BTC moved on Nov. 16, 2022, days after FTX filed for bankruptcy. “The Bitcoin plebs had not moved this amount of BTC in a day since the FTX collapse,” Moreno said, adding that he viewed the uptick as encouraging activity rather than passive exposure.
Key takeaways
Daily transfers under 1 BTC reached 39,600 BTC, the highest since November 2022, per CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno.
Galaxy Research says the suspected Coldcard hack added a further 207.7 BTC drained from victim addresses, pushing estimated losses higher.
Galaxy reports cumulative figures of 1,367 BTC estimated losses across 4,585 addresses tied to the incident.
Executives and researchers are using the event to renew debate over whether self-custody is safer than third-party custody.
Smaller transfers spike as users react
Moreno’s data focuses on movement of less than 1 BTC at a time—a slice of network activity often associated with people reallocating funds quickly rather than executing large, institutional transactions. Reaching levels last seen in late 2022 suggests heightened urgency across segments of the market.
The timing aligns with an ongoing suspected Coldcard hack, which first came into view in late July. As new victims were reportedly identified, the incident has increasingly framed itself as a stress test for how quickly users can respond when self-custody systems are believed to generate compromised receiving addresses.
Galaxy Research tracks additional drained funds
While on-chain movement is one signal, Galaxy Research says the theft itself has continued in identifiable stages. In a report posted Saturday, Galaxy Research said it observed an additional attack wave that drained 207.7 BTC—worth about $13.2 million at the time of reporting.
With that update, Galaxy Research estimated total losses at 1,367 BTC (about $88.6 million), across 4,585 addresses. The firm’s tracking also indicates the attackers’ activity is not a one-off event, but an evolving process with multiple waves that continue to surface as investigators connect addresses to victims.
Galaxy Research’s post also referenced the continuing discovery of new addresses tied to the suspected scheme, reinforcing the idea that the full scope may still be expanding as researchers refine their identification methods.
Attack still ongoing, warning to move funds
Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Digital, warned in an X post on Sunday that the attack was still ongoing. Thorn urged users to move funds from Coldcard-generated addresses immediately if they had not already done so.
Thorn said his team continued to identify both victim addresses and attacker addresses. He also added that reports from users were helping investigators and authorities track the stolen funds—highlighting the role of community reporting alongside on-chain analysis.
The repeated “ongoing” language matters for users because it suggests the situation is dynamic: even if some victims have already moved funds, more affected addresses may still be discovered. That is also consistent with the broader pattern reflected in the day’s spike in small transfers.
Self-custody debate resurfaces
The suspected Coldcard hack has renewed debate over the safety and practicality of Bitcoin self-custody—one of the sector’s foundational principles that allows users to control funds without depending on centralized intermediaries.
Nick Neuman, CEO of Bitcoin security company Casa, pushed back against claims that self-custody is “over.” Neuman argued that self-custody’s distributed nature provides users with time to react once suspicious activity becomes apparent. He also said he “estimated” that potentially 10 times more Bitcoin was protected through self-custody than was stolen and identified so far in the attack.
The exchange also drew responses from people more aligned with traditional finance. Eric Balchunas, a senior ETF analyst at Bloomberg, argued on X that Bitcoin ETFs may offer a safer and more convenient route for many investors, citing the longer operating history of the ETF industry.
Not everyone agreed with that framing. Other observers suggested the incident should be viewed as a failure attributable to a wallet provider rather than as evidence that self-custody as a concept is fundamentally broken—an important distinction for readers assessing risk.
In practical terms, the disagreement reflects two realities that can coexist: individual wallet implementations can fail, while self-custody still reduces reliance on centralized exchanges. The Coldcard case, as described through public tracking, becomes a test of how resilient users are when compromised address generation is detected and when timely migration is possible.
What investors should watch next
Watch for two signals in the coming days: whether the number of newly identified victim addresses continues to grow (which would imply the blast radius is still being uncovered), and whether the elevated level of small transfers under 1 BTC sustains or fades as affected users complete migration. The more those patterns stabilize, the clearer it will become whether the incident is trending toward containment or still expanding.
This article was originally published as Coldcard Hack Triggers Largest Sub-1 BTC Shift Since FTX, CryptoQuant on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Federal prosecutors are continuing to litigate the fallout from the collapse of FTX, as defense teams push back on what juries can hear and how certain market activities are regulated. In the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Michelle Bond—whose husband, former FTX executive Ryan Salame, is serving a 90-month sentence after pleading guilty in 2023—has asked the court to block references to that guilty plea in a campaign finance case.
