Crypto Breaking

ARP Digital, a Bahrain-based institutional digital asset infrastructure provider, has obtained a broker-dealer license from Dubai’s Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA). The approval enables the firm to provide regulated conversions between digital assets and the UAE dirham for eligible clients in the United Arab Emirates.
According to ARP Digital, the license is designed for UAE-based corporates, capital markets participants and qualified investors, including conversions involving stablecoins and dirhams. The company also positions the approval as a regulated route for institutions to convert digital asset capital for deployment into local UAE investments.
Key takeaways
ARP Digital secured a VARA broker-dealer license, allowing regulated digital asset-to-dirham conversions in Dubai.
Conversions can include stablecoins and UAE dirhams, targeting corporates, capital markets players and qualified investors.
The license expands ARP Digital’s regulated footprint in the Gulf, following its authorization in Bahrain.
Dubai’s VARA continues expanding its licensed market structure, with additional broker-dealer approvals reported alongside this move.
Broker-dealer approval for regulated UAE conversions
ARP Digital said the VARA broker-dealer license authorizes it to offer regulated “conversions between digital assets and the UAE dirham.” In practical terms, that matters for institutions seeking compliant on-ramps and off-ramps, particularly where stablecoins are used as a bridge asset between fiat and crypto exposure.
The firm’s stated scope includes both sides of the process: converting between stablecoins and dirhams, and providing a structured pathway for institutions to repurpose digital asset capital into investments tied to the local UAE market.
Bahrain license underpins the Gulf expansion
The VARA approval is described by ARP Digital as its second regulated Gulf market access point. In Bahrain, the company says it is licensed by the Central Bank of Bahrain and has handled more than $3.5 billion in processed volume for over 450 institutional and corporate counterparties.
ARP Digital also claims fourfold year-over-year growth in 2025 in its Bahrain operations. While the figures are company-provided, the broader implication for investors and institutions is clear: the firm is leveraging an existing regulated track record to extend similar infrastructure capabilities into Dubai’s expanding regulatory framework.
Institutional infrastructure beyond conversions
ARP Digital’s offering is not limited to fiat-crypto exchange services. The company lists institutional capabilities including:
Over-the-counter (OTC) liquidity for large trades
Cross-border settlement
Fiat on- and off-ramps
Wealth management
This matters because regulated conversion licenses can be a prerequisite for broader institutional workflows—particularly those that involve clearing requirements, risk controls, and compliance-oriented client onboarding. For market participants, the ability to access regulated routes for stablecoin and digital asset exposure can reduce operational friction compared with ad-hoc counterparties.
Dubai’s regulatory momentum and related broker-dealer approvals
The news arrives as Dubai continues to widen the perimeter of its regulated digital asset sector. VARA, established in 2022, regulates the provision, use and exchange of virtual assets in and from Dubai. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that VARA issued its 50th virtual asset service provider license in July.
Competition and market depth are also being shaped by new approvals. On Tuesday, Flowdesk—described as a crypto market maker backed by Coinbase Ventures and BlackRock—received a full VARA broker-dealer license. That authorization enables Flowdesk to serve qualified and institutional investors in and from Dubai.
Taken together, the sequence suggests VARA is not only expanding the number of licensed entities but also deepening the institutional services available under its framework—an important factor for liquidity, pricing efficiency, and the maturation of regulated crypto rails in the UAE.
What to watch next
With ARP Digital now licensed to conduct regulated stablecoin and digital asset conversions into UAE dirhams, institutions active in the region will likely focus on how quickly the firm ramps operational capacity, expands counterparties, and integrates its conversion services with broader OTC and settlement offerings. Observers should also track how VARA continues to scale licensing and enforce requirements as the Dubai market grows more crowded with specialized broker-dealers.
This article was originally published as ARP Digital Wins Dubai VARA License as Broker-Dealer on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

FlightAware, the aviation data company behind real-time flight tracking and status updates, has sued Kalshi in New York federal court over Kalshi’s use of FlightAware’s “data and name” to power prediction market contracts tied to flight cancellations. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, accuses Kalshi of continuing to list event contracts using FlightAware’s registered trademark and purportedly “verified” flight-cancellation information despite repeated demands to stop.
The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.
Key takeaways
FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.
Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center
According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.
FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.
“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”
The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.
Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument
While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.
FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.
On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:
“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“
“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“
The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.
Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US
FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.
Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.
Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.
Market dominance and scale add pressure
The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.
At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.
Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation Data on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

eToro has outlined a new step in its push to broaden beyond crypto by announcing plans to acquire US online brokerage TradeZero. The deal is positioned as part of the company’s expansion strategy in the United States, with closing expected in the first half of 2026.
In parallel with the acquisition announcement, eToro’s second-quarter update showed crypto trading and revenues under pressure. The company reported $1.59 billion in total revenue for the quarter, with crypto assets contributing $1.34 billion—down roughly 30% from $1.9 billion in the prior-year comparable quarter. While crypto revenue fell, eToro also reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets, alongside $53.4 million in total net income.
Key takeaways
eToro plans to acquire TradeZero to accelerate its US expansion, targeting closing in the first half of 2026.
In Q2, crypto remained the largest revenue stream for eToro at $1.34 billion, but it fell about 30% year over year.
Crypto net income was positive at $19.7 million for the quarter, even as overall crypto trades and invested amounts declined sharply in July.
The company reported strong cross-asset engagement: many users who traded commodities later traded equities and then crypto on eToro.
TradeZero reportedly generated about $80 million in revenue over the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026, with 81% gross margins.
Why eToro wants TradeZero in its US strategy
The acquisition of TradeZero is framed by eToro as a practical move to become a broader multi-asset platform in the United States. The focus on US brokerage capabilities comes as the firm works to deepen trading relationships across asset classes, rather than relying solely on digital-asset activity.
eToro also previously signaled similar intent in crypto infrastructure: in April, it announced plans to acquire self-custodial wallet provider Zengo. Taken together, the company’s approach appears to combine more traditional brokerage reach (through TradeZero) with continuing investment in crypto custody and user access (through Zengo).
Crypto performance remains the swing factor
Despite the company’s ongoing multi-asset push, crypto continues to dominate the revenue mix. In its second-quarter report, eToro said total revenue came in at $1.59 billion, down from $2 billion in the comparable 2025 period. Of that amount, $1.34 billion was revenue from crypto assets, which the company said was about 30% lower than $1.9 billion in Q2 2025.
eToro reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets. Total net income for the quarter was $53.4 million, indicating that losses or reductions in crypto activity did not fully translate into an overall earnings collapse—though the numbers highlight how sensitive the business remains to the direction of crypto volumes and fees.
The broader trading picture also weakened after the quarter. According to eToro’s disclosures, total cryptocurrency trades on the platform fell to 1.4 million in July, representing a 73% year-on-year decline. The invested amount was down 50% over the same period, reinforcing that reduced trading activity has been affecting both the number of transactions and the size of positions.
Cross-asset engagement and the commodities-to-crypto funnel
Alongside crypto-specific declines, eToro highlighted user behavior that could support its multi-asset thesis. In commentary attributed to its financial leadership, the company said that more than 60% of users who traded commodities during Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 later traded equities in Q2 2026. It added that nearly nine in ten of those users have also traded crypto on eToro.
This matters because it suggests eToro is attempting to build a funnel where initial engagement in one asset category can lead to additional trading across other categories. If TradeZero helps expand access to US equities and other traditional brokerage products, eToro may be betting that increased equity trading will feed back into crypto usage—offsetting parts of the volatility in digital-asset demand.
eToro also reported that equities and commodities-related trading generated $141 million in net income for the platform, providing another anchor outside crypto revenue even as crypto volumes cooled.
Deal economics: TradeZero’s margins and expected earnings impact
From the perspective of deal structure, eToro provided figures intended to show that TradeZero could strengthen the business rather than dilute it. The company stated that TradeZero generated about $80 million of revenue with 81% gross margins in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026.
Looking ahead, eToro said it expects the acquisition to be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year after closing. Closing is expected in the first half of 2026, meaning the earliest period for the claimed benefit would likely follow shortly thereafter.
Market reaction to the announcement appeared cautious. eToro’s Nasdaq-traded shares were down more than 5% in pre-market activity on Tuesday, with the move expected to extend Monday’s decline according to Yahoo Finance data for ETOR.
What to watch next
Investors and users will likely focus on whether the TradeZero acquisition helps stabilize revenues as crypto volumes fluctuate, and on whether eToro can translate its reported cross-asset engagement into sustained trading activity in the US. In the meantime, July’s sharp drop in crypto trades and invested amounts remains a key signal for how quickly digital-asset performance can change the company’s quarterly outlook.
This article was originally published as eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Dubai-based maritime tokenization platform, Shipfinex, has teamed up with Abu Dhabi blockchain network ADI Chain to test how vessel-linked assets could be represented and financed on-chain. The partners say they are tokenizing a pipeline of roughly 35 vessels valued at about $500 million, aiming to create additional funding options for shipowners.
The concept centers on placing the vessels into separate special-purpose vehicles (SPVs). Tokens would then be issued to reflect economic exposure to each ship—potentially structured as vessel-backed credit, charter-related income, or other rights tied to the underlying assets. ADI Chain is expected to handle the distribution and settlement layer, with primary allocations and distributions planned to use stablecoins denominated in UAE dirham, US dollars, and other currencies.
Key takeaways
Shipfinex and ADI Chain are piloting tokenization of a vessel pipeline worth about $500 million across around 35 ships.
The structure uses separate SPVs per vessel, with tokens representing ship-specific economic interests such as credit or charter income.
ADI Chain will provide the stablecoin-oriented distribution and settlement infrastructure for the pilot.
The project is still in an operational readiness stage, with no Maritime Asset Tokens publicly issued yet and the regulated issuance route still being finalized.
The announcement aligns with broader growth forecasts for tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), including Standard Chartered’s estimate that the sector could reach $4 trillion by end-2028.
How the pilot is structured: SPVs and ship-linked tokens
Tokenizing shipping assets is notoriously complex, largely because the industry is fragmented and ship-level cash flows can vary widely depending on charter terms, routes, and financing arrangements. Shipfinex’s approach, as described in the announcement, attempts to translate that complexity into a modular on-chain wrapper: each vessel is moved into its own SPV, and tokens are intended to map to the economics of that specific vehicle.
That could matter for investors and lenders because it potentially enables more granular exposure than traditional fund structures—at least in theory—letting market participants choose how they want to participate in a given ship’s revenue stream or credit profile. The partners have also framed the tokens as potentially representing vessel-backed credit, charter-linked income, or other interests, suggesting room for multiple payoff designs depending on the underlying deal economics.
Stablecoin settlement: why ADI Chain’s role matters
ADI Chain, based in Abu Dhabi, is described as the partner providing distribution and settlement infrastructure. The planned use of currency-denominated stablecoins—specifically UAE dirham- and US dollar-linked assets, plus additional denominations—signals that the settlement model is being built to reduce friction in cross-currency payments, which is a common challenge in international shipping finance.
For market participants, stablecoin settlement can also influence how quickly transactions clear and how tokenized positions can be serviced operationally. Even so, the project’s success will likely depend on the operational details of issuance, custody, and investor onboarding, especially given the regulatory process the partners say remains unfinished.
Still in a pilot: issuance route not finalized
While the partnership outlines a significant vessel pipeline, it is important that the project is not yet live in terms of publicly issued tokens. The arrangement is described as being in a pilot and operational-readiness phase. The partners state that Maritime Asset Tokens have not been publicly issued and that the regulated issuance pathway is still being finalized.
