Crypto Breaking

A Stripe-backed blockchain startup, Tempo, says a potential change under US accounting rules could remove a practical hurdle for corporate stablecoin adoption: how companies classify certain token holdings on their balance sheets. In a new report, Tempo points to a proposal from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) that would allow qualifying stablecoins to be treated as “cash equivalents,” a classification that can materially affect liquidity reporting and financing conditions.
At issue is that, under current practice, many stablecoin holdings do not automatically count toward a company’s reported cash reserves—even when those tokens are fully backed by US dollars. That gap can create friction in corporate treasury operations, including how stablecoins are reflected in liquidity ratios and loan covenants.
Key takeaways
Tempo argues a FASB proposal could help eligible stablecoin holdings qualify as cash equivalents, improving how they appear on corporate balance sheets.
The change hinges on contractual terms, particularly whether companies have direct redemption rights with the issuer.
Tempo notes that simply purchasing stablecoins through an exchange may not be sufficient for cash-equivalent treatment.
The FASB proposal is open for public comment until Nov. 19 before a final rule and effective date are set.
Broader US stablecoin policy is moving forward through the GENIUS Act, which establishes federal regulation for payment stablecoins.
Why accounting classification matters for corporate treasuries
Tempo’s report focuses on an Accounting Standards Update proposed by the FASB in August. While stablecoins have increasingly been discussed as payment and settlement rails for businesses, the accounting lens often determines whether they can be integrated smoothly into corporate treasury workflows.
Under existing accounting approaches, stablecoin balances may be treated differently from cash and cash equivalents. Tempo emphasizes the consequences: when tokens don’t qualify as cash equivalents, companies may face distortions in how liquidity is measured. That can affect internal decision-making and external obligations, including loan covenants that are tied to cash or cash-like assets.
Tempo also frames the proposed accounting adjustment as enabling a more straightforward use case—allowing companies to use stablecoins for payments and settlements without triggering the same accounting complications that exist today.
The “contract with the issuer” condition
A central point in Tempo’s analysis is that the accounting outcome would not depend solely on the token’s backing. Tempo says the FASB proposal would require companies to have direct redemption rights with stablecoin issuers to qualify for cash-equivalent treatment.
Tempo illustrates the practical distinction: buying a stablecoin such as USDC through an exchange would not necessarily provide the company with the same redemption rights needed for cash-equivalent classification. In other words, the mechanism of acquisition—and the contract governing the company’s relationship to the issuer—could determine whether the accounting treatment changes.
“Your contract with the issuer is what qualifies, and the token alone doesn’t get you there,” Tempo said.
Tempo also highlights an example from industry practice. It cites Coinbase’s 2025 annual report, which classified USDC and other payment stablecoins as cash equivalents. Tempo attributes that classification to Coinbase’s redemption arrangement with Circle, reinforcing its broader argument: documentation and direct contractual rights may be as important as the stability mechanism itself.
What happens next for the FASB proposal
The FASB proposal is currently at the public comment stage. Tempo notes it remains open for submissions until Nov. 19, after which the board will review feedback, finalize the approach, and determine an effective date.
For companies evaluating stablecoin usage, the timing matters. A final accounting rule could reduce uncertainty for treasurers by making it clearer when stablecoin holdings will be treated similarly to cash equivalents. Until then, corporate adoption plans may continue to vary depending on how counterparties structure redemption arrangements and how firms interpret the existing framework for their specific holdings.
US stablecoin rules are expanding alongside accounting changes
Tempo’s accounting push lands in a wider regulatory shift in the United States. The FASB initiative comes after the passage of the GENIUS Act in July 2025, which established the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins.
According to the report details, the GENIUS Act is scheduled to take effect in January 2027, or 120 days after federal regulators finalize implementing rules—whichever comes first. While the GENIUS Act focuses on requirements for stablecoin issuers, Tempo’s analysis underscores a different—but complementary—problem: how companies account for stablecoins they hold.
The report also points to the speed of market growth. It states that US dollar-backed stablecoins have surpassed $300 billion, citing DefiLlama data. That scale makes balance-sheet treatment more than an accounting technicality; it increases the likelihood that corporations, auditors, lenders, and treasury teams will need consistent rules to manage stablecoin assets in mainstream finance.
Finally, Tempo’s discussion connects accounting and policy momentum to the broader geopolitical framing of stablecoins. It references reporting that the Trump administration is exploring ways to promote dollar-backed stablecoins overseas, potentially reinforcing the US dollar’s role as a dominant reserve currency. Bloomberg has reported the administration is weighing partnerships with private companies, potentially involving the Treasury Department, the State Department, and US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC).
Even if those overseas initiatives develop on a parallel track, the same underlying theme is likely to persist: stablecoin adoption—whether domestic or international—depends not only on issuance and redemption frameworks, but also on how regulated and corporate participants can account for these assets with confidence.
Investors and builders should watch what companies argue during the FASB comment period—particularly around redemption rights and how “direct” access is documented—because those details may determine whether stablecoin adoption inside corporate treasuries becomes materially easier once the final rule takes effect.
This article was originally published as US Accounting Changes May Boost Corporate Interest in Stablecoins, Tempo on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Fairshake’s political ecosystem is sharpening its focus on the 2026 midterm elections, with affiliated committees disclosing multi-million-dollar media spending less than a month before voters head to the polls. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings reviewed in the period show Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress placing advertisements and funding direct-mail efforts to back candidates they view as supportive of pro-digital asset policy.
According to FEC documents filed Saturday, the two Fairshake affiliates reported a combined $2.7 million in spending on media. The expenditures cover both advertising and production costs, directed at Democratic and Republican candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives seats in 2026.
Key takeaways
FEC filings show Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress together reported $2.7 million in media spending supporting 2026 House candidates.
The disclosed spending included six-figure allocations for several incumbent members, including Tom Emmer, Glenn Thompson, Pete Aguilar, and Josh Gottheimer.
Fairshake had previously signaled plans to endorse additional House candidates, including a group of races targeted for up to $1 million in supportive media.
All the Fairshake spending targets referenced in the filings voted for the CLARITY Act in 2025, a bill aimed at establishing crypto market structure rules.
FEC filings detail $2.7 million in affiliate media buys
The FEC filings indicate that Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress reported combined media expenditures of $2.7 million. The reporting period includes costs for media placements and direct mail production intended to boost candidates for seats in the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2026 election cycle.
Specific allocations cited in the filings include more than $76,000 for House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, $73,000 for House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson, $512,000 for California Representative Pete Aguilar, and $500,000 for New Jersey Representative Josh Gottheimer. Together, these figures underscore that the PAC’s affiliates are concentrating resources on lawmakers positioned on committees that can shape legislation affecting the digital asset sector.
Support campaign expands—though not all endorsed candidates appear in the filings
The FEC disclosures followed Fairshake’s earlier announcement, days before the weekend reporting, that it planned to endorse an additional 32 House candidates for 2026. The same announcement indicated a further effort to concentrate support with six candidates receiving $1 million in supportive media each.
While the FEC spending referenced in Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress did not include those specific six candidates, several incumbents tied to the endorsement list were reflected in the reported expenditures. Among them were Emmer, Aguilar, Gottheimer, and Thompson—members whose committee roles can influence the direction of financial regulation proposals that intersect with crypto policy.
CLARITY Act voting record becomes a organizing tool
Beyond individual candidate support, the filings connect to a broader strategy: tying electoral outcomes to legislative performance on crypto regulation. As noted in the reporting, all the targets of the Fairshake spending referenced here voted for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act in 2025.
The CLARITY Act was designed to establish market structure rules for the cryptocurrency industry and would have expanded the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority to oversee and enforce regulatory requirements. While the bill passed the House with bipartisan support, it failed to clear a procedural hurdle in the Senate in September.
This legislative backdrop matters for voters because it frames the midterms as more than a standalone political contest. For crypto-focused constituencies, the question becomes whether members of Congress will continue supporting a market-structure framework that stalled before reaching enactment.
Organizers warn of “consequences” after failed procedural vote
After the CLARITY Act failed to move forward procedurally in the Senate, Stand With Crypto—a Coinbase-linked initiative that ranks lawmakers based on their public statements and voting records—warned that candidates who did not advance crypto legislation could face “consequences” in the midterms. The group’s approach emphasizes mobilizing crypto-minded voters, including through engagement efforts seen in the 2024 election cycle.
In this context, the latest FEC disclosures can be read as the operational follow-through of that pressure campaign: once lawmakers have demonstrated positions through votes and public stances, affiliates appear prepared to translate those records into advertising and voter outreach ahead of the 2026 election.
What remains uncertain heading into November-style election pressure
With Fairshake affiliates already reporting sizable media spending and tying candidate support to prior crypto legislation votes, the next key development for observers will be whether further disclosures show additional targeted investments—and whether the promised endorsement pipeline translates into measurable changes in candidate positioning as the election approaches.
This article was originally published as Crypto PACs Spend $2.7M in House Races Ahead of Upcoming Midterms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Fairshake’s political network is ramping up advertising ahead of the 2026 U.S. midterms, according to Federal Election Commission filings that detail millions of dollars in media spending by two PAC affiliates. The reports highlight how closely crypto-backed political spending is tied to candidates associated with clearer regulation for digital assets.
On Saturday, FEC disclosures showed the PAC affiliates Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress together reported $2.7 million in expenditures on media and direct mail production supporting candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives during the 2026 election cycle. The filings come with less than a month until Election Day.
Key takeaways
$2.7 million in combined media and direct mail spending was reported by Fairshake affiliates Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress in FEC filings.
Reported ad and mail production costs included $512,000 for California Rep. Pete Aguilar and $500,000 for New Jersey Rep. Josh Gottheimer.
Additional reported spending targeted House figures including $76,000 for Majority Whip Tom Emmer and $73,000 for House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson.
Fairshake’s broader midterm strategy—backed by industry-linked political groups—has included trying to place “pro-crypto” candidates in Congress and opposing specific incumbents in other races.
Several of the House targets previously voted for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a bill aimed at establishing crypto market-structure rules.
FEC filings show targeted media and direct mail
The FEC filings reported spending by the two Fairshake affiliates that support candidates in the 2026 House contests. Specifically, the disclosures described expenditures on media and direct mail production used to back Democratic and Republican candidates running for seats in the House.