At the same time, other SDNY-related crypto-adjacent legal fights are highlighting how prediction markets and event contracts can collide with insider-trading and commodity regulation arguments. Separate actions involving a former congressman’s Kalshi trades and a US soldier accused of making a large Polymarket bet underscore that courts may soon be forced to clarify both evidentiary rules and the legal classification of event contracts.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond’s legal team asked SDNY to exclude evidence tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing it has little relevance to Bond’s alleged intent or knowledge.
In a separate CFTC case, former New York Rep. George Santos was ordered to pay $35,000 over trades on Kalshi’s event contracts, with the regulator citing misleading posts about his planned attendance at the 2026 State of the Union.
A US soldier accused of earning more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts is seeking dismissal, challenging whether the Commodity Exchange Act can clearly apply to event contracts as “swaps.”
Across these matters, the central pressure points are evidentiary fairness for defendants and regulatory clarity for prediction-market participants.
Bond seeks to bar Salame’s guilty plea in campaign finance fight
According to a Friday filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, Michelle Bond’s attorneys asked the court to preclude the government from introducing evidence about Ryan Salame’s guilty plea or any “related plea materials” in her campaign finance case.
Bond faces charges over alleged unlawful campaign funding tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. The prosecution’s theory, as described in the filing, is that contributions supporting Bond’s campaign were partially funded through FTX arrangements facilitated by Salame.
Salame pleaded guilty in 2023 and is currently serving a 90-month sentence connected to conduct arising from FTX’s 2022 collapse. In Bond’s motion, her lawyers argued that Salame’s plea—where he admitted to making political contributions in Bond’s name funded by transfers from accounts associated with an FTX-linked entity—should not be treated as evidence against Bond herself.
“The Court should preclude the government from introducing or referring to Mr. Salame’s guilty plea or any related plea materials, because their minimal probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Ms. Bond,” the filing states.
Bond’s team further said that the plea materials do not meaningfully bear on Bond’s state of mind. They characterized the plea as an admission of Salame’s own guilt, not proof of Bond’s knowledge or participation in the charged conduct, quoting from the motion: “[…] Mr. Salame’s plea materials lack any probative value as to Ms. Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent. Mr. Salame’s plea is an admission of his own guilt, not evidence of Ms. Bond’s state of mind or participation in any charged offense.”
How personal litigation could become part of the argument
Bond’s motion also requested that the court allow information connected to her “contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.” Her lawyers appear to be positioning that personal context to rebut the government’s characterization of Bond as an “ordinary ‘individual’ donor,” despite her and Salame having divorced before the alleged criminal conduct.
While the filing’s request reflects a broader strategy often used in criminal litigation—attempting to shape how jurors interpret the campaign contributions and the parties’ relationship—the court’s decision will determine what personal-history evidence, if any, is ultimately presented.
CFTC penalizes George Santos for Kalshi event-contract trading
Separate from the FTX-linked litigation, the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued an order involving George Santos, a former member of the US House of Representatives who was expelled from Congress in 2023. The CFTC ordered Santos to pay $17,500 in a civil monetary penalty plus $17,570 in disgorgement from profits earned through prediction market trading on Kalshi.
According to the CFTC, the relevant trades were tied to event contracts betting on whether Santos would appear at the 2026 State of the Union in Washington, DC. The regulator said Santos posted on social media about his plans to attend or not attend the event, and that these posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
The CFTC added that after the posts, contract prices moved in a direction favorable to Santos’ positions, enabling him to earn over $17,500.
As part of the CFTC order, Santos is barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years.
The case also sits in the shadow of Santos’ criminal proceedings. Earlier coverage notes Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison in 2025 for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, though he served only three months before his sentence was commuted by US President Donald Trump, as reflected in the article’s background.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations tested under “swap” debate
A more direct challenge to prediction-market regulation is underway in another SDNY matter. Gannon Ken Van Dyke, a US soldier accused of making more than $400,000 trading Polymarket event contracts, is attempting to dismiss the indictment.
As outlined in the background of the case, prosecutors allege that Van Dyke traded using nonpublic information connected to a military operation involving the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January. The US Department of Justice alleges he used that alleged insider information to wager on whether Maduro would be removed from power, leading to criminal charges filed in April.