This staging matters because tokenization efforts in RWAs can fail at different points: legal structuring, regulatory approvals, or the practical ability to support ongoing distributions and compliance. By highlighting that the regulated issuance route is still under development, Shipfinex and ADI Chain appear to be treating the first phase as a test of readiness rather than an immediate launch of investable tokens.
Investors watching similar initiatives may therefore want to track what changes next—particularly whether the pilot culminates in a formally approved issuance structure, and how ongoing payments tied to charter activity or credit terms are operationalized.
RWA tokenization momentum: from shipping to broader forecasts
The shipping pilot comes as tokenized RWAs continue to attract attention across traditional finance and crypto-native infrastructure. RWA.xyz data cited in the report indicates that assets tracked on its platform totaled about $38.1 billion as of Aug. 9. Within that figure, US Treasury debt accounts for roughly $16.2 billion and commodities about $4.9 billion.
Standard Chartered’s outlook also points to continued expansion. In a report released Monday, the bank forecast that tokenized RWAs could reach $4 trillion by the end of 2028, according to Geoff Kendrick, the global head of digital asset research at the bank. The scale of that projection suggests that the market is expected to grow beyond early niches—though it also underlines the difference between long-term forecasts and near-term, pilot-stage delivery.
In shipping specifically, the scale remains small relative to the total addressable market. The announcement cites Clarksons Research data valuing the world fleet and orderbook at about $2.1 trillion at the start of 2026. Compared with that estimate, the $500 million vessel pipeline represents a limited slice—meaning this pilot is likely best viewed as a proof-of-process and market test rather than a near-term transformation of shipping finance.
Still, even incremental moves can be significant in RWAs if they demonstrate repeatable mechanics: asset segregation, token-to-cashflow mapping, stablecoin-based settlement, and the ability to maintain compliance over time. That is precisely where pilots tend to earn or lose momentum.
For readers, the key next indicators to watch are whether Shipfinex and ADI Chain progress from operational readiness to a clearly defined regulated issuance route, and how they handle the practicalities of ongoing distributions tied to ship-level economics—especially once any tokens transition from closed testing to broader market participation.
This article was originally published as ADI Chain and Shipfinex Partner to Tokenize $500M Vessel Pipeline on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

SharpLink, one of the largest corporate treasuries focused on Ether, reported a significantly wider loss for the second quarter of 2026 as ETH’s price decline weighed on its balance sheet. The Miami, Florida-based firm posted a net loss of $394 million, compared with a $103 million net loss in the same quarter of the prior year.
In the company’s Monday announcement, SharpLink attributed the bulk of the loss to $321 million in unrealized crypto losses and $76 million in impairments related to staked Ether tokens. At the same time, the firm generated $11.5 million in revenue, including $11.1 million from ETH staking.
Key takeaways
SharpLink’s Q2 2026 net loss widened to $394 million, driven largely by $321 million in unrealized crypto losses.
Impairments tied to staked Ether amounted to $76 million, adding pressure beyond mark-to-market declines.
Revenue remained positive at $11.5 million, with staking contributing $11.1 million.
Cash and cash equivalents rose to $56 million from $28 million as of December 2025.
Unrealized losses dominate SharpLink’s quarter
SharpLink’s financial results underscore how sensitive large Ether treasuries are to ETH’s spot price and to accounting treatment for staked derivatives. The firm reported that its Q2 2026 loss included $321 million in unrealized crypto losses, reflecting changes in the valuation of its Ether exposure rather than realized selling losses.
That valuation pressure aligned with broader market conditions. Ether fell by around 23% during the second quarter of 2026, according to CoinMarketCap. While staking produced income, the scale of the unrealized mark-downs appears to have overwhelmed that support.
Staking income and staked-token impairments
SharpLink generated $11.5 million in revenue in the quarter, including $11.1 million from ETH staking, according to the company’s Monday announcement. For Ether-focused treasury strategies, staking can partially offset volatility by adding cash-flow-like yield.
However, SharpLink also recorded $76 million in impairments on staked Ether (ETH) tokens. This detail matters for investors because it suggests that performance isn’t determined solely by ETH price moves; the accounting and valuation of staked-token instruments can introduce additional losses even when staking revenue is present.
How much Ether SharpLink controls
SharpLink said it holds 632,784 Ether, worth about $1.2 billion, plus an additional 181,321 ETH—worth roughly $343 million—through various liquid staked Ether tokens. Combined, this creates a substantial balance-sheet exposure to Ethereum’s price direction, with liquid staked products carrying their own valuation and impairment dynamics.
SharpLink is currently described as the second-largest Ether treasury company. Based on StrategicEthReserve data cited in the report, Bitmine is the largest corporate Ether holder, holding 5.54 million ETH worth about $9.4 billion. SharpLink’s current holdings are estimated at 863,000 ETH, valued at about $1.46 billion.
Buying ETH after an eight-month pause
SharpLink’s latest results arrive alongside a notable change in its acquisition pattern. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the company resumed Ether purchases with a $7.8 million buy in late June after pausing for eight months. A second purchase followed days later, with SharpLink buying 10,000 Ether for about $16 million, as referenced by Cointelegraph.
That kind of buying at lower levels can be a strategic way to extend a treasury’s exposure when assets are discounted. Still, the Q2 financials show that even resumed accumulation doesn’t neutralize accounting losses in the near term when ETH declines sharply across the reporting period.
Treasury liquidity and equity-market reaction
SharpLink reported that its cash and cash equivalents totaled $56 million, up from $28 million in December 2025. Liquidity improvements can be important for corporate treasuries because they provide flexibility for operations and for potential future purchases—especially after a quarter marked by large unrealized and impairment charges.
On the equity side, SharpLink’s stock fell 3.9% on Monday, extending a 30% year-to-date decline, according to Yahoo Finance. For public Ether treasury companies, equity performance can reflect both the market’s view of treasury risk and expectations for how quickly staking yield and future purchases might offset volatility-driven drawdowns.
Going forward, investors should watch two things most closely: whether SharpLink’s staking revenue trend can stabilize amid continued ETH volatility, and how future quarters treat liquid staked token valuations and impairments—particularly if ETH’s price swings produce new mark-to-market pressure.
This article was originally published as SharpLink Posts $394M Q2 Net Loss as ETH Prices Weigh In on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

eToro has outlined a new step in its push to expand within the US financial market: the company said Tuesday it plans to acquire US online brokerage TradeZero. The deal is framed as part of eToro’s broader effort to build a multi-asset platform that includes equities, commodities, and digital assets.
Alongside the acquisition announcement, eToro’s second-quarter update pointed to continued volatility in its crypto business. The company reported $1.59 billion in revenue for the quarter, down from $2 billion in the comparable 2025 period. Revenue tied to crypto assets totaled $1.34 billion—down roughly 30% versus $1.9 billion in Q2 2025—while eToro also reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue, producing $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets. Total net income for the quarter was $53.4 million.
Key takeaways
eToro plans to acquire TradeZero to accelerate its US expansion through an established brokerage platform.
Crypto revenue declined sharply year over year in eToro’s latest quarterly results, even as crypto-related net income remained positive.
Management linked engagement across asset classes, saying many commodity traders later move into equities and crypto.
Trading activity cooled, with total crypto trades in July falling to 1.4 million (down 73% year over year).
The TradeZero deal is expected to close in the first half of 2026 and be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year post-close.
Deal aimed at deepening eToro’s US brokerage footprint
The announced acquisition of TradeZero is positioned as a strategic lever for eToro’s US expansion. eToro did not provide additional operational details in the supplied reporting, but it tied the transaction to its wider goal of becoming a multi-asset platform—expanding beyond digital assets into mainstream brokerage services.
For investors, the logic is straightforward: adding an established brokerage operator can help eToro increase its distribution and product breadth in the US, potentially supporting cross-selling among asset classes. eToro’s broader product mix already includes equities and commodities, and management has emphasized user movement between those categories and crypto.
Quarterly results show crypto remains material despite declines
eToro’s Q2 results underscore that digital assets still drive a significant share of the platform’s top line, even as performance softened versus the prior year. According to the company’s second-quarter report, total revenue came in at $1.59 billion, with $1.34 billion attributed to crypto assets.
The company reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue, resulting in $19.7 million of net income from crypto assets. While crypto revenue dropped about 30% compared with Q2 2025, the company still generated net income in that segment for the quarter. Separately, eToro said equities and commodities-related trading generated $141 million in net income.
That split matters because it suggests eToro is not simply dependent on crypto for profitability. Instead, crypto may be functioning more like a high-volume revenue engine with tighter economics, while other products contribute meaningfully to earnings stability.
Cross-asset behavior and shifting crypto activity
eToro’s finance leadership argued that user behavior supports its multi-asset strategy. In comments carried in the second-quarter reporting, CFO Meron Shani said that more than 60% of users who traded commodities during Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 later traded equities in Q2 2026, and nearly nine in ten of those users also traded crypto on eToro.
In practical terms, that claim points to a funnel effect: users enter through one asset class and then expand into others, potentially increasing lifetime value per customer. If that pattern holds, acquisitions like TradeZero could be viewed as not only adding brokerage reach, but also feeding eToro’s cross-asset ecosystem.
However, the same quarter also highlighted a decline in crypto engagement. eToro reported that total cryptocurrency trades on the platform fell to 1.4 million in July, representing a 73% decrease year-on-year, while the invested amount was down 50%. The contrast—crypto-related revenue down materially in Q2, alongside sharp declines in July trading—signals that user activity and capital allocation in crypto are still cooling.
Deal economics and expected timing
TradeZero contributed meaningful revenue over the period referenced in eToro’s announcement. The company said TradeZero generated about $80 million of revenue with 81% gross margins in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026.
eToro also provided an earnings-oriented view of the transaction. The company expects the acquisition to be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year after closing. Closing is expected in the first half of 2026.
From a market perspective, these economics are likely to be closely scrutinized given the crypto segment’s year-over-year decline. Even if the TradeZero purchase improves eToro’s US brokerage scale and profitability, the company will still need to demonstrate that cross-asset retention and growth can offset weaker crypto trading volumes.
In pre-market trading, eToro’s Nasdaq-listed ETOR shares were down more than 5% on Tuesday, aiming to extend Monday’s decline, according to Yahoo Finance quote data for the stock.
What to watch next for eToro and US growth
As the TradeZero deal moves toward a first-half 2026 closing, investors will likely watch whether eToro can translate brokerage expansion into higher user retention and whether crypto trading activity stabilizes after July’s sharp drop. The next quarterly filings should also clarify how eToro’s crypto economics evolve as revenues soften and costs adjust—an issue that will influence whether the acquisition meaningfully offsets ongoing pressure in digital-asset trading.
This article was originally published as eToro to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin traders have increasingly looked to stablecoins for clues about where risk appetite is headed. A new data review from CryptoQuant highlights that Tether’s USDT has been shrinking in market value at an unusually fast pace—yet the same patterns in past bear markets suggest the selloff may be approaching its end.
According to CryptoQuant, USDT’s 60-day rolling market-cap change averaged about minus $4.88 billion as of Aug. 10, while the most recent 11-day window saw nearly $870 million of USDT supply disappear. The combination points to a liquidity retreat that typically pressures broader crypto performance, but it also aligns with the late-stage behavior of prior downturns.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant reports USDT’s 60-day market-cap contraction remains near $4 billion, one of its sharpest declines on record.
Nearly $870 million of USDT supply vanished over the latest 11-day period, indicating the contraction is actively continuing.