Among the named candidates referenced in the filings, the reported figures included:
More than $76,000 for House Majority Whip Tom Emmer
$73,000 for House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson
$512,000 for Pete Aguilar, a California representative
$500,000 for Josh Gottheimer, a New Jersey representative
These candidate-focused expenditures are part of a broader pattern of crypto-related political engagement in federal races, where PAC spending is used to amplify which lawmakers are seen as aligned with industry policy goals.
How Fairshake’s endorsements are lining up across races
The FEC spending details arrived after Fairshake announced not long before that it planned to endorse additional House candidates for the 2026 cycle—bringing its planned slate to dozens more lawmakers. The earlier announcement included a promise of substantial supportive media funding for some of the newly listed candidates.
Notably, the candidates named in the Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress spending reports were not necessarily identical to the specific subset of endorsed House candidates described in Fairshake’s earlier announcement. Still, several of the lawmakers tied to the FEC expenditures—such as Emmer, Aguilar, Gottheimer, and Thompson—were part of the broader pool of House targets Fairshake had flagged as aligned with its agenda.
In its midterm build-out, Fairshake has also pursued a strategy that includes directing large resources toward particular races and political outcomes beyond House contests. As previously described by a Fairshake spokesperson in August, the PAC reported having $122 million in cash on hand as part of its effort to elevate pro-digital asset candidates.
That strategy has included allocating significant resources to try to defeat political opponents in other elections. Earlier reporting by Cointelegraph described how Fairshake aimed to oppose former Senate Banking Committee chair Sherrod Brown in Ohio’s Senate race, with at least $30 million allocated for media buys. According to that coverage, Brown had voted against multiple measures viewed as favorable to the crypto industry while in office.
The CLARITY Act vote remains a benchmark for “pro-crypto” candidates
The policy yardstick connected to these midterm efforts centers on market-structure rules for digital assets. The targets linked to Fairshake spending in the FEC reports all voted for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act in 2025, a bill designed to establish regulatory authority and oversight for parts of the crypto market.
As described in the reporting, CLARITY was intended to set broader market structure rules for the industry and would have strengthened the federal commodities regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), in enforcing and overseeing related regulations. The bill passed the House with bipartisan support but did not move forward procedurally in the Senate in September, stalling its path to enactment.
After that procedural failure, Stand With Crypto—an initiative launched by Coinbase that ranks lawmakers based on their public statements and voting records—warned that candidates who failed to advance the legislation could face political consequences in the midterms. The organization has said it is working to mobilize crypto-minded U.S. voters, including efforts seen in the 2024 election cycle.
For investors and traders following U.S. crypto policy, the significance of these legislative references is that they connect campaign spending to concrete regulatory outcomes, rather than broader political branding. When a campaign slate repeatedly emphasizes specific bills—like CLARITY—it can signal where political leverage is being applied and what lawmakers may be expected to do next if elected.
What to watch as election pressure rises
As FEC reporting accumulates and final campaign resources flow, the immediate question is whether crypto-aligned political groups will continue to frame candidate support around advancing market-structure legislation or shift messaging in response to what happened in the Senate. Readers should also watch whether groups like Stand With Crypto intensify pressure in districts tied to stalled bills, and whether lawmakers who backed CLARITY face sharper scrutiny if future votes stall again.
This article was originally published as Crypto PACs Spend $2.7M in House Races as Midterms Approach on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A report backed by Stripe-focused blockchain venture Tempo argues that a proposed US accounting change could make stablecoins far more usable for corporate finance. If finalized, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) would allow certain stablecoin holdings to be treated as cash equivalents—potentially removing a key accounting friction point that has discouraged some companies from holding or deploying dollar-backed tokens.
The proposal, discussed in an Accounting Standards Update examined by Tempo, targets how firms account for stablecoins on their balance sheets. Under current practice, even fully backed stablecoins may not count toward a company’s reported cash reserves, which can complicate liquidity measurements and loan covenant calculations.
Key takeaways
FASB’s proposed guidance could allow qualifying stablecoin holdings to be classified as cash equivalents, improving how they appear in corporate treasury reporting.
Tempo says the key requirement is not the token itself, but whether the company has direct redemption rights with the issuer.
Corporate use may be easier for stablecoins where redemption arrangements exist directly between issuer and holder, rather than only via exchanges.
Public comment on the FASB proposal runs until Nov. 19, with the board set to review feedback before finalizing any effective date.
The accounting development follows the July 2025 passage of the GENIUS Act, which created a federal framework for payment stablecoins and will take effect in January 2027 (or earlier depending on rulemaking timelines).
Why accounting classification matters for corporate stablecoins
Tempo’s report centers on a practical problem: stablecoins are widely described as cash-like because they are designed to maintain a one-to-one peg to the US dollar, typically through regulated reserve structures. But traditional corporate accounting frameworks do not always treat them the same way as cash.
In its analysis, Tempo points to the FASB proposal originally introduced for public consideration in August. The change is aimed at whether certain stablecoin holdings can qualify as cash equivalents—an accounting category companies often rely on when reporting liquidity and managing financing agreements.
That distinction matters beyond bookkeeping. If stablecoins do not count toward cash reserves, they can reduce apparent liquidity, affect key ratios, and potentially trigger complications in loan covenants even when the tokens are fully backed.
Direct redemption rights, not just stablecoin ownership
A central theme in Tempo’s argument is that eligibility would hinge on the structure of a firm’s access to redemption—not merely on buying a stablecoin.
Tempo says the proposed approach would require companies to have direct redemption rights with stablecoin issuers. As an example highlighted in the report, purchasing USDC through an exchange may not automatically provide the contractual relationship needed for cash-equivalent classification.
Tempo also points to Coinbase’s 2025 annual report, which classified USDC and other payment stablecoins as cash equivalents. The justification, Tempo notes, was Coinbase’s redemption arrangement with Circle—again reinforcing the idea that contract terms with the issuer are likely to be decisive.
Tempo summarized the logic this way: “Your contract with the issuer is what qualifies, and the token alone doesn’t get you there.” (Tempo’s comments are cited in the report.)
What comes next for the FASB proposal
The FASB proposal is still in progress. Tempo notes that public comment is open until Nov. 19, after which the board will review responses, incorporate feedback, and determine whether and how the guidance will be finalized—including the effective date.
For corporate treasurers, the open question is what counts as “direct redemption rights” in practice and how firms can structure holdings to meet the new criteria if adopted. Companies that currently hold stablecoins through intermediaries may need to revisit their custody, treasury operations, and—potentially—the contractual arrangements that govern redemption.
Tempo’s emphasis on the issuer relationship suggests a likely divide: stablecoin programs built on issuer-level redemption access may become more straightforward for financial reporting, while token exposure obtained strictly through secondary-market purchases could remain harder to classify as cash equivalents.
Stablecoin rules and accounting changes move in parallel in the US
This accounting discussion comes as the US stablecoin regulatory framework continues to take shape. In July 2025, the GENIUS Act passed, establishing what the report describes as the first comprehensive federal framework for payment stablecoins. The law is scheduled to take effect in January 2027, or 120 days after federal regulators finalize implementing rules—whichever comes first.
While the GENIUS Act focuses on requirements for stablecoin issuers—such as reserve backing and redemption obligations—Tempo’s analysis targets the accounting treatment for companies holding these tokens.
At the same time, market growth underscores the importance of corporate readiness. DefiLlama data cited in the report indicates the market for US dollar-backed stablecoins has surpassed $300 billion. As stablecoin usage expands beyond trading into payments and business settlement, accounting compatibility becomes more than a technicality—it affects whether companies can deploy stablecoin strategies without disrupting financial reporting and risk controls.
There are also indications the US government is exploring ways to strengthen the role of dollar-backed stablecoins abroad. Bloomberg reported that the administration is weighing partnerships with private companies for overseas stablecoin initiatives, potentially involving the Treasury Department, State Department, and the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC). According to the coverage cited, the goal could include reinforcing the dollar’s position as the dominant reserve currency.
Investors and operators should track issuer contracts and timelines
Even if the FASB change advances, Tempo’s analysis suggests that corporate eligibility will depend on contractual redemption access, not simply on holding a token. Over the coming months, readers should watch the details emerging from the comment period—especially how “direct redemption rights” is interpreted—and whether companies adjust treasury and custody arrangements to align with the proposed cash-equivalent criteria.
This article was originally published as US Accounting Overhaul May Boost Corporate Demand for Stablecoins on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Approaching Key Trendline Convergence for Shib
SHIB has reached a key technical point where support moves up and resistance moves down, creating a setup indicating price consolidation. However, neither buyers nor sellers have provided an indication about which way the price will move.
In a chart shown by Terrarmy on X, the daily timeframe shows that the price is consolidating between the rising red support line and the descending yellow resistance line. This technical setup indicates a bounce after a period of decline during July, from lows of $0.0000035 to rally in August to highs of $0.00000620.
From there, SHIB failed to move up as it has been capped by the upper boundary. However, the rising support line means that the buyers have defended higher lows over time. A breach of the support line could signal a reversal of the rally.
Price Appreciation Comes Hand in Hand With Reduced Trading Volume
SHIB was traded at $0.000005448, appreciating by 2.03% within 24 hours. The intraday prices appreciated between $0.00000536 and $0.00000550, with buyers pushing the price higher before a slight retracement.
Although the price appreciates, there has been a reduction in the trading volume by 31.24%. This makes one wonder if there is participation in the upsurge, but a reduced volume does not always mean that there is a lack of buying pressure.
It could be a situation where traders are consolidating as they wait for a signal before acting again. Hence, the combination of price appreciating beyond the resistance level with volume appreciation would be more convincing.
In the same way, volume explosions show that there is more activity in the market, but abnormal volumes in historical charts need to be verified first.
Shib Resistance Levels and Support Levels Influence the Forecast
Resistance at $0.00000620 continues to be a major impediment to SHIB’s rise. The cryptocurrency has managed to test this level without forming a convincing breakout.
A daily close above this resistance level, accompanied by higher volumes, would be a positive sign. A violation of the downward resistance would suggest that buyers have resumed control over the price action.