In a Friday SDNY filing, Van Dyke’s attorneys submitted a 51-page memorandum supporting a motion to dismiss. Among other arguments, they contend that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) is ambiguous in how it treats event contracts as “swaps,” which is relevant to three of the charges.
Van Dyke’s lawyers argue that the ambiguity affects basic fairness: if the “swap” definition is not clear across Congress, agencies, and courts, ordinary citizens may lack “fair notice” that their prediction-market wagers fall under the CEA.
“If Congress, executive branch agencies, and courts all find the ‘swap’ definition ambiguous, how can ordinary citizens have fair notice that prediction market wagers are covered by the CEA?” the filing asks.
The defense also contrasts with the position taken by the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig, which has argued it has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps.” The dismissal motion suggests that—at least for some counts—those jurisdictional assumptions may not survive if the law is too unclear.
Why these cases matter beyond one courtroom
Taken together, the filings point to two urgent fault lines for the crypto-adjacent prediction market space: what evidence courts allow juries to consider when guilt and intent are contested, and whether the regulatory framework—especially the CEA’s treatment of event contracts—offers enough clarity for enforcement.
As courts weigh motions like Bond’s request to exclude plea materials and Van Dyke’s bid to dismiss based on legal ambiguity, traders, builders, and public officials using event-contract platforms may want to watch how judges define relevance, prejudice, and “fair notice.” The next procedural rulings could signal how far prosecutors can stretch existing statutes—and how tightly defendants can force regulators to justify their classification theories.
This article was originally published as Crypto Legal Roundup: FTX Case Advances as Polymarket Dispute and $35K Penalty Emerge on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Friday filing in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) seeks to limit what prosecutors can use in the campaign-finance case involving Michelle Bond, the wife of former FTX Digital Markets co-CEO Ryan Salame.
Bond’s attorneys argued that evidence tied to Salame’s 2023 guilty plea—while relevant to his own conduct—should not be admitted against her because it carries a risk of unfair prejudice and, in their view, offers little direct proof of Bond’s knowledge or intent. The motion also asks the court to factor in details from Bond’s contemporaneous divorce and custody proceedings.
Key takeaways
Michelle Bond wants the court to exclude evidence and “related plea materials” tied to Ryan Salame’s guilty plea, arguing they are not probative of her state of mind.
Bond’s campaign-finance charges stem from allegations that contributions to her 2022 congressional bid were influenced by FTX-linked activity facilitated by Salame.
The SDNY motion also requests inclusion of information about Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings, contending she was not an “ordinary” donor.
Separately, the CFTC ordered former congressman George Santos to pay $35,000 in total—$17,500 in penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement—over trades connected to Kalshi prediction market event contracts.
A soldier accused of making more than $400,000 on Polymarket event contracts linked to a military operation asked the SDNY court to dismiss charges, citing ambiguity in how “swap” definitions apply to event contracts under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Bond asks SDNY to keep Salame’s guilty plea out of her case
Bond faces campaign finance charges tied to her unsuccessful 2022 congressional run in New York. According to the criminal allegations, contributions to her campaign were partly funded through FTX-related channels that were facilitated by her husband, Ryan Salame.
In the latest SDNY filing, Bond’s legal team asked the court to preclude prosecutors from introducing Salame’s guilty plea and related plea materials. The filing points to the core logic of the request: Bond is not being tried for Salame’s admissions, and the defense claims the government’s use of those materials would not meaningfully establish Bond’s guilt, knowledge, or intent.
Bond’s attorneys argued that Salame’s plea is an admission of his own conduct, not evidence about Bond’s mental state or participation in the charged offense. They said the materials’ probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice to Bond.
Prosecutors are expected to weigh heavily on the narrative connecting alleged campaign funding to the conduct of individuals tied to FTX’s collapse. Bond’s motion, however, signals an effort to narrow what jurors are allowed to consider—particularly evidence that may influence them emotionally or circumstantially rather than strictly proving the elements of the charges against her.
Why the defense is raising divorce and custody proceedings
Alongside the evidentiary dispute over Salame’s plea, Bond’s filing also requested that the court include information related to Bond’s divorce and custody proceedings that were underway around the same time as the alleged crime.
Bond’s lawyers’ position is that the circumstances of her family life affect how her campaign-related donor status should be viewed. The filing argues that Bond should not be treated as an ordinary individual donor solely because she is facing personal charges in connection with her political bid, even if she and Salame were not married at the time of the alleged conduct.