The steepest 60-day contraction phase previously peaked around July 13 at approximately minus $5.72 billion.
CryptoQuant argues that the worst stablecoin drawdowns have historically occurred near exhaustion points rather than at the beginning of further acceleration.
Weekly RSI divergence arguments from analysts like William Clemente echo a broader “late bear-market” narrative.
USDT contraction tightens crypto liquidity
In a CryptoQuant blog post published last week, the onchain analytics firm described USDT as undergoing “one of its sharpest contractions on record.” The emphasis is not just on the overall size of the decline, but on whether the process is still worsening.
CryptoQuant notes that the deterioration has accelerated “at the margin,” pointing to about $870 million in USDT disappearing over the latest 11-day period. It also frames the 60-day market-cap change metric as a way to gauge sustained redemption pressure rather than one-off redemptions.
From a market mechanics perspective, stablecoins often function as a bridge for capital across exchanges and trading pairs. When USDT supply contracts, liquidity can become less available, reducing the “dry powder” investors might use to buy dips—or to rotate into other risk assets.
CryptoQuant cautions, however, against assuming a clean cause-and-effect relationship between stablecoin flows and Bitcoin’s spot price. In its view, both can respond to the same broader risk-off conditions: redemptions may accelerate alongside spot selling, rather than predictively preceding it.
“The caution is that correlation between USDT flows and BTC price doesn’t settle causality,” CryptoQuant analysts said. They added that sustained USDT expansion has historically coincided with stronger Bitcoin price regimes, while prolonged contractions have aligned with weaker demand and deeper corrections.
Late-stage bear-market behavior, not necessarily a fresh leg down
The key analytical question for traders is whether the USDT drawdown is merely “history repeating” or whether it signals a new intensification of selling pressure. CryptoQuant’s answer leans toward the former.
Historically, the firm argues, the most pronounced phases of USDT contraction tend to occur toward the final chapters of macro downturns, when selling momentum begins to move closer to exhaustion than to further acceleration. In that framework, severe stablecoin redemptions become less a signal to short the next day and more an indicator that the market has already been tested heavily.
CryptoQuant also highlights a specific milestone in the recent contraction cycle: the steepest 60-day decline in USDT market cap completed on July 13, when it reached about minus $5.72 billion. That point matters because it offers a reference level for where “worst-case” pressure may have already been seen—meaning later readings could represent stabilization or easing rather than escalation.
Still, the data in the CryptoQuant update is not painting a picture of immediate normalization. The latest 60-day average remains close to the multi-billion-dollar contraction zone, suggesting liquidity conditions are tight even if selling intensity may be moderating at the margin.
RSI divergence arguments reinforce a “bottoming” thesis
While stablecoin contractions speak to liquidity and risk appetite, technical market indicators often shape how traders interpret timing. The CryptoQuant findings have added momentum to broader “late bear market” narratives, including comparative analysis that points to earlier cycle behavior.
Cointelegraph has reported that some market participants are increasingly aligning with the idea of a new Bitcoin macro bottom forming before the end of 2026, even if the near-term trend remains volatile. In the same broader discussion, independent analyst William Clemente has argued for a cautious “cheap but not done yet” view.
On Aug. 8, Clemente posted on X that he considers Bitcoin “cheap,” while allowing for the possibility of “a leg lower” at some point during the year. Two days later, he highlighted what he described as a bullish divergence between BTC/USD and the relative strength index (RSI) on weekly time frames.
That divergence is widely treated as a leading indicator in technical analysis—particularly because the strongest RSI divergence signals historically appeared during turning points, including at the end of the 2022 bear market. In Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage, RSI divergence was framed as a “classic” reversal signal that coincided with the conclusion of that drawdown cycle.
BTC/USD one-week chart with RSI divergences marked. Source: William Clemente on X.com
What to watch next: stablecoin flows and confirmation signals
If CryptoQuant’s interpretation is correct, the most concerning USDT drawdown phases may already have passed their peak, even if contraction continues in the background. For investors and traders, the practical question is whether the contraction rate keeps accelerating or whether it begins to flatten—especially relative to the steepest reading around July 13.
In the coming weeks, market watchers may want to track whether USDT’s 60-day market-cap change continues near minus $4 billion or starts moving toward less negative territory, as well as whether BTC’s technical picture—such as the weekly RSI divergence narrative—gets reinforced by actual trend stabilization rather than only indicator hints. The stablecoin/liquidity story may not be the sole driver of price, but it can shape how quickly the market regains the ability to absorb dips and rebuild demand.
This article was originally published as CryptoQuant: Bitcoin’s $4B USDT drop signals weakening sell pressure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto investigators are grappling with one of the toughest loss-allocation problems in digital asset security: estimating theft from self-custody wallets, where there is no authoritative registry of affected users. The ongoing analysis of the Coldcard-related hack is now producing markedly different figures depending on how teams treat “confirmed” victim reports versus on-chain attributions.
Blockchain analytics platform CryptoQuant currently puts confirmed losses at 1,432 Bitcoin, while Galaxy Research and TRM Labs argue the broader toll is higher when tracing suggests additional victims across multiple waves. The discrepancy highlights why hardware-wallet exploits can be hard to quantify—and why investors and security watchers should treat any single number as provisional.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant reports 1,432 BTC as a confirmed floor, relying on victim-provided evidence before labeling funds stolen.
Galaxy Research says it has high-confidence minimum losses of 1,730 BTC, using victim reports to validate wider attack patterns.
TRM Labs estimates attackers drained roughly 1,816 BTC across 5,200+ addresses in four waves, with the figure expected to keep rising before stabilizing.
All parties underscore that there is no complete list of affected self-custody accounts, so totals can only be inferred—not definitively counted.
Why Coldcard thefts are difficult to total
Self-custody incidents differ sharply from exchange hacks, where investigators can often begin with a centralized list of compromised accounts or balances. In the Coldcard case, analytics teams instead have to assemble estimates from scattered disclosures—wallet addresses and transaction identifiers shared by victims—then map those to on-chain behavior consistent with the attack.
That structure creates two competing measurement philosophies. One is conservative: count only losses that victims directly confirm, to avoid “false positives” from pattern matching. The other is investigative: use confirmed losses to identify additional wallet clusters and transactions that likely belong to other victims, even when those victims have not yet come forward publicly.
The result is a widening gap between “confirmed” and “attributed” totals—exactly the gap that matters for incident reporting, accountability, and the credibility of downstream security narratives.
Galaxy narrows a moving minimum—backed by victim corroboration
Galaxy’s approach, as explained to Cointelegraph by Alex Thorn, treats early totals as tentative until victim disclosures can corroborate suspected victims and linked on-chain activity. Thorn previously described Galaxy’s earlier estimate—up to 1,816 BTC—as a potential figure rather than a finalized tally.
By Tuesday, Galaxy reported a high-confidence minimum of 1,730 BTC. Thorn also indicated that the minimum could still increase as more victim reports align with the attack’s observed patterns.
In Thorn’s description, the key distinction is between (1) losses directly supported by victim-reported information and (2) additional losses identified through the broader pattern those reports help validate. Galaxy said it has directly confirmed 450+ BTC from victim reports, while those reports have helped uncover other victims in a wider set totaling more than 730 BTC. At the same time, Galaxy said it is still holding back BTC it suspects but cannot yet verify with sufficient corroboration.
For readers, this methodology matters because it suggests a “floor that can rise” dynamic: as the public dataset of victim evidence grows, the subset that analysts can confidently label as theft expands, improving the stability of the totals.
TRM Labs: broader tracing across multiple waves
TRM Labs told Cointelegraph that its independent tracing lands in the same general range as Galaxy. In its more detailed analysis, TRM said its work estimated that attackers drained about 1,816 BTC from more than 5,200 addresses across four waves.
TRM’s Ari Redbord, global head of policy, cautioned that investigators should expect estimates to keep moving upward before settling. That framing aligns with the reality that self-custody victims may take time to discover compromise, identify relevant addresses, and disclose the information needed for analysts to match on-chain traces.
TRM’s results also underline why the same incident can generate different “totals” depending on whether analysts use strict victim confirmations or extend attribution to clusters and transactions that look consistent with the exploit.
CryptoQuant uses victim evidence to avoid inflated claims
CryptoQuant takes a more restrictive stance. According to Cointelegraph, CryptoQuant’s Julio Moreno said the company begins with public reports from victims—including wallet addresses or transaction IDs—then checks those disclosures against known on-chain patterns associated with the Coldcard attack.
With that workflow, CryptoQuant’s current confirmed tally is 1,432 BTC, which Moreno described as a floor that may increase if additional victims publicly reveal the hacked addresses.
Moreno emphasized that CryptoQuant avoids treating on-chain pattern matching alone as a basis for identifying victims, because doing so could produce false positives and inflate the estimate. In his explanation, the fundamental issue is that the stolen Bitcoin belongs to individuals rather than a single centralized entity (like an exchange) that can provide consolidated incident data. As a result, analysts can only confirm what victims disclose.
“Knowing the total BTC stolen is difficult, and it will always be an estimation.”
CryptoQuant’s stance is a reminder that, in self-custody incidents, analytical precision is constrained by data availability. The most cautious number may not reflect the full damage—but it can be the most defensible as “confirmed” while the case is still unfolding.
What others are (and aren’t) tallying
Cointelegraph also reported that Chainalysis has not conducted an independent loss tally. Separately, blockchain investigator ZachXBT publicly stated he has no plans to monitor or trace the incident.
While the absence of a consensus total could frustrate observers seeking a single figure, it also signals that the ecosystem is converging on a shared understanding: without complete victim registries, analysts must balance completeness against verification.
For now, the main thing to watch is whether the announced figures stabilize as more victims submit corroborating wallet data. If disclosures accelerate, the “confirmed” floor should rise and estimates may converge—otherwise the spread between conservative and attributed totals may remain a persistent feature of how self-custody hacks are measured.
This article was originally published as How Investigators Track Coldcard Hack Losses and Stolen Bitcoin on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Payments firm Decta says it is adding Circle’s USDC to the back-end of its international treasury operations, using OpenPayd to convert fiat into the stablecoin for internal settlement across markets. The move highlights a growing pattern in crypto: stablecoins are increasingly used as infrastructure for liquidity and operational transfers, rather than as a branded payment option for customers.
Decta told Cointelegraph that the company will route its own funds through OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure, where they are converted into USDC via OpenPayd’s over-the-counter capabilities. OpenPayd then supports international operational settlements that Decta would otherwise complete through conventional banking processes.
Key takeaways
Decta will use USDC for internal treasury settlement across markets, positioning the stablecoin as a back-end liquidity tool rather than a customer payment feature.
The conversion and settlement is handled through OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure and OTC capabilities.
Decta frames the change as an operational efficiency upgrade versus bank transfer frictions like cut-off times and multi-day value dates.
Stablecoins continue to deepen their role inside traditional payments and financial infrastructure stacks.
How Decta plans to use USDC
In remarks shared with Cointelegraph, OpenPayd’s chief commercial officer, Lux Thiagarajah, described the integration as “a proprietary treasury use case rather than a customer-facing payments flow.” In other words, the stablecoin is intended for Decta’s own internal movements of value across entities and markets—not for consumer or merchant payments.
Thiagarajah explained that Decta transfers its funds into OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure, where they are converted into USDC. OpenPayd’s role is to facilitate this conversion through its OTC capabilities, then use the resulting digital settlement instrument to support international operational settlements.