But a lack of an ability to violate the resistance level would mean that the asset stays within its decreasing range. A breakdown below the ascending support line would damage the recovery pattern and would lead to a focus on the support levels of $0.0000050 and $0.0000045.
This is only a possible target for SHIB rather than a price floor, which depends on market situation and the activity of traders.
The total number of holders of $3.09 million and market capitalization of approximately $3.21 billion can be useful information, but it does not determine the next price movement of SHIB.
Market Direction Still Unclear
The technical picture for SHIB still looks indecisive. As support is increasing, it may be interpreted that sellers are defending their ground, but with falling resistance and reduced volume, it’s time to be careful. Any breakout or breakdown needs to be confirmed in order to make a move clear.
Key Highlights
SHIB rose by 2.03% within 24 hours to touch around $0.000005448, with trading volume dipping by 31.24%.
The rising support and descending resistance are restricting the SHIB trading range, forming the breakout or breakdown scenario.
The resistances at $0.00000620 and supports at $0.0000050 and $0.0000045 are key levels.
This article was originally published as Shib Price Bounces on Rising Support as Descending Resistance Restricts Rally on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miners pushing deeper into artificial intelligence and high-performance computing are running into a financing reality that looks very different from their earlier playbook: lenders are increasingly selective about how data center projects are structured, funded, and de-risked.
According to a recent Miner Weekly newsletter from BlocksBridge Consulting, landing major AI customers is only one part of the equation. Miners and AI infrastructure developers still need to raise billions to buy computing hardware, build and equip facilities, and secure the power capacity required to deliver on contracted performance.
Key takeaways
BlocksBridge says large lenders are basing data center loan approvals more on the customer, contract terms, and the “path to completion” than on the general promise of future demand.
IREN’s reported GPU and infrastructure financing illustrates how borrowing costs can diverge sharply across different projects within the same company.
AI-focused financing deals may include obligations beyond interest, such as backstops for lease payments that can create dilution risk through warrants.
BlocksBridge and VanEck data point to a growing capital gap for miners’ AI infrastructure plans even as Bitcoin market conditions weaken.
Why data center lending is getting tougher
BlocksBridge Consulting frames the issue as a shift in lender behavior. While AI contracts can help justify investment, the financing process increasingly hinges on whether the borrower can prove the project can be completed on schedule and deliver reliably. In its Miner Weekly newsletter, BlocksBridge notes that “big lenders have become more selective about data center loans,” with decisions increasingly dependent on the customer, the contract, and the delivery plan.
For miners that are repurposing (or expanding) their balance sheets and operational capabilities into data centers, this means the financing challenge is not limited to interest rates. It also includes demonstrating credible development milestones, power readiness, and the commercial durability of the demand behind the build-out.
IREN’s two deals show borrowing costs can swing
The financing gap becomes easier to understand through concrete examples. The article highlights IREN, a company that has expanded from Bitcoin mining into AI infrastructure.
IREN secured a $3.65 billion GPU financing package in June at a blended interest rate of 6%. Later, in August, it arranged a separate $2.4 billion financing structure at a fixed rate of 9%. The two agreements reportedly cover different projects, making them not directly comparable on a one-to-one basis—but they still signal the variability borrowers can face even inside the same corporate umbrella.
That difference matters for investors because it affects both cost of capital and the sensitivity of financing plans to timing and project specifics. If lenders price risk differently as projects evolve—or as details about counterparties and construction pathways become clearer—the overall economics of an AI expansion can change materially.
Financing can come with lease backstops and dilution risk
The financing burden also sometimes appears in forms that extend beyond straightforward borrowing costs. In a separate transaction involving Cipher Digital, the article references a deal where Google agreed to backstop $1.4 billion in lease obligations in exchange for warrants representing 5.4% of Cipher’s equity, subject to certain adjustments.
Such structures can shift risk between parties but may introduce shareholder consequences. Exercising the warrants could dilute existing shareholders, meaning the effective “cost” of capital may be a mix of interest-like burden and ownership dilution, depending on how the warrants are handled over time.
For miners transitioning into AI, these deal mechanics underscore that lenders and strategic backers may require stronger protections as projects become more capital-intensive and operationally complex.
Capital gaps widen even during the bear market
The borrowing and deal complexity arrives as miners increasingly take on debt to fund AI expansion. The article cites VanEck data showing that, at the height of the Bitcoin bull market last October, miners’ debt surged roughly 500% from the second quarter of 2024.
But the demand for capital has not eased with weaker crypto market conditions. BlocksBridge Consulting’s June 2026 analysis—using VanEck data—suggested that publicly traded Bitcoin miners need roughly $50 billion to complete planned AI infrastructure projects. Within that estimate, it points to a $21.1 billion funding gap at IREN alone. The same analysis also attributes substantial required funding to other miners, estimating $7.2 billion for Riot Platforms and $4.6 billion for HIVE Digital.
The implication is a key asymmetry for the sector: even as Bitcoin mining economics deteriorate during bear markets, the capital requirements for AI infrastructure can keep climbing or remain urgent. That tension can put pressure on balance sheets, especially for companies whose financing terms tighten as lenders become more demanding.
Investors and operators should watch how quickly miners can convert AI customer commitments into completed, power-ready facilities—and whether lenders continue to widen the gap between projects that look “bankable” versus those that face delays, construction risk, or weaker contract economics.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Miners See Rising AI-Related Funding Costs as Lenders Tighten Scrutiny on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped back from an early-week high as geopolitical tensions around energy supply resurfaced and traders braced for a pair of major US inflation releases. After trading as high as $84,254 on Bitstamp—its strongest level since Wednesday—BTC/USD gave back as much as 2.2% into the start of the New York session.
The pressure was tied to renewed concerns over oil markets and the risk that disruptions linked to the Russia-Ukraine war could spill into energy infrastructure, just as traders are watching US CPI and PPI for fresh direction.
Key takeaways
BTC hit about $84,250 before retreating up to 2.2% during Monday’s Wall Street open.
Oil benchmarks rose sharply, with Brent climbing above $107 for the first time since Sept. 16.
Analysts highlighted that oil may have priced in a “too large” risk premium, even as volumes remain impaired around the Strait of Hormuz.
Bitcoin options activity looked mixed: traders leaned “defensively,” but structure suggested an upside breakout remained plausible.
Order book and liquidation data pointed to nearby support around the low-$82,000 area, with resistance developing in the mid-$80,000s.
Oil’s rebound feeds into BTC risk concerns
The selloff came alongside growing doubts surrounding a Russia-Ukraine “energy ceasefire.” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy accused Russia of continuing to target energy infrastructure, even after US President Donald Trump announced a moratorium on such strikes.
Meanwhile, Iran reported that an oil tanker was hit and was ablaze in the Strait of Hormuz, adding another layer of uncertainty to already fragile shipping assumptions.
Oil prices responded immediately. WTI crude spiked above $94 per barrel, while Brent crude reached $107.25—its highest level since Sept. 16—according to TradingView data cited by the market report.
These moves matter for crypto because oil can quickly translate into broader expectations for inflation and interest rates. With traders focused on US Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI) scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday, the market’s sensitivity to energy prices has been a recurring theme. Cointelegraph earlier noted that CPI has proven particularly responsive to rising oil prices, which is why the latest oil strength could amplify near-term volatility in BTC as well.
“Risk premium” debate in the oil market
Not all commentary suggested oil gains were purely a sign of worsening fundamentals. Robin Brooks—former chief FX strategist at Goldman Sachs—argued that oil markets have priced in “too much risk premium,” even as some shipping flow improvements have emerged.
In a blog post shared through his Substack, Brooks pointed to improving transit volumes out of the Persian Gulf. He cited roughly 13 million barrels per day compared with a recent peak of 16.5 million barrels per day “a few weeks ago.” He also emphasized that while this is still an improvement versus the height of the war in March and April, oil prices have already returned toward prior highs.
For Bitcoin traders, this creates a key tension. If oil’s rise is partly an overreaction, the market may later unwind those expectations. But if CPI and PPI respond more strongly than anticipated—whether because of oil pass-through or other components—crypto could see its downside risks re-priced quickly.
Options show defensive positioning, but upside remains possible
Beyond spot prices, derivatives positioning suggested traders were cautious without becoming fully bearish. QCP Capital reported “duality” in Bitcoin options markets: implied volatility held firm even as spot moved back into a range, while risk reversals indicated a less pronounced premium for puts than is typical in more aggressively defensive setups.
QCP’s read of the data was that the overall structure looked less defensively positioned than usual, even though the market still appeared to price a potential breakout scenario.
“A clean move above $87k would bring $94k into focus.”
Other technical levels echoed this idea. Rekt Capital flagged $83,400 as a local resistance level on the day, noting it overlaps with a zone that had previously acted as a pivot between mid-August and Sept. 21—periods that corresponded with BTC/USD breaking higher.
Where liquidity may matter: $82,000 support and $84,500 asks
Order flow and liquidation mapping suggested how BTC could behave if oil-driven risk sentiment persists into the US data releases. According to CoinGlass liquidation heatmap data, ask liquidity clustered around $84,500 on exchanges, with the total near that level around $180 million at the time of reporting.
On the downside, bids were reported to be building around $82,000, while spot price was trending toward that area. That means BTC may find a natural testing ground for either renewed buying interest or deeper downside if traders decide inflation risk is skewing worse after the CPI/PPI prints.
In the immediate term, this is likely to be the market’s balancing act: oil volatility is pulling attention to inflation expectations, while derivatives positioning implies many traders are still keeping one eye on an upside extension—particularly if BTC can reclaim key resistance zones such as the mid-to-high $80,000 range.
With CPI and PPI still ahead, traders should watch whether the latest oil-driven inflation narrative translates into higher bond yield expectations and whether BTC options structures shift from cautious neutrality into a clearer directional bet—either toward protecting downside below $82,000 or toward pressing above $87,000.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Falls 2.2% as Ukraine-Iran Oil Spike Pushes Prices Higher on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Recent disclosures about compromised Bitcoin hardware wallets have reignited a familiar debate in the industry: how safe are self-custody devices compared with holding Bitcoin through exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The discussion comes after investigations into wallet exploits affecting cold-storage brands, including a Ledger case involving unauthorized hardware modifications.