Whether and to what extent these family-law details will be admissible is likely to be a key procedural issue. It can shape the tone and framing of the case—especially if the government seeks to portray the campaign finances as closely connected to Salame’s network rather than to Bond’s independent circumstances.
George Santos ordered to pay over Kalshi predictions market trading
In a separate development involving prediction markets, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) ordered former New York representative George Santos—who was expelled from Congress in 2023—to pay a total of $35,000. The figure breaks down into a $17,500 civil monetary penalty and $17,570 in disgorgement of profits.
The regulator said the action was tied to Santos trading on event contracts on Kalshi connected to whether he would attend the 2026 State of the Union address in Washington, DC. The CFTC stated that Santos made social media posts about his plans to attend or not attend the event and that those posts contained “material misrepresentations and omissions.”
According to the CFTC, after the posts, the contract prices moved in a way that became favorable to Santos’ positions and allowed him to make more than $17,500.
As part of the same order, Santos was barred from trading on prediction market platforms for three years. The order also comes against the backdrop of criminal proceedings: Santos was sentenced to 87 months in prison for wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in 2025, but served only three months before his sentence was commuted by U.S. President Donald Trump, as noted in earlier reporting.
Polymarket insider-trading allegations head toward dismissal arguments
Another SDNY filing, this time from the defense of Gannon Ken Van Dyke, challenges the legal foundation of allegations that he profited from Polymarket event contracts using nonpublic information.
The U.S. Justice Department says Van Dyke was involved in a military operation connected to the removal of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in January, and prosecutors allege he later used insider information to bet whether Maduro would be removed from power—leading to criminal charges announced in April. The defense filing argues Van Dyke is facing accusations involving more than $400,000 in alleged profits from Polymarket event contracts.
Van Dyke’s attorneys filed a 51-page memo supporting a motion to dismiss the indictment based on multiple legal theories. One focus is the Commodity Exchange Act’s treatment of event contracts as “swaps,” which the defense characterizes as ambiguous.
While the CFTC under Chair Michael Selig has asserted that the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets by treating event contracts as “swaps,” Van Dyke’s lawyers say the uncertainty itself is enough to dismiss at least some charges. In the filing, they argue that if lawmakers, executive agencies, and courts consider the “swap” definition ambiguous, then ordinary citizens cannot reasonably have fair notice that prediction market wagers fall under the CEA.
The case is expected to proceed on a timeline that could lead to trial in late 2026 or early 2027, based on a schedule submitted in June, and Van Dyke has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The defense’s arguments also extend beyond Van Dyke’s personal exposure. The filing suggests the ruling could matter for lawmakers and government officials who have used prediction markets in connection with political events or public statements. Earlier coverage referenced by the filing indicates that Trump’s teleprompter operator reportedly placed more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts tied to presidential speeches, underscoring how prediction markets can draw interest from political circles.
Across these cases, courts are being asked to decide what evidence is fair game, what definitions govern crypto-adjacent instruments, and how much clarity regulators must provide before individuals can be held criminally liable—issues that could determine how future crypto and prediction-market enforcement plays out.
This article was originally published as Crypto Court Battle Highlights: Key On-Chain Legal Updates This Week on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A crypto-industry-backed political action committee affiliate has intensified its advertising push ahead of next week’s Michigan Republican primary, according to the latest Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. Protect Progress PAC, which the filings indicate is funded largely by contributions from cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase, has spent more than $2 million on media to influence the contest in Michigan’s 13th Congressional District.
The most recent updates, filed as of Thursday, show the committee ramping up spending in support of U.S. Representative Shri Thanedar while also funding opposition to his Democratic challenger, Donavan McKinney. The renewed disclosures come shortly after earlier reporting showed the PAC had already ramped up its buy—effectively doubling its reported ad spending from the prior week.
Key takeaways
FEC filings show Protect Progress PAC has spent over $2 million on media for Michigan’s 13th district primary race.
New disclosures add $884,240 to advertisements supporting Shri Thanedar and more than $150,000 to ads opposing Donavan McKinney.
The PAC’s funding is described in the filings as being largely backed by cryptocurrency companies Ripple Labs and Coinbase.
Thanedar’s legislative record includes support for crypto-related bills such as the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act.
Protect Progress is an affiliate of Fairshake, a major outside spender in U.S. elections tied to crypto industry policy goals.