For investors and builders watching crypto adoption, the practical implication is straightforward: stablecoins are being absorbed into workflows where speed and execution certainty matter most. Even when customer-facing adoption lags, stablecoin rails can still become embedded in day-to-day operations for regulated financial intermediaries.
Treasury operations and the limits of banking rails
Decta UK CEO Scott Dawson said the company regularly moves funds between banking relationships to fund operations and settle internal obligations across regulated entities and jurisdictions. Traditionally, these transfers rely on standard banking rails, which can impose operational constraints such as cut-off times, weekends, and multi-day value dates.
Dawson argued that using OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure changes the timing dynamics. According to his statement to Cointelegraph, Decta converts fiat into a digital settlement instrument through OpenPayd, then “moves it across markets near-instantly.”
This matters because treasury departments generally value predictability and execution efficiency. While banking transfers can be reliable, their scheduling constraints can complicate cash planning and working-capital management—particularly for firms operating across multiple countries and regulated entities.
Dawson also pointed out that Decta transfers its own funds for settlements rather than altering the structure of its customer payment products. That distinction suggests the company is aiming for improved operational settlement performance without expanding the stablecoin exposure embedded in its customer-facing services.
Decta and OpenPayd: where the integration fits
Founded in 2015 in London, Decta describes itself as a payments platform providing payment processing, acquiring, card issuing, banking, and other financial infrastructure to businesses. The company says it operates across 32 countries and serves hundreds of companies, according to its announcement.
On the infrastructure side, OpenPayd—founded in 2018 in London—positions itself as a bridge between fiat and digital assets. Cointelegraph previously reported that OpenPayd secured authorization under the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) in June, enabling it to offer crypto services across the European Economic Area, including fiat-to-stablecoin on- and off-ramps. Its listed clients include Kraken, eToro, OKX, and B2C2, as described in that earlier coverage.
Cointelegraph also noted in past reporting that Decta had explored stablecoin issuance. In August 2024, Decta Limited and France-based Next Generation said they were looking at a potential euro-pegged stablecoin that Decta could issue under MiCA, subject to regulatory approval.
Taken together, the new USDC settlement plan fits a broader trajectory for regulated payment businesses: stablecoins can be treated as settlement instruments in specific operational layers, while issuance ambitions or customer-facing products may follow separate regulatory and market readiness paths.
What to watch next
As Decta rolls USDC into its international treasury workflow, market observers should look for whether the arrangement remains strictly proprietary (back-end settlements) or gradually expands into other operational flows. The key unresolved question is how widely similar regulated payment firms will follow—especially given the ongoing need to balance faster settlement with compliance expectations across jurisdictions.
This article was originally published as Decta Tests Stablecoin Payments for Treasury Settlement on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s Supreme Court has proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules allowing creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate crypto held by debtors.
The deadline for public comments on the proposed amendments is August 11. Under the new amendments, cryptocurrency exchanges will have only seven days to disclose customer holdings if they are served with a court order.
South Korea’s New Crypto Seizure Rules
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules create a standardized process for creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate debtor crypto holdings. If finalized, the rules will take effect from October 1. Once finalized, cryptocurrency exchanges will have a seven-week window to prepare to play a role in civil debt enforcement.
Simply put, a court could freeze the debtor’s access to assets held with a custodian. It can also prohibit the custodian from transferring the frozen assets to the debtor. Additionally, the debtor will also lose their right to dispose of the claim. Creditors can then petition the court to ask the custodian to disclose its holdings. The new rules will give the custodian one week to recognize the debtor’s claim, identify the asset and the quantity, and disclose any competing seizures, priority rights, or provisional orders.
Broad Implications For South Korean Crypto Market
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules could have far-reaching implications in South Korea’s retail-heavy cryptocurrency market. The country reached a significant milestone in February 2025, as data from Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax revealed over 16 million users held a cryptocurrency account with one of the major exchanges, up from 14 million a year earlier.
Once debtor assets are identified and frozen, the courts could order their liquidation or assign them to creditors. The sale can be executed by a virtual asset service provider (VASP), or the assets could be transferred to an enforcement officer. The court could also order their conversion to more liquid assets before their disbursal.
However, things could get complicated when the crypto is held by the debtor directly, as private key controls come into the picture. In such a situation, while the court could prohibit disposal and direct the debtor to transfer the crypto to an enforcement officer, the actual seizure would only occur once the officer receives the assets.
The proposal is part of South Korea’s efforts to build rules for a market meshed with its mainstream financial ecosystem. Lawmakers have introduced several statutory protections for users, and also plan to tighten exchange registration and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.
Lawmaker Proposes Postponing Crypto Tax
Separately, a South Korean opposition lawmaker has proposed postponing a planned 22% tax on crypto profits to 2030. The South Korean government had announced plans to impose a 22% tax on crypto profits starting in 2027. People Power Party Representative Jeong Seong-guk put forward the proposal, and also outlined plans to amend the Income Tax Act, keeping the proposed 22% tax, but changing the effective date from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2030. Jeong stated that lawmakers and tax authorities needed more time to review the virtual asset tax framework, strengthen existing investor protections, and build systems to tax crypto fairly.
Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol reiterated the government’s stance in a July 19 meeting, stating,
“At this point, we are proceeding with taxation starting next year as scheduled.”
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 South Korea’s New Seizure Rules Put Cryptocurrency Exchanges On A Short Leash on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea is preparing to expand its crypto “Travel Rule” so that it applies to virtually all on-chain transfers between registered virtual asset service providers (VASPs), rather than only transactions above a set value. The change removes the current 1 million won threshold (about $700), a step aimed at closing an obvious loophole: users splitting transfers into smaller chunks to stay under reporting and information-sharing requirements.
According to a cabinet decision approving amendments to the Enforcement Decree of South Korea’s Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, the updated rules will also add tighter anti-money laundering (AML) obligations around transfers that involve foreign exchanges and personal wallets, where authorities have said existing controls have been exploited.
Key takeaways
South Korea’s Travel Rule will apply to all transfers between registered crypto VASPs, removing the 1 million won transaction cutoff.
Receiving platforms must obtain sender and recipient information and can request missing data or reject transfers if required information is unavailable.
New AML requirements extend to transfers involving overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets, including risk-based acceptance rules.
Platforms will need suspicious transaction monitoring for transfers of at least 10 million won involving foreign exchanges or personal wallets.
The expanded framework starts at staggered timelines: some VASP registration updates take effect Aug. 20, while other transfer-related requirements begin six months after promulgation.
Travel Rule expanded with threshold removed
South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said the main driver behind the amendment is the risk that users can circumvent the Travel Rule by breaking up activity into smaller transfers that fall below the prior reporting threshold. The cabinet-approved changes remove the value limit entirely, making information-sharing obligations standard across the board for covered transfers.
The FIU cited an example intended to illustrate how the threshold can be gamed. It described a case where a user purchased Tether USDt (USDT) after depositing roughly 200 million won into a crypto exchange, then executed 216 withdrawals, each valued below 1 million won. By keeping each withdrawal under the cutoff, the user aimed to reduce exposure to the Travel Rule’s information-sharing requirements.
Under the revised framework, the Travel Rule will cover all transfers between registered crypto service providers, regardless of amount. This matters for compliance teams and operational workflows: firms can no longer assume that smaller transfers are “out of scope,” and they will need to ensure their transaction processing can consistently handle sender/recipient information requirements at higher volumes and smaller denominations.
What receiving platforms must do
The amendments specify operational responsibilities for counterparties receiving transfers. Receiving VASPs will be required to obtain sender and recipient information. If required data is incomplete or missing, receiving platforms may request the missing information—or reject the transaction when necessary details cannot be obtained.
For users, this raises the prospect of more frequent transfer friction, particularly around transactions where counterparties fail to provide the expected information. For exchanges and wallet providers, it emphasizes the importance of internal controls and technical readiness—especially where transfers cross different service providers that may vary in how they capture and transmit required details.
The rule change is also designed to standardize accountability across the ecosystem. Instead of relying on a threshold that can be optimized around, the updated approach pushes toward comprehensive compliance for covered counterparties.
Overseas exchanges and personal wallets face new AML controls
Beyond expanding the Travel Rule, the decree introduces new AML requirements for transfers that involve overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets. Registered local VASPs will need to apply a risk-based approach to decide which transfers they allow based on the risk posed by the counterparty.
In practice, the amendments indicate that transfers to low-risk overseas exchanges will be permitted. However, transfers involving other foreign exchanges and personal wallets are generally allowed only when the sender and recipient are the same person—an effort to reduce anonymity and inter-personal laundering risks.
Where counterparties are assessed as high risk, transactions will be prohibited. This creates a compliance obligation that goes beyond simple eligibility checks: firms will have to maintain and update risk assessments tied to specific counterparties, and ensure those assessments are reflected in transaction controls.
The decree also requires crypto platforms to establish their own suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers worth at least 10 million won that involve foreign exchanges or personal wallets. Authorities said suspected money laundering involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets has risen because gaps in existing AML rules for such transfers have been exploited.
Even though the new Travel Rule applies to transfers between registered local providers, the AML changes broaden the compliance perimeter. They are aimed at the points where value can flow into or out of Korea’s regulated rails through foreign venues or self-custody arrangements.
Stronger registration standards and phased implementation
In addition to transaction-specific requirements, the decree strengthens the registration framework for crypto service providers. The amendments include requirements related to financial health, internal controls, staffing, and infrastructure standards, while also expanding scrutiny of major shareholders. This signals an intent to raise baseline operational quality and governance across the sector, not only to improve transaction monitoring.
The VASP registration provisions will take effect Aug. 20. However, existing providers will receive an additional year to comply with some of the financial, staffing, infrastructure, and internal control requirements—suggesting a transition period intended to reduce abrupt compliance shocks for incumbents.
Meanwhile, the expanded Travel Rule and the other transfer-related AML requirements will take effect six months after the decree is promulgated. That timing means exchanges and wallet providers will need to prepare their systems ahead of the compliance start date, including data capture and transfer handling logic required for sender/recipient information, as well as monitoring and risk assessment processes for cross-border and self-custody related activity.
For market participants, the key watch items are how risk assessments for overseas counterparties are implemented and how receiving platforms handle missing information in practice—because those operational details will determine whether the new rules mainly improve traceability or also introduce more frequent transaction rejections for edge cases.
This article was originally published as South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for Transfers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The SEC Reg Crypto proposal is heading to an Aug. 14, 2026, open meeting, where the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will consider whether to issue proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. ET. If approved, the proposed release would begin the formal public-comment process once published.
SEC Schedules Regulation Crypto Assets for Aug 14
The SEC’s Aug. 10 Sunshine Act notice confirms that the Commission will hold an open meeting on Friday, Aug. 14, at 10 a.m. ET. The meeting will take place at the SEC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., and will also be available through the agency’s webcast.
The official agenda identifies the matter as “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The Commission will consider whether to issue a release proposing new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
The initiative is commonly referred to as “Reg Crypto,” while the SEC’s official agenda uses the title “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The matter falls under the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. The agency lists Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Valian Afshar, Patrick Faller, John Fieldsend and Irene Paik as staff members for the agenda item.
The SEC’s notice does not announce a final rule. It states that the Commission will consider whether to issue a proposal. If approved and issued, the proposal would move into the public-comment and rulemaking process.
The meeting notice was dated Aug. 10, with the open meeting scheduled four days later. The SEC currently has three sitting commissioners, all Republicans. Their votes will determine whether the SEC issues the proposal for public comment.