As the public conversation expands, prominent voices argue that the answer is less about whether hardware wallets can be secure—and more about how threats are modeled, how devices are configured, and what trade-offs investors accept when choosing between personal custody and managed products.
Key takeaways
Ledger-related findings highlight a new class of risk: compromised hardware can shift the threat model beyond typical user errors and software vulnerabilities.
ETF advocates frame “enhanced security” as part of the product value proposition, especially for large holders who move assets to specialists.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back argues wallet manufacturers have historically lagged in threat modeling, suggesting the industry needs to catch up.
Executives and researchers emphasize setup and operational rigor: self-custody security still depends heavily on users avoiding mistakes and avoiding rushed migrations.
Ledger compromise renews scrutiny of cold-storage assumptions
The current wave of debate follows coverage of a compromised Ledger wallet reportedly containing an unauthorized hardware implant. Investigators cited in that reporting estimated that losses from such implants could exceed $86 million, a figure that has helped push hardware-wallet security from a niche discussion into mainstream investor concern.
While hardware wallets are designed to keep private keys offline, the Ledger development underscores that real-world attacks are not limited to malicious software or bad user behavior. When the supply chain or device integrity is compromised before a user ever interacts with it, the “cold” aspect alone may not be sufficient protection.
Plan B and the ETF argument: “zero regrets”
In the midst of these concerns, Bitcoin analyst Plan B pointed to his earlier decision to shift his Bitcoin holdings to ETFs. According to Plan B, he had made that move in 2025 and still sees it as the correct choice in light of recent Coldcard and Ledger exploit discussions.
In a Monday post on X, Plan B wrote he had “zero regrets” about the ETF decision. The key claim from the analyst’s perspective is that ETF custody reduces the reliance on individual operational discipline—transferring custody responsibilities to a specialist framework rather than an investor-managed setup.
Why large holders have used ETFs for years
One reason the ETF angle keeps resurfacing is that the behavior it describes is not new. Large holders have been moving self-custodied Bitcoin into ETFs for years, with “enhanced security” often cited as a primary selling point. Cointelegraph’s Ophelia Snyder, 21Shares co-founder, explained in an email that this long-running conversion of holdings has become part of “public discourse” again as additional hardware exploit reports circulate.
The implication is straightforward: when investors see evidence that self-custody can face complex risks—even beyond basic user mistakes—the motivation for delegating custody to regulated investment products becomes more persuasive, particularly for institutions and high-net-worth participants.
Hardware wallets can remain secure, but threat modeling must improve
Not everyone agrees that the recent events invalidate hardware wallets. Blockstream CEO and Hashcash inventor Adam Back said hardware wallets can still be a secure custodial option, but he argued that manufacturers must improve their understanding of the evolving threat landscape.
Back wrote on X that it appeared that “surprisingly few” manufacturers understood generic attacks for much of the last decade, calling for better “catch up” on threat modeling. In editorial terms, that matters because many investor discussions treat hardware wallets as a stable, solved problem. The more credible framing, however, is that device security is a continuous engineering process—one that has to adapt as attackers find new ways to target custody systems.
At the same time, Snyder argued that the core difference between self-custody and delegated custody is practical: self-custody security depends on the investor’s technical expertise and the rigor used when setting up and using the wallet. She emphasized that without careful setup, self-custody will generally be less secure than handing assets to specialist firms whose job includes managing custody protocols.
“Without taking the time and rigor to set up properly, self-custody will always be less secure than handing over the assets to a specialist firm whose job it is to manage those protocols for you.”
Security researcher Jameson Lopp similarly urged caution, saying self-custodial wallets can still be robust but warning investors against a mass migration that could create new central points of failure—especially if people move quickly and without sufficient planning.
The unresolved question: what investors should watch next
These exchanges leave a clear takeaway: hardware wallets are not automatically unsafe, but recent reports show that attackers can target more than end-user behavior. Investors deciding between self-custody and ETF custody should watch for how wallet providers respond—particularly around threat modeling, distribution safeguards, and how incidents are assessed in the wider ecosystem.
Until the industry can consistently map and mitigate supply-chain and device-integrity risks, the debate will likely continue—less as a binary “self-custody vs. ETFs” argument, and more as a question of operational resilience, manufacturing security, and how quickly institutions and individuals can adapt their custody strategies to new threat models.
This article was originally published as Ledger Trial Shows Bitcoin ETFs as Custody Alternative to Hardware Wallets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A newly disclosed Ledger wallet compromise has reignited a familiar security debate in Bitcoin: whether hardware wallets remain the safest route for holding coins, or whether investors should instead lean on the custody model offered by spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The discussion has spread across prominent industry voices following reports that certain Ledger devices may have been tampered with via an unauthorized hardware implant.
Bitcoin analyst Plan B, who previously argued for moving his holdings into ETFs, said he has “zero regrets” about that decision. Other executives and researchers pushed back on the idea that hardware wallets are inherently unsafe, arguing that the real issue is evolving threat modeling and the practical difficulty of self-custody—especially for non-experts.
Key takeaways
Recent coverage around a compromised Ledger device has amplified public scrutiny of cold wallet security.
Plan B pointed to his 2025 shift to spot Bitcoin ETFs as vindicated by the timing of the hardware incidents.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back said hardware wallet makers have not always done enough threat modeling against emerging attack classes.
21Shares co-founder Ophelia Snyder argued that self-custody security can collapse when users do not set up and maintain safeguards properly.
Jameson Lopp cautioned against rushed, large-scale migration that could create fresh central points of failure.
Why the Ledger incident is reshaping the self-custody debate
Industry attention has focused on a report of a compromised Ledger wallet containing an unauthorized hardware implant. According to blockchain investigators cited in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, losses connected to such implants could exceed $86 million. That scale—if it proves accurate—raises uncomfortable questions about how far “cold” devices can be trusted when hardware supply chains and device integrity are in play.
The renewed attention matters because hardware wallets are often presented as the practical middle ground between fully centralized custody and riskier approaches like exchange balances. If a credible implant scenario can reach real holders, the conversation naturally turns from “how to protect your keys” to “how to prevent the device itself from being compromised.”
At the same time, hardware wallet incidents do not automatically disprove the underlying idea of self-custody. They do, however, push investors to evaluate what “risk” means in practice: user behavior, operational setup, device provenance, and how quickly security assumptions are updated after new attack paths emerge.
Plan B’s ETF pivot comes back into focus
Plan B said his earlier decision to move his Bitcoin holdings into spot ETFs in 2025 was the correct call given the security concerns now highlighted by Coldcard and Ledger incidents. In a Monday post on X, the analyst wrote that he has “zero regrets” about the ETF move, linking the decision to the broader wave of newly identified hardware and operational risks.
While the quote is personal, it also reflects a larger investment narrative: some large holders view ETF custody as “enhanced security” compared with fully self-managed setups. Snyder, a co-founder at 21Shares, told Cointelegraph that large holders have been converting self-custodied assets into ETFs for years for that reason, and that the recent exploits have pushed the topic into wider public discourse.
From an investor perspective, the distinction is less about ideological preference and more about how responsibilities are allocated. In ETF structures, custody and protocol management are concentrated within regulated institutions and operational processes. With self-custody, responsibilities shift toward the holder: securing device setup, maintaining hygiene in how funds are used, and ensuring procedures remain correct even as the threat landscape evolves.
Adam Back: hardware is still viable, but manufacturers must improve threat modeling
Blockstream CEO Adam Back did not frame the issue as a wholesale failure of hardware wallets. Instead, he argued that manufacturers need to better understand and plan for the kinds of attacks that are appearing. In a Saturday X post, Back wrote that “surprisingly few manufacturers” seemed to understand generic attacks from the perspective of marketing and design choices over the last decade, calling for “threat-modelling” to catch up.
The practical value of this argument is that it reframes the debate away from simple “safe vs. unsafe” and toward measurable engineering work: identifying likely adversary capabilities, updating defenses, and communicating threat models clearly to users. For readers, this is an important nuance—hardware wallet security is not just about cryptography and offline signing, but also about how devices are designed, built, tested, and updated.
Snyder and Lopp: user setup and migration speed both matter
Snyder’s view focuses on the human side of self-custody. She said the core problem with self-custodial wallets is that security depends on an investor’s technical expertise and the rigor of their personal setup. In an email to Cointelegraph, she argued that without taking “the time and rigor” to configure self-custody properly, it will always be less secure than handing assets to specialist firms tasked with managing these protocols.
Jameson Lopp offered a complementary but distinct caution. In a post on X, he said self-custodial wallets can still be robust options, but he urged investors to avoid mass migration in a way that could create new central points of failure during rushed transactions. The point is not that ETF custody is automatically superior in every case, but that sudden behavioral shifts—especially when fear is high—can introduce operational bottlenecks and concentration risks.
Taken together, Snyder and Lopp highlight an asymmetry: self-custody’s risk is partly controllable by individual process discipline, while institutional custody’s risk profile can be shaped by broader operational systems and market structure. Neither approach is risk-free, and both can become problematic when users either underestimate their own setup requirements or when markets move faster than operational safeguards.
What to watch next as the conversation moves from headlines to procedure
Going forward, investors should watch for more detailed, verifiable assessments of the Ledger incident—especially how compromised devices were identified and what mitigation steps are recommended for holders. The next phase of this debate will likely hinge on whether the industry treats these incidents as isolated anomalies or as signals that hardware security assumptions and user operational practices need to be updated in step.
This article was originally published as Ledger Testing Implants for Bitcoin ETFs, Claims Safer Custody Than Wallets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The cryptocurrency market faces a crucial week ahead, with the Consumer Price Index (CPI) data scheduled for October 14, followed by the Producer Price Index (PPI) data on October 15.
The week will also see token unlocks worth over $100 million from Starknet (STRK), Connex (CONX), Arbitrum (ARB), and Cronos (CRO).
US Consumer Price Index And Producer Price Index Data
The US Bureau of Labor Statistics will release Consumer Price Index (CPI) data on October 14 and Producer Price Index (PPI) data on October 15. Most forecasts suggest a 0.6% monthly increase and a 3.6% annual increase, compared to previous CPI readings of 0.4% and 3.4%, respectively. However, these figures are forecasts and are not confirmed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Core CPI, which removes food and energy prices, is projected to rise 0.2% month-over-month and 2.4% annually.