Michigan’s 13th district: Protect Progress increases ad buys
According to FEC disclosures accessed via the commission’s docquery system, Protect Progress PAC reported spending more than a combined $2 million on media in connection with Michigan Representative Shri Thanedar and his Democratic primary contest against Donavan McKinney.
As of Thursday, the filings reflect a further escalation: compared with what the PAC had already reported spending a week earlier, the committee’s latest report effectively doubled its media spending. The additional outlay includes $884,240 dedicated to ads supporting Thanedar and more than $150,000 aimed at opposing McKinney.
The Michigan primary is scheduled for Tuesday, but the filings underscore that the committee and its network have been willing to deploy substantial resources well before Election Day. Similar patterns have been visible across multiple congressional races during the 2026 cycle, according to the article’s referenced coverage and FEC-based reporting.
Why the race is drawing crypto-linked political money
Thanedar’s congressional record is at the center of the narrative around why outside groups see his candidacy as important for crypto policy. During his time in the House, he voted in favor of the stablecoin-focused GENIUS Act and supported the legislative push for clearer digital asset market structure—the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which has been discussed in the Senate.
He also cosponsored the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act, an effort aimed at protecting developers. Supporters of crypto policy reform often point to such measures as steps toward a more predictable regulatory environment, while critics argue the industry has too much influence over the political process.
For voters watching the contest, the spending escalation suggests the primary is being treated as more than a local political test—it is being framed by donors and advocacy networks as part of a broader strategy to influence which lawmakers back specific digital asset legislation.
McKinney’s response and the broader allegations over crypto influence
McKinney has publicly characterized the ad push as a payoff for political favors. In a July 21 statement related to the PAC spending, he said “the crypto lobby is paying my opponent back for helping Trump make over $1 billion since taking office,” according to a video shared on his campaign’s Facebook page.
That comment appears to reference the U.S. President’s disclosures about crypto-related earnings, including a figure cited in earlier reporting referenced by the article—more than $1.4 billion from crypto investments in 2025—along with concerns raised by Democrats that Trump could be using his role to profit through policies such as GENIUS.
While those claims are rooted in political argument rather than direct proof of intent tied to the specific Michigan ads, they highlight a recurring tension in U.S. crypto politics: outside spending may be framed by industry-aligned PACs as policy support, while opponents often describe it as evidence of undue influence.
Cointelegraph reports that it reached out to both Thanedar’s and McKinney’s campaigns for comment on the PAC expenditures but did not receive an immediate response.
Fairshake’s affiliates: national momentum in multiple primaries
Protect Progress PAC is an affiliate of Fairshake, a political network that has become one of the most prominent outside spenders linked to crypto industry policy goals. Fairshake was responsible for spending more than $170 million across the 2024 election cycle through media buys supporting candidates it viewed as aligned with crypto-friendly regulation, as summarized in the article.
The article also notes that affiliates have already deployed millions of dollars in 2026 races beyond Michigan, pointing to activity in states including Texas and Illinois. In addition, it cites Public Citizen reporting from June that Fairshake and its affiliates accounted for more than $82 million out of roughly $189 million deployed by crypto companies during the 2026 election cycle.
Fairshake itself reportedly listed holding a $193 million “war chest” as of January, according to figures referenced in the piece. Taken together with the Michigan disclosures, the pattern suggests a sustained approach: deploy substantial resources early enough to shape narrative and voter attention around specific legislative priorities.
The article further describes similar affiliate activity in other congressional primaries. It says Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media in Washington’s 4th congressional district to support a Republican candidate, with Washington holding primaries on the same day as Michigan.
In Alabama, scheduled primaries on Aug. 11 are also described as a focus for Fairshake-linked spending. FEC filings cited in the article indicate Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $511,000 on media supporting Jerry Carl Jr., a Republican who represented Alabama’s 1st congressional district from 2021 to 2025.
For readers tracking the cycle, these parallel contests illustrate how crypto-aligned PAC affiliates appear to treat primary elections as strategic targets—places where candidate positioning on digital asset policy could be determined before general election dynamics begin.
What to watch as Michigan’s primary approaches
With Michigan’s 13th district primary scheduled for Tuesday, the key question is whether Protect Progress’s latest ad surge will further alter voter perceptions or turnout in the remaining days. More broadly, the filings reinforce that crypto-linked political spending is not limited to high-profile general election races—affiliates are actively contesting primaries with resources intended to influence policy direction well after election season announcements fade.
This article was originally published as Crypto-aligned PAC adds $1M to Michigan House race ad push on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.