Reg Crypto Could Create a Pathway for Crypto Fundraising
The proposed framework could address how certain crypto projects raise capital under a tailored offering regime. The framework could give eligible crypto firms a pathway to raise capital for projects without immediately triggering the SEC’s full registration requirements.
That would potentially give qualifying projects a defined route for fundraising in the United States while operating within a framework established by the agency. For crypto founders and fundraising platforms, the potential change could address uncertainty around how certain digital-asset projects structure offerings in the U.S. market.
Regulatory uncertainty has also encouraged some crypto offerings to seek jurisdictions outside the United States. A tailored U.S. framework could provide qualifying projects with another option for raising capital domestically. The precise scope of the fundraising pathway remains unknown because the SEC’s Aug. 10 notice does not specify registration exemptions, eligibility requirements or other detailed conditions.
The framework would not necessarily create a blanket exemption for token issuers or crypto companies. Its impact would depend on the eligibility requirements, disclosures, investor protections and continuing obligations included in the proposed release.
A Potential Exit Mechanism Could Address Continuing SEC Oversight
The framework could also address what happens after a crypto project is no longer actively managed by its development team. A potential mechanism could allow certain projects to seek relief from continuing SEC oversight once their teams are no longer involved in hands-on management.
The precise legal effect and eligibility conditions remain unknown. That would not mean a project automatically leaves the SEC’s jurisdiction simply because its team stops managing it day to day.
Any relief would depend on the legal mechanism and conditions established in the proposed framework, if such a mechanism is included. The SEC’s official notice does not confirm an exit mechanism.
It only states that the Commission will consider proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The proposed release will therefore be critical for determining whether an exit pathway is included, which projects could qualify and what conditions would apply.
Aug 14 Would Begin a Longer Rulemaking Process
The Aug. 14 meeting would be the start of a longer process rather than the completion of a new crypto rule. If the Commission approves the proposal and it is published, the public would have an opportunity to submit comments.
The comment period is expected to last roughly two to three months, after which the SEC could review the responses and revise the proposal before considering a final rule. A final rule would generally provide a more formal and durable framework than informal staff statements or speeches, although it could still be challenged, amended or replaced.
The proposed rule would not immediately create binding requirements for crypto businesses. Instead, the proposal would establish the SEC’s intended regulatory approach and give market participants an opportunity to respond before the agency considers whether to adopt a final rule.
The eligibility requirements, disclosure obligations, investor protections, continuing requirements and any potential exit mechanism would therefore need to be assessed from the proposed release itself.
Clarity Act Consideration Moves Into September
The SEC’s planned action comes as Senate consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has moved into September after lawmakers did not complete the relevant procedural step before the August recess.
Senate leaders have scheduled a Sept. 15 cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the legislation. That vote would determine whether the Senate can advance to consideration of the bill. It would not constitute final passage.
The CLARITY Act is intended to provide a broader legal foundation for crypto market rules in the United States. The delay leaves the SEC able to pursue rules within its existing authority while Congress considers whether to establish a broader statutory framework.
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has said the agency can address many crypto market-structure issues through its existing authority. He has also indicated that congressional legislation would provide clearer, longer-term direction than SEC rulemaking alone.
The two regulatory tracks therefore remain important for crypto businesses. A final SEC rule could establish requirements within the agency’s authority, while legislation could provide broader statutory rules governing the U.S. digital-asset market.
SEC’s Crypto Work Extends Beyond the Aug 14 Proposal
The Regulation Crypto Assets proposal is part of the SEC’s wider work on digital-asset regulation. The SEC has issued an interpretation clarifying the application of federal securities laws to certain crypto assets and transactions.
That interpretation includes a taxonomy covering categories such as digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities. The proposed offering regime would address another part of the regulatory framework by establishing rules for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
The distinction between an interpretation and a final rule is significant. The SEC’s interpretation explains how existing federal securities laws apply to specified crypto assets and transactions, while a final rule adopted through rulemaking would establish regulatory requirements within the agency’s authority.
The Aug. 14 meeting therefore represents the beginning of a proposed rulemaking process rather than the completion of the SEC’s crypto regulatory framework.
What Crypto Businesses Should Watch Next
The immediate question is whether the Commission votes to issue the proposed release. If it does, the document will provide the first detailed view of how the SEC intends to structure the tailored offering regime.
Crypto businesses will need to examine which investment contracts qualify, what conditions apply, what disclosures are required and what investor protections are included. The potential fundraising pathway will also require close attention.
Qualifying projects could potentially receive a route to raise capital without immediately triggering full SEC registration requirements, but the actual proposal will determine the scope and conditions of that route. The potential exit mechanism will require similar scrutiny.
For now, the confirmed development is that the SEC will meet on Aug. 14, 2026, to consider whether to issue proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
If approved, the proposed release will determine how the fundraising pathway, eligibility requirements, investor protections, continuing obligations and any potential exit mechanism are structured. Until that document is issued, those details should not be treated as final SEC rules.
This article was originally published as Sec Reg Crypto Proposal What the Aug 14 SEC Vote Means for Crypto on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The SEC Reg Crypto proposal is heading to an Aug. 14, 2026, open meeting, where the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission will consider whether to issue proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The meeting is scheduled for 10 a.m. ET. If approved, the proposed release would begin the formal public-comment process once published.
Sec Schedules Regulation Crypto Assets for Aug 14
The SEC’s Aug. 10 Sunshine Act notice confirms that the Commission will hold an open meeting on Friday, Aug. 14, at 10 a.m. ET. The meeting will take place at the SEC’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., and will also be available through the agency’s webcast.
The official agenda identifies the matter as “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The Commission will consider whether to issue a release proposing new rules to create a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
The initiative is commonly referred to as “Reg Crypto,” while the SEC’s official agenda uses the title “Regulation Crypto Assets.” The matter falls under the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance. The agency lists Jim Moloney, Sebastian Gomez Abero, Valian Afshar, Patrick Faller, John Fieldsend and Irene Paik as staff members for the agenda item.
The SEC’s notice does not announce a final rule. It states that the Commission will consider whether to issue a proposal. If approved and issued, the proposal would move into the public-comment and rulemaking process.
The meeting notice was dated Aug. 10, with the open meeting scheduled four days later. The SEC currently has three sitting commissioners, all Republicans. Their votes will determine whether the SEC issues the proposal for public comment.
Reg Crypto Could Create a Pathway for Crypto Fundraising
The proposed framework could address how certain crypto projects raise capital under a tailored offering regime. The framework could give eligible crypto firms a pathway to raise capital for projects without immediately triggering the SEC’s full registration requirements.
That would potentially give qualifying projects a defined route for fundraising in the United States while operating within a framework established by the agency. For crypto founders and fundraising platforms, the potential change could address uncertainty around how certain digital-asset projects structure offerings in the U.S. market.
Regulatory uncertainty has also encouraged some crypto offerings to seek jurisdictions outside the United States. A tailored U.S. framework could provide qualifying projects with another option for raising capital domestically. The precise scope of the fundraising pathway remains unknown because the SEC’s Aug. 10 notice does not specify registration exemptions, eligibility requirements or other detailed conditions.
The framework would not necessarily create a blanket exemption for token issuers or crypto companies. Its impact would depend on the eligibility requirements, disclosures, investor protections and continuing obligations included in the proposed release.
A Potential Exit Mechanism Could Address Continuing SEC Oversight
The framework could also address what happens after a crypto project is no longer actively managed by its development team. A potential mechanism could allow certain projects to seek relief from continuing SEC oversight once their teams are no longer involved in hands-on management.
The precise legal effect and eligibility conditions remain unknown. That would not mean a project automatically leaves the SEC’s jurisdiction simply because its team stops managing it day to day.
Any relief would depend on the legal mechanism and conditions established in the proposed framework, if such a mechanism is included. The SEC’s official notice does not confirm an exit mechanism.
It only states that the Commission will consider proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets. The proposed release will therefore be critical for determining whether an exit pathway is included, which projects could qualify and what conditions would apply.
Aug 14 Would Begin a Longer Rulemaking Process
The Aug. 14 meeting would be the start of a longer process rather than the completion of a new crypto rule. If the Commission approves the proposal and it is published, the public would have an opportunity to submit comments.
The comment period is expected to last roughly two to three months, after which the SEC could review the responses and revise the proposal before considering a final rule. A final rule would generally provide a more formal and durable framework than informal staff statements or speeches, although it could still be challenged, amended or replaced.
The proposed rule would not immediately create binding requirements for crypto businesses. Instead, the proposal would establish the SEC’s intended regulatory approach and give market participants an opportunity to respond before the agency considers whether to adopt a final rule.
The eligibility requirements, disclosure obligations, investor protections, continuing requirements and any potential exit mechanism would therefore need to be assessed from the proposed release itself.
Clarity Act Consideration Moves Into September
The SEC’s planned action comes as Senate consideration of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act has moved into September after lawmakers did not complete the relevant procedural step before the August recess.
Senate leaders have scheduled a Sept. 15 cloture vote on the motion to proceed to the legislation. That vote would determine whether the Senate can advance to consideration of the bill; it would not constitute final passage.
The CLARITY Act is intended to provide a broader legal foundation for crypto market rules in the United States. The delay leaves the SEC able to pursue rules within its existing authority while Congress considers whether to establish a broader statutory framework.
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins has said the agency can address many crypto market-structure issues through its existing authority. He has also indicated that congressional legislation would provide clearer, longer-term direction than SEC rulemaking alone.
The two regulatory tracks therefore remain important for crypto businesses. A final SEC rule could establish requirements within the agency’s authority, while legislation could provide broader statutory rules governing the U.S. digital-asset market.
SEC’s Crypto Work Extends Beyond the Aug 14 Proposal
The Regulation Crypto Assets proposal is part of the SEC’s wider work on digital-asset regulation. The SEC has issued an interpretation clarifying the application of federal securities laws to certain crypto assets and transactions.
That interpretation includes a taxonomy covering categories such as digital commodities, digital collectibles, digital tools, stablecoins and digital securities. The proposed offering regime would address another part of the regulatory framework by establishing rules for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
The distinction between an interpretation and a final rule is significant. The SEC’s interpretation explains how existing federal securities laws apply to specified crypto assets and transactions, while a final rule adopted through rulemaking would establish regulatory requirements within the agency’s authority.
The Aug. 14 meeting therefore represents the beginning of a proposed rulemaking process rather than the completion of the SEC’s crypto regulatory framework.
What Crypto Businesses Should Watch Next
The immediate question is whether the Commission votes to issue the proposed release. If it does, the document will provide the first detailed view of how the SEC intends to structure the tailored offering regime.
Crypto businesses will need to examine which investment contracts qualify, what conditions apply, what disclosures are required and what investor protections are included. The potential fundraising pathway will also require close attention.
Qualifying projects could potentially receive a route to raise capital without immediately triggering full SEC registration requirements, but the actual proposal will determine the scope and conditions of that route. The potential exit mechanism will require similar scrutiny.
For now, the confirmed development is that the SEC will meet on Aug. 14, 2026, to consider whether to issue proposed rules creating a tailored offering regime for certain investment contracts involving crypto assets.
If approved, the proposed release will determine how the fundraising pathway, eligibility requirements, investor protections, continuing obligations and any potential exit mechanism are structured. Until that document is issued, those details should not be treated as final SEC rules.
This article was originally published as Sec Reg Crypto Proposal What the Aug 14 Sec Vote Means for Crypto on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Payments infrastructure provider Decta UK says it is bringing USDC into its internal treasury workflow for cross-border settlement—an integration that highlights how stablecoins are increasingly being used behind the scenes, not necessarily as a customer-facing payment option.