The Producer Price Index (PPI) data will be released the following day and is predicted to increase 0.5% month-on-month and 5.3% annually. Meanwhile, core PPI is expected to rise 0.3% month-on-month and 4.4% annually. The US will also release retail sales data and weekly jobless claims on October 15.
The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting is scheduled for October 27–28 and will announce its decision on interest rates on October 28. Market watchers expect interest rates to remain unchanged, while the outlook for December’s FOMC meeting remains undecided.
Several global data releases are also scheduled for the upcoming week. China will announce its September inflation data on October 13, and the UK will release its August GDP report on October 15. Lastly, the Eurozone’s September inflation numbers will be released on October 16.
Starknet, Connex, Arbitrum, And Cronos Set For Token Unlocks
Another major development this week is token unlocks from several key projects. Starknet (STRK) will unlock 3.37% of the circulating supply of the STRK token, valued at around $13.2 million, on October 15. Connex (CONX) will unlock 1.39% of its supply, worth $12.18 million, on the same day. Arbitrum (ARB) will unlock 1.56% of its ARB supply, valued at around $18.7 million on October 16, and Cronos (CRO) will unlock 2.33% of its CRO supply, valued at around $73.8 million.
Several key industry conferences are also scheduled this week. The Paradigm Frontiers conference is scheduled from October 12 to October 14 in San Francisco. This will be followed by the Pantera Blockchain Summit, also in San Francisco, on October 15. The Ledger Op3n conference will take place in Paris the same day, and BGIN Block 15 is scheduled for October 15–16 in Washington, D.C. Rounding off the conferences for the week is EDCON in Kuala Lumpur on October 17–18.
Ethereum Developers Set For Key Upgrade Meeting
The 189th All Core Developers Consensus call is scheduled for October 15 as Ethereum developers prepare for the Glamsterdam and Hegotá upgrades. The meeting will also discuss improvements to the hard fork development process. Glamsterdam introduces several changes to improve network efficiency and transaction processing, including protocol-level proposer-builder separation and block access lists. Glamsterdam was activated on the Sepolia testnet on October 6.
Hegotá is the next major upgrade and will bring changes to censorship resistance, transaction processing improvements, and new security features.
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 Big Week For Crypto: US Inflation Data And Token Unlocks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy acquired 250 more Bitcoin last week as part of its ongoing accumulation program, spending $21.5 million to expand its holdings to 848,250 BTC. The purchase marked a second straight week where the company’s weekly Bitcoin buying declined, according to an announcement posted on Strategy’s website.
Financing for the acquisition came from a mix of funding sources: Strategy raised $21 million through sales of its common stock and used $500,000 from its existing cash reserves, spending between Monday and Sunday to complete the transactions.
Key takeaways
Strategy bought 250 BTC for $21.5 million last week, bringing total holdings to 848,250 BTC.
Weekly Bitcoin purchases fell for a second consecutive week, signaling a slowdown in the pace of accumulation.
Funding was split between $21 million from common stock sales and $500,000 from existing cash, per Strategy’s announcement.
Strategy also continued repurchasing STRC preferred shares, spending $192.4 million—higher than the prior week’s $176.3 million.
The company reported a $4.88 billion US Reserve and $640.5 million in USD Cash as of Sunday to support preferred dividends and debt service.
Bitcoin buy: 250 BTC and a slower weekly pace
The latest acquisition adds another tranche to Strategy’s long-running Bitcoin strategy. The 250 BTC purchase was executed for a total cost of $21.5 million, and it raised the company’s Bitcoin balance to 848,250 BTC.
While Strategy continues to add to its holdings, the company’s reported weekly buying has been cooling. The acquisition comes after a period in which Strategy’s weekly purchases also declined, making this the second consecutive week where the number of newly purchased Bitcoin units decreased versus the prior week.
How Strategy funded the latest acquisition
Strategy’s announcement details a hybrid financing approach. The company funded the $21.5 million Bitcoin purchase with two components: $21 million from common stock sales and the remaining $500,000 from existing cash.
The transactions were carried out over the span from Monday to Sunday, aligning with Strategy’s typical practice of reporting these activities through periodic corporate filings and public updates.
Preferred share buybacks continue alongside Bitcoin accumulation
Bitcoin purchases were not the only corporate activity during the same week. Strategy also continued repurchasing shares of its STRC preferred stock, spending $192.4 million on the buybacks. That compares with $176.3 million spent during the prior week.
The company continues to treat the preferred stock and its associated obligations as central to its capital strategy. Strategy states it maintains a $4.88 billion US Reserve intended to support preferred stock dividends and debt interest payments. Separately, Strategy reported a USD Cash balance of $640.5 million as of Sunday.
What investors were watching at the open
In the lead-up to the start of the trading week, Strategy’s Nasdaq-traded common stock (MSTR) was reported up less than 1% ahead of Monday’s market opening, according to Yahoo Finance. The preferred stock was expected to open at $99.68 a share.
These market datapoints matter because Strategy’s financing plans—particularly common stock sales—can intersect with broader investor sentiment toward the company’s equity and its Bitcoin exposure.
Saylor’s messaging and the SEC reporting cadence
The latest Bitcoin buy followed a Sunday post from Strategy founder and executive chair Michael Saylor, who teased further purchases with the message, “There’s always room for more orange.” The post referenced additional accumulation activity, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Strategy typically reports its Bitcoin acquisitions in filings submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. However, Monday was affected by the Columbus Day holiday, during which the SEC was closed, according to the context provided in the announcement coverage.
Accumulation slows further in the most recent quarterly snapshot
The new purchase also sits within a broader pattern of slower accumulation in recent months. In the third quarter, Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings grew just 0.2%. During that period, the company acquired 7,218 BTC while selling 5,553 BTC, reducing the net increase compared with earlier phases of more aggressive expansion.
That context helps explain why the latest week’s decline in buying activity stands out: even as Strategy continues to add Bitcoin and carry out large-scale preferred share repurchases, the overall rate of incremental accumulation appears to be moderating.
Going forward, investors will likely focus on whether the week-to-week decline in Bitcoin purchases continues or stabilizes, and how Strategy balances common stock issuance with ongoing STRC buybacks—especially in light of its stated reserve and cash levels supporting dividends and debt service.
This article was originally published as Strategy’s Bitcoin Holdings Rise by 250 BTC to 848,250 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy acquired an additional 250 Bitcoin last week, extending its push to grow one of the largest corporate BTC treasuries. The purchase comes as the company’s weekly buying has declined for a second consecutive week, even as Strategy’s total Bitcoin holdings climbed to 848,250 BTC.
According to a press release published on Strategy’s website, the firm funded $21 million of the acquisition through sales of its common stock, with the remaining $500,000 drawn from existing cash during the period from Monday through Sunday.
Key takeaways
Strategy bought 250 BTC for $21.5 million, bringing total holdings to 848,250 BTC.
The company financed the purchase with $21 million from common stock sales and $500,000 from existing cash.
Strategy continued large-scale STRC preferred share repurchases, spending $192.4 million this week versus $176.3 million the prior week.
Management said it maintains a $4.88 billion US Reserve to cover preferred dividends and debt interest, plus $640.5 million in USD cash as of Sunday.
Weekly Bitcoin buying stays positive, but the pace cools
While Strategy remains in active accumulation mode, its most recent purchase was not part of an accelerating trend. The company reported a $21.5 million spend for 250 Bitcoin, marking the second consecutive weekly decline in purchases, even as its BTC balance reached 848,250 BTC.
The financing mix highlighted in Strategy’s announcement also offers investors a view into how the firm is managing capital efficiency. By using both equity issuance proceeds and cash on hand, Strategy avoided relying entirely on a single source while still completing the acquisition within the stated Monday-to-Sunday window.
Preferred stock repurchases remain the dominant capital theme
Alongside its Bitcoin buying, Strategy kept repurchasing shares of its STRC preferred stock. The company reported spending $192.4 million on STRC repurchases during the week, up from $176.3 million the previous week, according to the same announcement.
In practical terms, this matters because Strategy’s preferred stock activity can influence how investors interpret the company’s broader balance-sheet priorities. Instead of treating Bitcoin accumulation and share buybacks as separate strategies, the recent figures suggest Strategy is running both tracks simultaneously—using capital markets and reserves to support dividends, debt service, and ongoing market activity.
Liquidity and reserves underpin the financing plan
Strategy also reiterated the resources it relies on to meet recurring obligations. The company said it maintains a $4.88 billion US Reserve intended to support preferred stock dividend payments and debt interest. In addition, Strategy reported a separate USD cash balance of $640.5 million as of Sunday.
The combination of a large reserve and a measurable cash position is relevant for readers tracking the sustainability of Strategy’s twin approach: continuing BTC purchases while also funding preferred repurchases. As the company balances those spending categories, changes in reserve size, cash levels, or repurchase intensity could become early indicators of how Strategy expects to manage capital going forward.
Signals from Michael Saylor and what to watch next
The purchase followed a Sunday social media post from founder and executive chair Michael Saylor. In that message, Saylor teased additional Bitcoin buying with the line, “There’s always room for more orange.” Earlier coverage noted that Strategy often reports its Bitcoin acquisitions through filings with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, which was closed Monday for the Columbus Day holiday.
Investors are also likely to pay attention to the broader momentum behind Strategy’s accumulation program. Cointelegraph previously reported that Strategy’s Bitcoin growth slowed in recent months: during the third quarter, holdings rose just 0.2%, after the company acquired 7,218 BTC while selling 5,553 BTC. The latest weekly data shows continued net buying, but it also underscores that the company’s pace is not steadily rising.
Going forward, the key question for market participants is whether Strategy can maintain (or re-accelerate) weekly BTC purchases while continuing the elevated scale of STRC repurchases. Readers should watch for the next SEC filing cycle and future weekly acquisition announcements to see how Strategy’s capital sources and buyback intensity evolve.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Treasury Strategy Adds 250 BTC as Holdings Hit 848,250 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin is heading into the third week of October holding firmly above a widely watched support level around $82,500, as traders brace for a high-impact US data calendar. The week’s momentum hinges on September inflation prints—CPI on Wednesday and PPI on Thursday—which are expected to shape expectations for Federal Reserve policy and, by extension, risk-asset sentiment.
While Bitcoin defends its technical footing, macro crosscurrents are intensifying. Oil has continued to react to developments around US-Russia diesel plans, and bond yields have eased from recent highs—conditions that investors typically monitor closely when assessing the appetite for assets like crypto.
Key takeaways
September CPI and PPI releases (Wednesday/Thursday) are the week’s biggest volatility catalyst, with markets currently pricing CPI at 3.7% year-on-year and PPI at 0.3% month-on-month.
Despite a dip below $90 earlier in the week, WTI crude moved back higher, trading around $91.50 per barrel on Monday.
Bitcoin’s weekly close preserved support near $82,500, helping it avoid a re-entry into a prior 2026 macro range between $60,000 and $80,000.
Traders are also watching Fed-rate odds closely: CME FedWatch shows an 18.8% chance of a rate hike on Oct. 28 and 70.6% odds of a 25 basis point increase in December.
US inflation data set the tone for risk assets
This week, traders are focused on September CPI and PPI ahead of the Federal Open Market Committee’s meeting on Oct. 28. CPI will be released on Wednesday, while PPI is scheduled for Thursday.
In August, CPI broadly matched expectations at 3.4% year-on-year. Current forecasts, however, point to a higher 3.7% reading for September, with markets linking the shift to disruptions tied to military activity in the Middle East and related fuel-price pressure. For PPI, expectations call for 0.3% month-on-month versus 0.2% in August.
Crypto, equities, and gold often respond positively when inflation surprises to the downside because it reduces the perceived likelihood of further tightening and supports flows into risk assets. Speaking to Reuters about gold and US yields in the current inflation spotlight, Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade, emphasized that a cooler CPI and PPI outcome would be the most direct near-term trigger by easing pressure on real yields and lowering the odds of additional Fed action.
CME FedWatch currently implies only an 18.8% probability of a rate hike on Oct. 28 from the existing 3.75%–4.00% range. The model assigns 70.6% odds to a 25 basis point move at the December meeting, underscoring how much the market’s forward path depends on what inflation prints show over the next few days.
Separately, Fed chair Kevin Warsh is scheduled to meet with Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, at an event in Bangkok on Friday.
Oil steadies after US-Russia diesel and ‘energy ceasefire’ news
Oil’s reaction has been more moderate than some traders might have expected following a US announcement related to diesel purchases. According to the article’s details, US President Donald Trump said the US would buy 300,000 tons of diesel from Russia, though the plan has faced growing bipartisan backlash. He also announced an “energy ceasefire” between Russia and Ukraine.
The political backdrop matters for crude because diesel and refined product flows influence pricing expectations and supply tightness narratives. On Monday, WTI crude was trading around $91.50 per barrel—up roughly 2% from the day’s low of $89.60 after earlier moves pushed it below $90.
Data cited from AAA showed the average diesel price around $6.26 per gallon, down from all-time highs of $6.52 seen on Sept. 22.
Reuters also highlighted that Russia’s reduced output capacity could limit the real-world impact of the diesel arrangement. PVM analyst Tamas Varga told Reuters that the deal’s effectiveness remains “questionable” because Moscow has partially lifted its ban on diesel exports. He noted that around 500,000 tonnes (approximately 3.7 million barrels) could be released to the international market—roughly equivalent to about one day of US consumption and around 13% of global demand.
Bitcoin holds $82,500 after weekly support retest
Bitcoin opened the week with technical support intact after Sunday’s weekly close. Trading around $83,700 on Bitstamp, the weekly candle settled with a 3.2% weekly decline for BTC/USD.
Crucially, the market preserved a key support level at $82,500 on weekly time frames, avoiding a possible return to Bitcoin’s prior 2026 macro range between $60,000 and $80,000. As previously reported by Cointelegraph, $82,500 remains a “line in the sand” for bulls, with traders treating it as the threshold that could determine whether the market can continue consolidating higher or slips back into the lower band.
Earlier this month, trader and analyst Rekt Capital said that a weekly close above $82,500 would represent a “successful” support retest. The implication, according to that view, is that investors could keep reaccumulating Bitcoin at current levels—similar to how the asset recovered after its 2022 bear market.
Other market participants are drawing analogies between crypto and equities. Trader and analyst Aksel Kibar compared Bitcoin’s situation to the S&P 500’s repeated retests of major levels since May, including around 7,300 points and then near 7,600 points. In an X post on Sunday, Kibar suggested Bitcoin may be undergoing a “hard retest” of support, with a bullish shift potentially following if those tests keep resolving successfully.
What to watch next as inflation data approaches
With CPI and PPI due within days of each other, Bitcoin’s ability to hold $82,500 may depend less on crypto-specific drivers and more on how inflation reshapes rate expectations. Traders should watch for whether a hotter-than-expected reading restores pressure on yields—or whether a softer print reinforces the case for easier financial conditions, allowing technical support to turn into a platform for the next leg higher.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Holds Key Support as US CPI Looms: 3 Key Weekly Signals on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kraken’s parent company, Payward, has received regulatory approval in the United Arab Emirates, clearing the way for the exchange’s local entity to begin offering spot and margin trading to clients in the country. The development comes after the Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) authorized Payward FZCO to provide virtual-asset services under Dubai’s framework.
Payward said that when Kraken launches in the UAE, customers will be able to trade crypto using UAE dirham (AED) pairs and withdraw funds directly in AED. The company is aiming to start “in the coming weeks,” following what it describes as full market approval.
Key takeaways
Payward FZCO, Kraken’s UAE entity, received a VARA virtual asset service provider (VASP) license dated Oct. 6.
Kraken’s UAE rollout will initially include spot and margin trading with AED-denominated pairs.
Clients will be able to make direct deposit withdrawals in UAE dirhams.
The approval expands access to services for retail, professional, and institutional investors under VARA oversight.
Dubai’s VARA registry shows a growing number of licensed virtual-asset providers compared with earlier in 2026.
VARA license clears the UAE path for Kraken
According to Payward’s announcement, the approval covers the company’s local entity, Payward FZCO. VARA’s public register indicates that the regulator issued the VASP license on Oct. 6, which authorizes Payward to offer management and investment services as well as broker-dealer services.
Payward said the license positions it to serve retail, professional, and institutional investors. It also marks a continuation of an earlier regulatory step: the company previously received preliminary approval in May 2026, signaling that the process had been underway before full authorization.
From an investor and market-structure perspective, full approval matters because it reduces uncertainty around whether regulated local operations can move beyond planning into actual client onboarding and trading. For traders, it also determines whether a platform can support local fiat flows and product access under the UAE’s specific rules.
What Kraken clients will get at launch in the UAE
At launch, Payward said Kraken’s UAE clients will be able to trade spot and margin products using AED-denominated pairs. The company also highlighted that users can perform deposit withdrawals directly in UAE dirhams, an element that can be crucial for liquidity and user experience—particularly for customers who prefer to transact in local fiat rather than route funds through external exchanges or conversions.
Payward did not outline additional product details in the provided information, but the focus on AED pairs and withdrawals suggests a rollout designed around enabling straightforward entry for UAE-based users, while keeping the initial feature set aligned with what VARA permitted under the local licensing structure.
VARA’s licensed market keeps expanding
VARA’s public register currently lists 58 licensed providers, up from 49 active companies in May 2026. That increase signals continued momentum in Dubai’s virtual-asset regulatory pipeline and the broader institutionalization of crypto-related offerings in the region.
For market participants, a rising number of licensed entities can mean more competition for liquidity, pricing, and institutional access—but it can also raise the bar for compliance and risk controls as firms operate under increasingly defined expectations. In that sense, Kraken’s UAE move is not just a single-company story; it reflects the ongoing build-out of regulated exchange infrastructure in a major global financial hub.
Competition grows as banks and trading platforms expand
Kraken’s UAE authorization comes alongside other moves by established financial firms to expand crypto access under relevant UAE regulations. In September, Standard Chartered launched spot Bitcoin and Ether trading for institutional clients in the UAE via its Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC) branch, regulated by the Dubai Financial Services Authority. Earlier, in August, trading platform Capital.com revealed plans to offer spot crypto services in the UAE after its affiliate, Capital Vault, secured a virtual-asset license from the country’s Capital Market Authority (CMA).
Taken together, these announcements point to a broader pattern: rather than crypto access being limited to specialist platforms, regulated banking and trading infrastructure is increasingly being built or adapted to support digital assets in different parts of the UAE’s regulatory landscape.
As Payward targets a UAE launch in the coming weeks, the next watchpoint for users and traders will be the exact timing of Kraken’s onboarding and how AED deposits and withdrawals are implemented operationally, alongside any phased rollout of trading features beyond spot and margin.
This article was originally published as Kraken’s Parent Clears Dubai Regulator for Dirham Trading Launch on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kraken’s parent company, Payward, has secured regulatory approval in Dubai to bring fully licensed crypto services to the United Arab Emirates. The Virtual Assets Regulatory Authority (VARA) authorized Payward FZCO to provide crypto services under its local licensing framework, clearing the way for a broader UAE rollout than previously available.
Payward said that at launch, Kraken clients in the UAE will be able to trade spot and margin products using UAE dirham (AED)-denominated pairs and withdraw funds directly in AED. The company is targeting a launch in the coming weeks.
Key takeaways
VARA approval: Payward FZCO received a VASP license on Oct. 6, allowing it to offer virtual asset services in Dubai.
Kraken features at launch: UAE customers will be able to access spot and margin trading in AED pairs and make direct AED withdrawals.
Retail and institutional coverage: Payward said the approval covers service provision to retail, professional, and institutional investors.
License and prior progress: The move follows Payward’s preliminary approval from VARA in May 2026.
VARA license clears the way for Payward FZCO
According to VARA’s public register, the regulator issued Payward FZCO a virtual asset service provider (VASP) license on Oct. 6. The registration indicates that the license enables Payward FZCO to provide management and investment services, as well as broker-dealer services.
Payward stated that the approval expands its ability to serve a range of clients, from retail users to professional and institutional investors. The company also positioned the authorization as the final step toward operating more directly under Dubai’s virtual asset regime.