According to an announcement shared with Cointelegraph, Decta will route its own funds through OpenPayd, a regulated financial infrastructure provider, where the company converts fiat into USDC for international operational settlements.
Key takeaways
Decta plans to use USDC as a settlement instrument for its own treasury movements via OpenPayd, rather than placing stablecoins in its customer payment flows.
The firm described the rationale as improving the timing and flexibility of internal fund transfers compared with traditional banking rails, including weekend and cut-off constraints.
OpenPayd will perform the fiat-to-USDC conversion using its over-the-counter capabilities inside a regulated infrastructure setup.
The move fits a broader industry pattern: stablecoins being adopted for internal liquidity and settlement operations by payments and financial firms.
How Decta plans to use USDC
Decta said Tuesday it will use OpenPayd’s infrastructure to convert company funds into USDC for international settlement. OpenPayd’s role is described as “proprietary treasury use” rather than a customer-facing payments feature.
OpenPayd chief commercial officer Lux Thiagarajah told Cointelegraph that Decta transfers its own funds into OpenPayd’s regulated setup, where those funds are converted into USDC through OpenPayd’s over-the-counter capabilities to support international operational settlements.
From Decta’s perspective, the company framed the upgrade as a practical replacement for certain limitations of traditional banking. Decta UK CEO Scott Dawson said the business routinely shifts funds across banking relationships to fund operations and settle obligations between regulated entities and markets. He noted that these transfers typically face banking cut-off times, weekend closures, and multi-day value dates.
Dawson argued that using OpenPayd’s regulated infrastructure allows Decta to convert fiat into a digital settlement instrument and move value “near-instantly” across markets.
Stablecoins migrating from payments to treasury operations
While stablecoins have often been discussed primarily in the context of end-user payments, Decta’s approach underscores a different entry point: internal treasury management. By limiting USDC to its own operational settlement needs, Decta is effectively treating stablecoin settlement as infrastructure—something that can improve liquidity handling without requiring customers to transact with the asset directly.
This distinction matters for adoption. For payments firms, stablecoins can reduce friction when value must move quickly across borders or between affiliated entities, while still allowing the company to maintain a familiar customer experience built on existing rails. In Decta’s case, the company’s statements emphasize that stablecoins are not being introduced into customer-facing payment services, only into its back-end settlement workflow.
It also places stablecoin use closer to how other treasury tools are deployed: as an internal mechanism for moving and managing funds rather than as a retail product.
Companies behind the integration
Decta, founded in 2015 in London, describes itself as a payments platform providing processing, acquiring, card issuing, banking, and related financial infrastructure for businesses. In its announcement, the company said it operates across 32 countries and serves hundreds of companies.
The company has previously explored stablecoin issuance. In August 2024, Decta Limited and Next Generation—described in a related announcement—said they were exploring a potential euro-pegged stablecoin that Decta could issue under the European Union’s MiCA framework, subject to regulatory approval.
OpenPayd, founded in London in 2018, positions itself as financial infrastructure that connects fiat and digital assets. Cointelegraph reported that OpenPayd secured authorization under MiCA in June, enabling it to provide crypto services across the European Economic Area, including fiat-to-stablecoin on- and off-ramps. The company lists clients including Kraken, eToro, OKX, and B2C2.
Why this matters—and what to watch next
Decta’s integration is notable not only because it uses USDC, but because it frames stablecoins as settlement plumbing within regulated payment ecosystems. If the “near-instantly” claim reflects measurable improvements to operational timing, it could encourage other payments firms to follow a similar path—particularly those with multi-entity structures that must manage internal obligations across jurisdictions.
For investors and market participants, the key question is whether this kind of treasury adoption remains confined to back-end settlement or expands toward broader distribution. Decta has indicated the USDC workflow is “proprietary treasury use” rather than a customer-facing flow, but the longer-term signal will come from whether other firms replicate the model and whether stablecoin settlement volumes outside retail activity continue to grow.
Readers should watch for additional details around how widely Decta will roll out the workflow across routes and entities, and whether OpenPayd’s MiCA-enabled infrastructure catalyzes more integrations from established payments players seeking flexibility in cross-border liquidity management.
This article was originally published as Decta Tests Stablecoin-Backed Treasury Settlement for Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea is set to broaden its crypto “Travel Rule” so it applies to essentially all on-chain transfers between regulated virtual asset service providers, eliminating a previously used value threshold. The change is part of Cabinet-approved amendments to the Enforcement Decree of the Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, approved on Tuesday by the country’s government.
The update is designed to close loopholes that allowed some users to avoid Travel Rule compliance by breaking up transactions into smaller pieces. Alongside the Travel Rule expansion, the amendments tighten anti-money-laundering (AML) controls for transfers involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets.
Key takeaways
South Korea will remove the 1 million won threshold, making the Travel Rule apply to transfers between registered VASPs regardless of transaction size.
Receiving platforms will need to collect sender and recipient information, and can request missing data or reject transactions when required information isn’t available.
The amendments introduce new AML obligations for transfers involving foreign exchanges and personal wallets, including restrictions based on counterparty risk.
New monitoring requirements apply to certain cross-border transfers, and the rules are supported by a cited example involving repeated withdrawals under the old threshold.
Travel Rule broadened beyond the value threshold
Under the new framework, South Korea’s Travel Rule will cover all transfers between registered virtual asset service providers (VASPs), not just those above a set minimum amount. The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said the threshold could be circumvented by splitting transfers into smaller transactions, thereby reducing the likelihood that required compliance steps would be triggered.
The FIU referenced a case involving Tether USDt (USDT). According to the agency, a user deposited roughly 200 million won into a crypto exchange and then made 216 withdrawals, with each withdrawal valued below 1 million won—illustrating how repeated small transfers could be used to structure activity around the prior limits.
By removing the threshold, the government aims to make the compliance requirement more consistent. In practical terms, the amendments require receiving platforms to obtain sender and recipient information for incoming transfers subject to the rule. If information is missing, the receiving VASP may request the necessary details. Where required data cannot be obtained, it may reject the transaction.
Risk-based AML rules for foreign exchanges and personal wallets
The Cabinet-approved amendments also add AML requirements tied to counterparty risk for transfers involving overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets.
Registered local VASPs will be expected to decide which foreign transfers to allow based on the risk profile of the counterparty. Transfers to overseas exchanges assessed as low-risk would generally remain permitted. Transactions involving other foreign exchanges and personal wallets would be allowed when the sender and recipient are the same person—reflecting a tighter standard for cross-actor transfers.
Where the counterparty is classified as high risk, the amendments indicate those transactions will be prohibited. The government’s rationale is that suspected money laundering involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets has increased, and that weaknesses in existing AML coverage for those channels have been exploited.
In addition to the risk-based gating, the rules require crypto platforms to build out monitoring capabilities. The decree calls for suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers worth at least 10 million won when the transfer involves foreign exchanges or personal wallets.
Broader compliance expectations for registered VASPs
Beyond Travel Rule and transfer screening, the amendments also strengthen the broader regulatory foundation for crypto service providers. The decree strengthens registration requirements by expanding scrutiny of elements including financial soundness, internal controls, staffing, and infrastructure standards. It also broadens oversight of major shareholders, reflecting a more intensive approach to operator accountability.
The government’s intent appears twofold: first, to reduce opportunities to route around compliance through transaction structuring; and second, to bring more systematic AML oversight to cross-border and self-custody-related flows, where authorities have indicated existing rules have been insufficient.
When the changes take effect
The VASP registration provisions will take effect on Aug. 20. However, current providers will receive an additional year to meet certain requirements related to financial, staffing, infrastructure, and internal control obligations.
For the Travel Rule expansion and the related transfer-related AML obligations, the amendments take effect six months after the decree is promulgated. That staggered timeline gives exchanges and other regulated providers time to adjust compliance systems—particularly around sender/recipient data handling and counterparty risk assessments.
With these updates, South Korea is moving toward more comprehensive transmission of transfer information across regulated rails while simultaneously tightening controls for cross-border activity and personal wallet flows. Investors, traders, and users should watch for how exchanges implement sender/recipient data requests, what counterparty risk models they publish internally, and how strictly they will enforce rejections when required information can’t be provided—changes that could affect user experience for transfers just as much as they affect compliance outcomes.
This article was originally published as South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for Transfers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Trump Media said it is overhauling how it manages its digital-asset portfolio after unrealized losses on cryptocurrencies and securities pushed the company to a $238 million net loss in the second quarter. In its Q2 update released Monday, the business behind Truth Social and financial services brand Truth.Fi said it plans a “revamp” of its treasury approach aimed at keeping long-term crypto exposure while better controlling balance-sheet volatility.
The company attributed $190.4 million in unrealized losses across digital assets, pledged digital assets and equity securities. It also framed the changes as a way to improve the “productivity” of its balance sheet—an emphasis that suggests it intends to continue earning yield and structuring risk around Bitcoin, rather than simply holding spot exposure indefinitely.
Key takeaways
Trump Media reported $190.4 million in unrealized losses tied to its digital assets, pledged holdings and equity securities during Q2.
The company plans a new treasury framework to preserve long-term digital-asset exposure while managing volatility and improving balance-sheet efficiency.
Trump Media’s Q2 filing indicates it already used options to manage Bitcoin volatility and to generate premium income, alongside deploying some BTC into yield arrangements.
In July, Trump Media increased its Bitcoin exposure after selling Bitcoin-related securities worth $159.6 million and buying BTC with the proceeds.
Trump Media warned that its Bitcoin yield/carry strategies introduce counterparty credit risk, including potential inability to recover Bitcoin if a counterparty becomes insolvent.
A larger rethink after a heavy Q2 loss
Trump Media said the portfolio losses were a key driver of its Q2 results, which ended in a $238 million net loss. Alongside the headline loss, the company disclosed a specific figure for unrealized drawdowns: $190.4 million spanning digital assets, pledged digital assets and equity securities.
Management’s stated intent for the “revamp” is not to eliminate crypto exposure, but to keep it while refining how the company absorbs and mitigates volatility. That framing matters for investors because it signals an ongoing commitment to crypto-linked strategies—particularly ones that may involve derivatives or lending structures—rather than a full shift toward holding only unencumbered assets.
Trump Media’s broader business context also provides a clue about the internal priorities behind the treasury shift. The company said it plans to direct more resources toward Truth Social, Truth+, and other media segments as part of a capital-allocation change.
Where the Bitcoin stood: little movement in Q2, a jump in July
According to the company’s Q2 reporting, its Bitcoin exposure was relatively stable throughout the second quarter. As of June 30, Trump Media held 9,477.16 BTC, down slightly from 9,542.16 BTC at the end of the prior quarter.
What complicates the picture is that the company also uses Bitcoin in collateral and structured strategies. In addition to its direct holdings, it pledged 2,077.34 BTC as collateral for its options approach. The filing also indicated that 4,260.73 BTC of reported holdings were posted as collateral for convertible notes.
The direction changed in July. Trump Media said it sold Bitcoin-related securities worth $159.6 million and used the proceeds to purchase Bitcoin. By July 31, the company reported holding approximately 14,139 BTC, including pledged Bitcoin, valued at about $890.5 million at the time.
For readers tracking crypto treasury behavior, the sequence is important: Q2 shows modest net spot movement, while July reflects a more decisive increase in aggregate BTC exposure—likely a response to how the company wanted to position itself after the earlier quarter’s unrealized losses.