The regulator’s grant builds on an earlier milestone: Payward had received preliminary approval in May 2026, which suggested VARA was already engaging the company before authorizing full operations.
What Kraken customers in the UAE will get
In its announcement, Payward said Kraken’s UAE offering at launch will include spot trading and margin trading using AED-denominated pairs. It also highlighted direct deposit withdrawals, allowing customers to withdraw in UAE dirham without relying on third-party routing.
For users, the shift matters because it aligns account funding and withdrawals with the local fiat currency—an element that can reduce friction for customers who prefer to interact with crypto markets in their domestic currency. For traders, the availability of AED-quoted pairs can also make it easier to manage exposure and risk, particularly when margin is involved.
Payward did not provide additional product details in the coverage, but it did state that the launch is expected “in the coming weeks,” placing emphasis on near-term market availability rather than a distant roadmap.
Dubai’s VASP licensing market keeps expanding
VARA’s public register lists 58 licensed providers at the time of reporting—up from 49 active companies in May 2026. That increase underscores how Dubai’s licensing pipeline has continued to broaden as firms work through the regulator’s requirements.
In practical terms, more licensed providers can translate into stronger competition for liquidity, custody and execution quality, and on-ramp/off-ramp services. It may also help customers find multiple regulated pathways to access crypto markets—especially when exchanges and trading platforms emphasize fiat rails and local currency withdrawals.
Payward’s approval also places Kraken’s UAE plans within a wider regulatory ecosystem: other firms have been pursuing approvals across different UAE frameworks, suggesting a market where compliance pathways are diversifying rather than converging into a single model.
Banks and trading platforms press ahead under UAE rules
The broader pace of regulated crypto expansion in the UAE is not limited to exchange licensing. Earlier coverage highlighted Standard Chartered’s move to offer spot Bitcoin and Ether trading for institutional clients in the UAE through its Dubai International Financial Centre branch, under regulation by the Dubai Financial Services Authority.
Separately, trading platform Capital.com has described plans to deliver spot crypto services to UAE clients after its affiliate, Capital Vault, secured a virtual-asset license from the country’s Capital Market Authority (CMA). The existence of approvals across both VARA and the CMA framework suggests that different types of financial intermediaries are finding routes to offer crypto exposure, depending on licensing scope.
While these developments involve distinct regulators and business models, they collectively reinforce the UAE’s approach of expanding crypto access under defined oversight—an approach that may influence how quickly institutions and larger counterparties consider integrating crypto trading into existing workflows.
As Payward targets a UAE launch in the coming weeks, investors and users should watch for the exact timing of Kraken’s go-live, the specific AED-quoted spot and margin pairs offered initially, and whether the product mix expands after the first phase. The remaining uncertainty is how quickly liquidity and client onboarding scale once trading begins under VARA’s full approval.
This article was originally published as Kraken’s Parent Clears Last Dubai Step to Launch Dirham Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hardware wallet maker Ledger has confirmed unauthorized hardware inside a customer’s cryptocurrency wallet during the ongoing investigation into reported thefts involving CryptoBilis, a reseller operating in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines.
CryptoBilis has suspended all hardware wallet sales, while Ledger has advised customers who bought devices through the reseller not to set up their wallets and has recommended fresh recovery phrases for existing users.
Ledger Confirms Hidden Hardware In Customer Wallet
Ledger confirmed discovering an unauthorized hardware implant in a customer’s cryptocurrency wallet during its investigation into the CryptoBilis thefts. The hardware wallet maker confirmed the discovery in a statement, adding that the device in question belonged to an affected customer. The company posted on X, saying:
“Situation Update: Ledger can confirm that one of the impacted users’ devices contained an unauthorized hardware implant. Ledger is reaching out to impacted users as part of the ongoing investigation. If you have information regarding the investigation, please reach out to Ledger’s bounty program: bounty@ledger.fr. As a measure of precaution, CryptoBilis confirmed it has ceased sales of all hardware wallet inventory until the investigation is concluded. Ledger is in active communication with CryptoBilis on next steps.”
However, Ledger has not disclosed the device model, how the unauthorized hardware was installed, or whether it transmitted any device information. Ledger also stated that its security team was investigating the incident and contacting affected users, but it did not confirm how many wallets were impacted.
Timeline Of Unauthorized Transactions
The first complaints of unauthorized transactions from customers who purchased Ledger wallets from CryptoBilis emerged on October 9. Ledger began an investigation following the complaints and asked CryptoBilis to suspend the sale of its devices. Ledger did not confirm any losses, but said it found no evidence that its internal systems, security infrastructure, or services were compromised.
“We have no indication that Ledger’s security infrastructure, systems, or services have been compromised.”
An independent report by The Block claimed that on-chain investigators had pegged losses at over $72 million, while another estimate put losses above $86 million. Former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpelès reported a suspicious Ledger Nano X device from Malaysia on October 9. Karpelès said he found an additional component hidden behind the display, adding that the device’s packaging appeared intact.
Tibane Labs published a technical analysis of affected wallets, describing a microcontroller, cellular communication hardware, and connections to the display’s internal data lines. Tibane Labs suggested that any device placed near the screen could capture information during wallet setup, potentially compromising the device’s recovery phrase.
CryptoBilis Suspends Hardware Wallet Sales
Meanwhile, CryptoBilis has temporarily suspended sales of its hardware wallet products, extending the pause beyond Ledger devices. The suspension will remain in effect until the investigation has concluded. Ledger is also in contact with CryptoBilis, and customers who purchased devices through the reseller have been advised not to set up their wallet.
The wallet maker has asked customers who have already configured their devices to move their crypto to a new hardware wallet and use a new recovery phrase. It has also asked users with information relevant to the investigation to contact security researchers at bounty@ledger.fr.
There are currently no suspects or arrests, and Ledger has not provided any information about when the investigation will conclude. Former CryptoBilis executives Arravind Prabu and Vimalatheethan said in a statement shared with Mark Karpelès and published by Tibane Labs that they had transferred operational control of the business following an ownership change earlier this year.
Millions May Have Been Lost On-Chain Researchers
On-chain analysts estimate that millions could have been lost from impacted wallets. Bitquery estimates that around $92.9 million was stolen from 311 wallets, exceeding earlier estimates between $72 million and $86 million. The firm attributed the difference to additional wallets and networks included in its analysis.
Bitquery’s analysis identified $70.5 million in assets transferred from Tron wallets and another $16.8 million in Bitcoin (BTC). The firm argued that transfer activity matched that of an attacker who already controlled multiple wallets, and it identified several, adding that $10 million in USDT was frozen in several addresses linked to the thefts. It also flagged several transactions involving crypto swaps and transfers to Tornado Cash.
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 Ledger Confirms Unauthorized Hardware In Affected Crypto Wallet Amid Ongoing Cryptobilis Investigation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB), the global body tasked with monitoring risks to the international financial system, has warned that stablecoins could pose stability threats that spill beyond crypto markets. In a letter sent to the Group of Twenty (G20) ahead of its finance ministers and central bank governors meeting, FSB Chair Andrew Bailey also urged policymakers to keep a close eye on the financial-sector risks tied to artificial intelligence.
Bailey said cross-border arrangements for stablecoin oversight and crisis response are still “immature or are not yet developed.” Separately, the FSB’s updated guidance on AI adoption for financial institutions focuses on governance, cybersecurity and third-party risk—areas the watchdog says are increasingly relevant as AI capabilities grow.
Key takeaways
FSB Chair Andrew Bailey warned that cross-border stablecoin supervision and crisis-management frameworks are not yet fully developed.
In the FSB’s 2025 review, only 11 of 28 surveyed jurisdictions had finalized stablecoin regulatory frameworks.
The FSB cautioned that stablecoin “runs” could trigger forced sales of reserve assets and deposit withdrawals in traditional markets.
FSB AI practices emphasize organizational governance, cybersecurity and third-party risks, including threats enabled by advanced cyberattacks.
The letter was submitted to G20 officials ahead of their Thursday meeting and pairs stablecoin concerns with renewed AI-risk guidance.
Stablecoin oversight gaps remain a central concern
In the letter published Monday, Bailey highlighted a regulatory mismatch across countries: mechanisms to supervise stablecoins across borders and coordinate crisis responses are not sufficiently mature, according to the FSB. That matters because stablecoin issuers, reserve assets, and intermediaries often operate across multiple jurisdictions—creating complex legal and operational questions during periods of stress.
The FSB’s 2025 review found that stablecoin regulation is progressing unevenly. It reported that 11 of 28 surveyed jurisdictions had finalized stablecoin regulatory frameworks. While that suggests some movement, it also underscores that many major markets remain in earlier stages—potentially leaving gaps in how redemption requests, reserve transparency expectations, and failure-response processes are handled.
Bailey’s message to the G20 therefore has a policy focus: countries should support the FSB’s “newly finalized practices” for responsible AI adoption in finance, while also addressing stablecoin oversight shortfalls that could worsen during market disruptions.
Why stablecoin stress could spill into traditional markets
The FSB paired its letter with an accompanying report warning that stablecoin instability could transmit into conventional financial systems. A key channel, the watchdog said, is the risk of “runs” on stablecoins—events where redemption demand rises quickly.
In that scenario, the FSB warned that reserve assets could be sold under pressure to meet redemptions, potentially affecting broader markets. It also pointed to the possibility of bank deposit withdrawals, where stress around stablecoin holders or issuers coincides with shifts in where users park cash.
The report also drew attention to a specific structural issue for multi-issuer stablecoins: where redemption demand concentrates on one issuer while reserves are held in different jurisdictions. That mismatch can complicate timing, liquidity management, and legal recourse, which becomes more acute when market conditions deteriorate.
These stability concerns are consistent with earlier warnings from European officials. In 2025, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde warned about redemption-related risks tied to stablecoins issued both inside and outside the European Union, as noted in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph (see here).
AI risk guidance targets governance, cyber threats and third parties
Alongside stablecoin questions, the FSB letter emphasized that financial institutions need strong safeguards for AI use. The FSB’s AI practices cover organization-wide governance, AI development and deployment, cybersecurity controls, and risks related to third-party service providers.