Options and yield: how Trump Media says it manages volatility
In its Q2 filing, Trump Media described an approach that blends active derivatives management with yield-oriented deployment. The company said it is already using options to help manage Bitcoin volatility and to generate premium income. It also stated that it deploys some BTC through lending and other yield-generating arrangements.
This matters because options and yield structures can change the risk profile of a “Bitcoin holdings” headline. While spot exposure can be a straightforward mark-to-market asset, options premia and collateralized arrangements can introduce additional sensitivities—such as counterparty performance, liquidity, and constraints on how quickly the company can move or liquidate its BTC.
Trump Media also highlighted that the yield/carry strategies are relatively new. That qualifier suggests the company may still be learning how these structures behave under stress conditions, which lines up with its later risk disclosures about counterparties and recoverability.
Risk disclosure: counterparty credit exposure and operational limits
Trump Media warned that its Bitcoin yield strategy creates counterparty credit risk and the possibility of losing assets. The company said it has deployed part of its Bitcoin holdings to third parties via lending, placement and other arrangements designed to earn additional income.
According to the filing, some of these counterparties may not be rated by major credit rating agencies. In that scenario, the company said the counterparties could default during market downturns, liquidity crises or other periods of financial distress.
Trump Media also cautioned that if an arrangement is unsecured, it may be unable to recover its Bitcoin if a counterparty becomes insolvent. Beyond credit risk, it noted operational constraints: when BTC is deployed, the company may have limited ability to sell or pledge it, and counterparties may be able to use the assets at their discretion.
These are the kinds of details that can significantly affect investor expectations. Even if a treasury strategy is designed to reduce volatility or generate income, counterparty failure risk can turn income strategies into loss drivers—especially if recovery terms are weak or assets are not fully secured.
What to watch next
As Trump Media moves to implement its revamped digital-asset treasury framework, investors should focus on how the company structures options, how much BTC remains unencumbered versus pledged, and whether its new approach reduces reliance on unsecured or hard-to-recover yield arrangements during stress periods. The next quarterly filing will likely be the clearest window into whether the framework stabilizes results without increasing counterparty risk.
This article was originally published as Trump Media to Rework Crypto Treasury Strategy After $238M Q2 Loss on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Trump Media says it will overhaul how it manages its digital-asset treasury after crypto and securities losses contributed to a $238 million net loss in the second quarter. In its Q2 earnings materials, the company attributed $190.4 million in unrealized losses to its mix of digital assets, pledged digital assets, and equity securities, while describing a plan aimed at keeping long-term Bitcoin exposure but reducing balance-sheet volatility.
The publicly traded company—best known as the parent of social platforms Truth Social and Truth+ and the financial services brand Truth.Fi—linked the strategy shift to the need for a more resilient framework. The company noted that the changes are meant to improve the “productivity” of its balance sheet without abandoning its core digital-asset positioning.
Key takeaways
Trump Media reported $238 million net loss in Q2, with $190.4 million tied to unrealized losses across digital assets, pledged digital assets, and equity securities.
A new treasury framework is planned to preserve long-term Bitcoin exposure while managing volatility and improving capital efficiency.
Bitcoin use in hedging and yield activity is already in place, including options-based volatility management and deployments of some BTC to third parties.
The company increased direct Bitcoin exposure in July, moving from 9,477.16 BTC at quarter-end to about 14,139 BTC by July 31, including pledged BTC.
Counterparty and liquidity risks are explicitly flagged for Bitcoin-yield strategies, including default risk and limits on selling or pledging deployed BTC.
Why Trump Media is changing its digital-asset plan
Trump Media’s shift comes as investors focus on how publicly traded firms balance crypto exposure with the accounting swings that unrealized losses can create. In its second-quarter reporting, the company said its existing digital-asset and securities positions generated significant unrealized markdowns. Those losses, it said, were part of what drove the quarter’s large net loss figure.
Rather than retreating from Bitcoin, Trump Media emphasized that the revamp is intended to “preserve” long-term exposure while addressing volatility and making the balance sheet work more efficiently. The company also said it plans to direct more resources toward Truth Social, Truth+, and other media operations, framing the treasury shift as part of a broader capital allocation change.
Because the group is tied to former U.S. President Donald Trump, the broader context matters for market watchers. The filing notes that a trust holding roughly 41.1% of Trump Media’s voting power as of Feb. 25 remains the sole beneficiary of Trump Media voting power, according to the company’s latest annual report.
What the Q2 filing says about Bitcoin strategy
Trump Media’s Q2 documentation indicates it is not treating Bitcoin purely as a long-term spot holding. Instead, the company described a framework that already includes options to manage Bitcoin volatility and generate premium income. It also reported using part of its BTC in lending and other yield-style arrangements.
As of June 30, Trump Media held 9,477.16 Bitcoin, down slightly from 9,542.16 BTC at the end of the prior quarter. Separately, it reported pledging 2,077.34 BTC as collateral for its options strategy. The company also said 4,260.73 BTC was serving as collateral for convertible notes.
That structure shows a balancing act: maintaining Bitcoin exposure while ring-fencing assets for derivatives and financing obligations. It also highlights how pledged collateral can constrain a company’s flexibility during drawdowns or liquidity events.
July: Bitcoin-related sales followed by increased BTC exposure
While the second quarter itself left Trump Media’s direct Bitcoin holding relatively stable, the company later stepped up its Bitcoin exposure in July. By July 31, Trump Media said it held approximately 14,139 BTC, including pledged Bitcoin, which it valued at about $890.5 million at the time of reporting.
The path to that increase was tied to an intermediate step: the company said it sold Bitcoin-related securities worth $159.6 million in July and used the proceeds to purchase Bitcoin. This matters because it suggests the company viewed those securities as a temporary component in its capital deployment rather than a permanent replacement for direct BTC exposure.
For readers tracking how non-traditional crypto entrants manage treasury assets, the key takeaway is that Trump Media’s exposure management appears active rather than passive. The company is also maintaining a portfolio where some Bitcoin remains tied up—through pledges and other arrangements—while the headline BTC totals can rise through incremental purchases.
Risks Trump Media says it faces with BTC yield activities
Trump Media’s filings do not just outline how it earns additional income; they also provide a clear warning about the trade-offs. The company stated it deployed a portion of its Bitcoin holdings to third parties via lending, placement, and other yield-generating arrangements, describing these as relatively new strategies.
According to the company, some counterparties may not be rated by major credit rating agencies. That increases the risk that counterparties could default during periods such as market downturns, liquidity crises, or other financial stress.
Trump Media also warned that if an arrangement is unsecured, it may be unable to recover its Bitcoin in the event a counterparty becomes insolvent. It added that its ability to sell or pledge Bitcoin can be limited while assets are deployed, and that counterparties may use the assets at their discretion.
These disclosures are especially relevant when paired with the company’s decision to revamp its treasury strategy. The new framework is positioned as a way to maintain long-term exposure and reduce volatility, but the filings indicate the risk is not only market-driven. It is also operational and credit-driven—tied to whether deployed Bitcoin is recoverable and how counterparties behave under stress.
In other words, the company is trying to enhance balance-sheet performance while accepting that yield-style BTC deployments can introduce new failure modes that typical spot holding does not.
What investors should watch next
Trump Media has flagged both accounting volatility from unrealized losses and credit/liquidity risk from its Bitcoin-yield counterparties. Going forward, investors will likely focus on how the company implements its revamped treasury framework—particularly whether it changes the share of Bitcoin deployed to third parties versus retained as pledged collateral or held directly, and how those choices affect reported results in subsequent quarters.
This article was originally published as Trump Media Plans Crypto Treasury Overhaul After $238M Q2 Loss on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Thailand is rolling out a targeted tax break for crypto investors: beginning January 1, 2025, capital gains tax on profits from crypto trades conducted through platforms licensed by the country’s Securities and Exchange Commission will be exempt for five years, through December 31, 2029.
The move is designed to strengthen Thailand’s position as a regional digital-asset hub, while drawing a clear line between regulated onshore platforms and trading activity that occurs outside licensing—where investors would remain subject to standard personal income tax rates of up to 38%.
Key takeaways
Thailand will exempt qualifying crypto capital gains for trades executed via SEC-licensed platforms from Jan. 1, 2025 to Dec. 31, 2029.
Unlicensed or overseas exchange activity is still taxed under standard personal tax rates up to 38%.
The policy is intended to make Thai-regulated access more attractive for investors, aligning crypto treatment with that of traditional securities.
Across Asia, regulators and courts are simultaneously pushing for stronger controls—ranging from anti-scam withdrawal safeguards to travel-rule style data sharing.
Thailand’s five-year capital gains exemption for regulated exchanges
Under the new framework, crypto investors in Thailand will not pay capital gains tax on sales made through platforms licensed by the Thai Securities and Exchange Commission. The exemption runs for five years, covering January 1, 2025 through December 31, 2029.
While the tax incentive is specifically tied to using licensed venues, the exemption also signals a broader regulatory posture: Thailand is effectively attempting to mirror capital gains treatment applied to traditional securities. That linkage matters because it changes how investors model after-tax returns when comparing Thai-regulated offerings with offshore alternatives.
However, the relief is not universal. Traders who use exchanges that are unlicensed in Thailand, or that operate overseas without meeting the local licensing requirements, are expected to continue facing the country’s regular personal tax rates, reported as as high as 38%.
Thailand’s approach also follows earlier steps. In early 2024, the country reportedly waived 7% value-added tax on crypto gains—suggesting a pattern of phased adjustments aimed at improving the competitiveness of licensed crypto activity.
Asia’s policy push: scams, travel rules, and enforceability
Thailand’s tax move lands in a wider regulatory environment across Asia where authorities are focusing not only on market structure, but also on operational safeguards and information-sharing.
In Japan, for example, the Financial Services Agency has asked exchanges to adopt withdrawal delays and additional controls to combat scams. The regulator and Japan’s National Police Agency also highlighted patterns where fraudulent proceeds are transferred to exchange accounts. The requested measures include restricting withdrawals for a set period after customers deposit fiat or purchase digital assets, requiring users to pre-register withdrawal addresses, and enforcing a waiting period before newly added addresses can be used.
Taiwan is moving in a similar compliance direction. The Financial Supervisory Commission is set to require crypto platforms to transmit customer information for domestic platform-to-platform transfers starting in October. The rules apply irrespective of transfer value, with extra data requirements for transfers above 30,000 New Taiwan dollars (about $930). For high-value transfers, additional details such as a sender’s date of birth and residential address (for individuals) or corporate identification and registered address are expected. Receiving platforms would also need to verify beneficiary information provided by the sending institution against their own records. Taiwan also plans to extend the framework to transfers between domestic and overseas VASPs by the end of 2027.
Enforcement and asset tracing: Bybit’s North Korea case
Regulatory safeguards are running alongside legal efforts to trace and recover stolen funds. In a US court case involving exchange Bybit, a federal judge reportedly supported Bybit’s bid to trace assets connected to the widely reported $1.5 billion North Korea-linked hack from February 2025.
According to newly revealed court records, Bybit filed the lawsuit under seal on June 18 against North Korea, its Reconnaissance General Bureau, the Lazarus Group, and 20 unidentified defendants. The court granted expedited discovery on June 19, giving Bybit a route to identify alleged intermediaries and pursue a portion of funds that remain traceable.
Bybit reportedly told the court that 90.2% of the stolen assets had become untraceable after moving through mixers, cross-chain bridges, and over-the-counter dealers. The remaining 9.8% was said to be traced to identifiable wallets, including 5.3% of the total—about $75.5 million—that had been frozen or recovered. Bybit is seeking return of the stolen assets and approximately $1.5 billion in damages.
For market participants, the practical significance is straightforward: even when large portions of theft are obfuscated, courts and discovery processes can still uncover pockets of traceability—often tied to wallet-level movements and intermediary behavior—creating leverage for claims that go beyond a single judgment against a sanctioned state actor.
What builders and investors should watch next
Thailand’s capital gains exemption is likely to intensify the incentive to trade through SEC-licensed channels, while continuing to discourage the “regulatory arbitrage” route of using unlicensed or offshore exchanges. Investors should watch how Thailand defines eligibility in practice and whether licensed platforms promote the change in ways that meaningfully shift user behavior.
This article was originally published as Thailand’s 0% Crypto Tax Signals Policy Shift as Bitcoin Red Team Uses Chinese AI on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BlackRock is expanding its Canada-listed ETF lineup with two new iShares products that begin trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) this week. The most notable addition blends traditional equities with a small, fixed allocation to Bitcoin exposure.
Both funds are managed by BlackRock Asset Management Canada under the RBC iShares alliance. They are designed for investors seeking diversified market exposure—either broadly outside North America, or a balanced mix that includes a Bitcoin sleeve.
Key takeaways
BlackRock Canada launched two TSX-listed iShares ETFs: IBQT (equities plus a 3% Bitcoin allocation) and XINT (international equity exposure).
IBQT’s structure targets a diversified equity core: 97% in equities via iShares ETFs, alongside 3% Bitcoin exposure via BlackRock’s Canadian iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT).
XINT provides broad non-North America coverage: it tracks the MSCI ACWI ex North America IMI Index, spanning more than 5,000 companies across over 40 markets.
BlackRock positions iShares as the platform: both funds rely primarily on other iShares ETFs rather than direct stock holdings.
BlackRock’s US Bitcoin ETF scale remains a reference point: CoinMarketCap data shows its US-listed iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) holds about $47.9 billion in assets under management.
What BlackRock launched on the TSX
On Monday, BlackRock Canada introduced two ETFs on the Toronto Stock Exchange: the iShares Equity + Bitcoin ETF Portfolio (IBQT) and the iShares Core MSCI All-International Equity Index ETF (XINT).
While both funds sit under the iShares brand and share a common management setup, they differ sharply in how they aim to deliver exposure. IBQT adds a defined Bitcoin component to an otherwise equity-focused portfolio, while XINT is a more traditional, index-tracking international equity fund.
IBQT: a “core equities + 3% Bitcoin” portfolio
The iShares Equity + Bitcoin ETF Portfolio (IBQT) is designed around a straightforward allocation framework. The fund allocates 97% of its portfolio to a mix of equities across Canada, the United States, international markets, and emerging markets. The remaining 3% is allocated to Bitcoin exposure through BlackRock’s Canadian iShares Bitcoin ETF (IBIT), which trades on Cboe Canada.
According to the launch details, IBQT does not seek to hold individual stocks directly. Instead, it primarily invests in other iShares ETFs to achieve both its diversified equity exposure and its Bitcoin sleeve.
This design choice matters for investors thinking about implementation. A fund-of-funds approach can make it easier to access multiple exposures within a single product, rather than requiring investors to combine separate equity and Bitcoin funds themselves—though investors will still want to review the underlying holdings and the total costs across the layered structure.
XINT: broad international equities outside North America
The second product, iShares Core MSCI All-International Equity Index ETF (XINT), is more conventional in its index approach. The ETF tracks the MSCI ACWI ex North America IMI Index.
Based on the provided index description, XINT offers exposure to more than 5,000 companies spread across over 40 developed and emerging markets, covering regions outside both Canada and the United States.
For investors who already hold North American equities and want a non-overlapping allocation, XINT’s benchmark selection is intended to fill that gap. By tracking a widely diversified index outside North America, it also reduces the need to make region-by-region allocation decisions, at least at the index construction level.
Why this matters for Canadian ETF investors
BlackRock’s move reflects a broader shift in how crypto exposure is being packaged for mainstream portfolios—often in small, rules-based allocations rather than all-in constructions. IBQT’s fixed 3% Bitcoin allocation is a concrete example of that approach: it aims to keep the portfolio heavily equity-oriented while adding a measured amount of BTC-linked exposure.
At the same time, BlackRock is keeping the rest of the implementation familiar. Both funds are described as relying primarily on iShares ETFs, which signals that BlackRock is leveraging its existing ETF ecosystem to deliver new outcomes—rather than creating a wholly separate investment framework for crypto-linked products in Canada.
BlackRock said its iShares business managed approximately $6.2 trillion in assets across more than 1,700 ETFs as of June 30. That scale can be relevant for Canadian investors because it suggests ongoing operational capacity and product development across the iShares range, including the integration of new crypto components into established ETF formats.
Bitcoin ETF momentum remains a key backdrop
The launch of IBQT also lands against ongoing momentum in BlackRock’s US Bitcoin ETF business. The US-listed iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) is described as the largest US spot Bitcoin ETF by assets under management, with about $47.9 billion in AUM, according to CoinMarketCap.
While IBQT is a Canada-focused product and XINT is an equities-only index fund, BlackRock’s shared branding and ETF infrastructure underscore a key reality: the firm’s crypto products are increasingly becoming part of a broader ETF platform strategy, rather than operating as isolated experiments.
Going forward, investors should watch how IBQT’s trading and flows develop on the TSX, including whether the “small fixed Bitcoin sleeve” format draws demand from advisors and retail investors seeking easier portfolio integration. It will also be important to track how regulators and market participants continue to treat crypto-linked exchange-traded products in Canada, since that environment will shape how quickly similar portfolio-style offerings spread.
This article was originally published as BlackRock Debuts Two Canada ETFs; One Adds 3% Bitcoin Exposure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Senate is set to take up the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act again after a month-long recess, with Majority Leader John Thune filing a cloture motion to move the bill toward a floor vote. The procedural step, reported by the Senate Daily Press, effectively ends speculation that lawmakers might bring the measure forward before September despite it already clearing the House more than a year ago.
If the bill reaches the chamber, the Senate will need a 60-vote threshold to advance CLARITY, meaning bipartisan support remains crucial. The push into mid-September is also landing with less time to build momentum as the 2026 midterm elections approach, a timing problem that has amplified frustration among crypto industry leaders and lawmakers who have backed the legislation.
Key takeaways
Majority Leader John Thune filed a cloture motion for the CLARITY Act, setting the stage for consideration when the Senate reconvenes in mid-September.
Passing CLARITY in the Senate would require 60 votes, leaving little room for partisan friction ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Industry figures and crypto policy advocates called the delay disappointing, while urging lawmakers to “finish the job” in September.
Bipartisan negotiations reportedly continued on broader crypto market-structure issues, but Senate action has not yet translated into CLARITY scheduling.
Despite congressional delays, prediction market contracts still reflect meaningful odds that CLARITY could move toward passage in 2026, though timing uncertainty remains high.
Cloture filed as Senate delays become the new baseline
According to reporting cited by Cointelegraph, Thune’s cloture filing is intended to bring CLARITY to the Senate floor for consideration. That matters because cloture is a key procedural tool used to limit extended debate and overcome the likelihood of a filibuster-like stall—an especially relevant hurdle for legislation that relies on cross-party alignment.
CLARITY’s track record has made the delay feel more consequential to supporters. The bill already passed the House, so the Senate is effectively deciding whether to align with that earlier outcome. With the Senate now targeting mid-September, the question for investors, builders, and market participants is less whether the bill is “alive,” and more how quickly it can become predictable regulatory infrastructure—or whether uncertainty drags on.
As the clock tightens, the September timetable arrives with roughly 50 days before the 2026 midterm elections, a window that critics say makes legislative compromise harder to achieve.
Lawmakers and executives push back on the slowdown
Frustration has surfaced publicly from both lawmakers and industry leaders after the Senate did not schedule a vote before its recess. Senator Cynthia Lummis, referenced in the Senate reporting cycle, said she was “frustrated” that CLARITY had not been placed on the calendar and added that her work with colleagues would continue. Her statement is linked through her post on X: Sen. Lummis’ remarks.
On the industry side, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and Coinbase chief policy officer Faryar Shirzad also criticized the lack of immediate Senate scheduling, while framing September as the moment to complete the legislative path. Armstrong’s comment is linked at this X post, and Shirzad’s “finish the job” framing appears in this X post.
Not all reactions centered on panic. Bitmine Chair Tom Lee, in a weekly report, suggested that broader market attention—such as recent softer inflation and jobs data—has dominated near-term financial headlines more than CLARITY’s status. The implication for market participants is that regulatory risk may remain real without necessarily driving immediate price action day-to-day, especially when macro catalysts are competing for attention.
Why ethics and stablecoin rules keep resurfacing
The House-passed momentum has not translated cleanly into Senate action, in part because the legislative effort sits alongside other disputes in the broader crypto market-structure debate. The article’s background indicates that Senate lawmakers did not announce solutions in response to Democrats pressing for stricter ethics provisions—particularly rules aimed at conflicts tied to U.S. President Donald Trump’s crypto investments, including the entities and projects associated with World Liberty Financial and a memecoin launched days before he took office.
Those ethics concerns highlight a recurring tension in crypto policy: even when the industry broadly supports regulatory clarity, the political conditions needed to reach final passage can depend on unrelated governance questions. In practice, that means CLARITY may be delayed not because of technical disagreements about token regulation, but because of the Senate’s broader tradeoffs on transparency and oversight.
At the same time, some banking advocates have raised questions about how CLARITY would intersect with stablecoin-linked interest mechanics. A Wall Street Journal editorial board op-ed referenced before Thune’s cloture motion argued that, under CLARITY, smaller banks would miss out on opportunities because they rely on interest payments to attract deposits. The editorial board’s critique appears in this Wall Street Journal op-ed.
“The Clarity Act can serve a useful purpose with some language changes. The crypto industry and its friends in Washington portray themselves as defenders of free markets. What they really want is to be quasi-banks without abiding by the same regulations.”
The policy implication is straightforward: debates about who can earn yield, and on what terms, can influence whether financial institutions see incentives to participate. That in turn affects how quickly mainstream infrastructure can integrate with stablecoins and related services.
Prediction markets keep odds alive, but timing is still a gamble
Even as CLARITY’s Senate schedule slips, prediction market platforms continue to offer contracts reflecting expectations that the bill could still clear major milestones within the 2026 calendar year—though the probabilities remain uncertain.
On Kalshi, an event contract that drew $1.23 million in wagers gave users an 88% chance that the Senate would vote on the CLARITY Act before Oct. 1. A related market on Polymarket, which received over $5.79 million in total wagers, showed a 26% chance that the bill would be signed into law in 2026. Both contracts are linked in the source coverage: Kalshi’s CLARITY vote contract and Polymarket’s 2026 signature contract.
Those numbers also reflect an important procedural reality. If CLARITY passes the Senate, it would likely need to return to the House for another vote before it can move to the president for signing. That extra step can be the difference between a clean legislative finish and another round of delay—especially if lawmakers try to adjust language during Senate consideration.
For traders and market participants using these markets as a sentiment proxy, the key watch item isn’t only “pass or fail,” but whether the timeline compresses the revision process enough to avoid a late-year procedural bottleneck.
As the Senate reconvenes in mid-September, the next signals to monitor are whether the cloture motion results in a scheduled floor vote and whether negotiations narrow the gap on unresolved issues—particularly ethics and stablecoin-related provisions—before midterm politics starts to dominate lawmakers’ agendas.
This article was originally published as Crypto Community Criticizes CLARITY Vote Delay on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.