Bailey also warned that sophisticated cyber threats enabled by AI could weaken the resilience of critical financial institutions and market infrastructure. That risk framing matters for investors and market participants because it shifts the focus from AI as a general technology trend to AI as a factor that can magnify operational vulnerabilities—particularly in systems where downtime, compromise, or disruptions can rapidly become financial-system risks.
Regulators have raised similar concerns about AI’s potential to worsen volatility and cyber exposure. In July, European central bankers warned that advances in AI could amplify market volatility and cybersecurity threats, as covered by Cointelegraph (see here).
The FSB’s AI work also follows a clear policy progression. Earlier, the board proposed “12 practices” for the responsible adoption of AI in June before finalizing its guidance for an upcoming G20 discussion, according to the FSB’s announcement (see FSB consultation).
What investors and builders should watch next
The FSB’s dual message—stablecoin supervision remains fragmented, while AI introduces new operational and cyber risks—suggests policymakers are increasingly treating crypto and AI as intertwined sources of financial stability exposure rather than as separate regulatory tracks. With the G20 meeting approaching and the FSB guidance finalized, market participants should watch for follow-on implementation steps, especially around cross-border coordination for stablecoin crisis management and the practical adoption of AI safety practices in financial firms.
This article was originally published as Global Regulators Warn of Stablecoin and AI Risks Before G20 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

DATA Network, previously known as Story, plans to retire its standalone blockchain and shift its AI training data protocol to Sui. The transition is supported by a $30 million investment from the Sui Foundation, the projects said in a Monday announcement.
As part of the move, DATA Foundation’s Trace registry—launched in June—will be integrated into the Sui ecosystem. Walrus, a decentralized storage layer built for Sui, is set to become the default storage component for applications operated by DATA Foundation and its partners.
Key takeaways
DATA Network is moving from an independent chain to Sui for its AI training data protocol.
Trace, launched in June, will join the Sui ecosystem as part of the transition.
Walrus is expected to become the default storage layer for DATA Foundation–operated applications.
The projects cited cost reasons, including avoiding the need to rebuild core infrastructure already provided by Sui and Walrus.
DATA Network will keep operating its current chain until the migration is completed, with a detailed plan to follow.
From Story’s original focus to Sui-based “full stack”
The decision comes after Story Foundation rebranded to DATA Foundation in June and reframed the project’s goals. Instead of focusing on intellectual property licensing alone, the organization said it is building what it describes as a “full stack for AI training data,” supported by Trace for tracking how training data originates and what rights it carries.
Trace was introduced to provide visibility into the source and licensing position of training data. According to a DATA Foundation spokesperson speaking to Cointelegraph, the registry expanded quickly—reaching more than 270 million registrations in roughly four months. That scale, the representative argued, reduced the rationale for maintaining an independent blockchain dedicated to a single use case.
Why retire a dedicated chain
DATA Foundation’s spokesperson said the core issue was economics and duplication. Operating a dedicated blockchain, they explained, requires funding for validators, network security, and supporting infrastructure—costs that grow as usage expands.
“Building storage and access control at that scale ourselves would have meant rebuilding what Sui already has in Walrus and Seal,” the spokesperson said.
In other words, the shift is positioned less as a strategic downgrade and more as an architectural consolidation. DATA Foundation is effectively moving responsibilities—such as storage and access control—onto components already built for the Sui ecosystem, rather than recreating those layers on its own chain.
The spokesperson also emphasized that the $30 million Sui Foundation investment was not the deciding driver by itself. When asked how much it influenced the move, they said the investment was a separate part of the broader partnership.
Trace and Walrus to become the new ecosystem building blocks
Under the planned transition, Trace will be integrated into Sui. While Trace is currently tied to the DATA Network’s approach, the announcement indicates it will “join the Sui ecosystem,” aligning the registry’s infrastructure with Sui’s network.
At the same time, Walrus—described as a decentralized storage platform within the Sui ecosystem—will become the default storage layer for applications operated by DATA Foundation and its partners. The change matters because AI training data workflows generally depend on storing large volumes of data and maintaining reliable access controls. By adopting Walrus, DATA Foundation is betting that storage and access requirements can be met using Sui-native infrastructure.
For users and developers, this could simplify integration. Instead of building storage and access systems around DATA Network’s standalone infrastructure, application operators will be able to align with Sui and Walrus for the underlying storage layer.
Migration plan still to come
DATA Network says it will keep its existing blockchain running until the upgrade is complete. The partners also said a detailed timeline and a holder transition plan will be published before the migration begins.
That matters for token holders and counterparties because chain retirements typically raise practical questions—how assets are handled, how permissions are migrated, and what happens to users who interact with the old system during the transition window. The projects have indicated those details will be addressed prior to the upgrade, but the announcement does not include the timeline itself.
As of now, the operational direction is clear: Trace is moving into Sui, Walrus will be positioned as the default storage layer for DATA Foundation–related applications, and the independent blockchain will be retired once the new setup is ready. The remaining unknown is the execution—specifically, how the upgrade will be sequenced and how holders will transition.
For investors, builders, and data rights stakeholders, the next key items to watch are the published upgrade timeline, the holder transition plan, and any technical milestones confirming how Trace registrations and storage/access controls will function on Sui once the migration is underway.
This article was originally published as Data Network Plans Sui Migration, Phases Out Its Own Blockchain on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) has warned that both artificial intelligence (AI) and stablecoins pose emerging risks to global financial stability, urging the G20 to strengthen cross-border oversight and to adopt new safeguards for responsible AI use in finance.
In a letter published Monday, FSB Chair Andrew Bailey said that international mechanisms for stablecoin supervision and crisis management are still “immature or are not yet developed.” The message was sent to G20 finance ministers and central bank governors ahead of their Thursday meeting.
Key takeaways
The FSB says cross-border stablecoin oversight and crisis response frameworks are not yet sufficiently mature.
FSB analysis highlights how stablecoin redemption stress could spill into traditional markets via reserve asset liquidations and bank deposit withdrawals.
For AI, the FSB stresses governance, cybersecurity, and third-party risk management as priorities for financial institutions.
Bailey’s letter links the need for responsible AI practices to broader resilience concerns for market infrastructure and critical institutions.
Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction progress on stablecoin rules remains uneven, with the FSB previously finding only some have finalized frameworks.
Why stablecoin regulation remains a cross-border problem
Bailey’s warning focused on the practical gap between domestic regulation and the real-world mechanics of stablecoins operating across borders. According to the FSB’s 2025 review, only 11 out of 28 surveyed jurisdictions had finalized stablecoin regulatory frameworks at that time.
That uneven regulatory landscape matters because stablecoins can rapidly move between markets. If redemption pressure builds simultaneously across regions, the entity coordinating response—whether for liquidity backstops, monitoring, or crisis communications—becomes less clear when oversight rules do not align.
Bailey’s letter asks G20 members to support the FSB’s newly finalized practices for responsible AI adoption in financial services, while also flagging stablecoin-related concerns that regulators have repeatedly raised. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde warned in 2025 about redemption risks involving stablecoins issued inside and outside the European Union.
How stablecoin “runs” could feed into traditional markets
In an accompanying report, the FSB argues that stablecoin runs may not stay contained within crypto markets. The watchdog points to a chain reaction: forced sales of reserve assets and withdrawals of bank deposits could transmit stress into more traditional parts of the financial system.
The FSB also singled out risks tied to multi-issuer stablecoins. In such structures, redemption demand could concentrate on a particular issuer even when relevant reserves are held in different jurisdictions—creating operational and regulatory friction precisely when speed is most important.
For investors and market participants, the key issue is not only whether stablecoins can maintain their peg, but how quickly and effectively liquidity can be provided and reserves managed during periods of heightened redemption activity. The FSB’s framing suggests regulators are increasingly looking at stablecoin arrangements as part of broader liquidity and settlement dynamics, not as isolated instruments.
FSB’s AI guidance: governance, cybersecurity, and third-party risk
Beyond stablecoins, the FSB’s finalized AI practices for the financial sector focus on organizational governance, the development and deployment of AI systems, cybersecurity, and third-party service risks.
Bailey warned that increasingly sophisticated cyber threats enabled by AI could undermine the resilience of critical financial institutions and market infrastructure. The concern is that AI may lower the cost of complex attacks or accelerate targeting and exploitation, putting pressure on controls that financial entities rely on to protect systems and maintain operational continuity.
Regulatory attention to these themes is not limited to the FSB. Cointelegraph previously reported that European central bankers warned in July that advances in AI could amplify market volatility and cybersecurity threats. And in June, the FSB consulted on sound practices for the responsible adoption of AI before moving to finalize its guidance for the G20 conversation.
While stablecoins are often discussed in terms of payment utility and crypto adoption, the FSB’s approach connects the discussion to institutional resilience. That shift matters for firms choosing how to deploy AI internally: compliance will likely be measured not only by model performance, but by whether governance and risk controls are robust enough to handle both operational failure and adversarial pressures.
What to watch next as the G20 agenda moves
The immediate next step is political and regulatory: the G20 will consider the FSB’s recommendations just as stablecoin regulation continues to evolve unevenly across countries and AI adoption accelerates inside financial institutions. Readers should look for signs that cross-border stablecoin oversight and crisis-management practices gain clearer international commitments, and for details on how the finalized AI guidance will translate into expectations for governance, cybersecurity capabilities, and third-party risk management across banks and market infrastructure.
This article was originally published as FSB Warns of Stablecoin and AI Risks Ahead of G20 Meeting on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

French lawmakers have moved to tighten oversight of self-custodied cryptocurrency holdings, backing an amendment that would force individuals to report crypto assets worth at least 100,000 euros or risk penalties.
The proposal—numbered I-CF821—was adopted by the National Assembly’s Finance Committee on Friday. It targets crypto held outside regulated crypto-asset service providers, including assets stored in personal wallets, and would insert new reporting obligations into France’s general tax code.
Key takeaways
The amendment would require taxpayers to disclose self-custodied crypto holdings equal to or above 100,000 euros.
Reporting would be based on the value of holdings as of December 31.
Non-compliance could trigger fines up to 10,000 euros.
The measure was adopted by the Finance Committee, but it still faces parliamentary hurdles after parts of the broader 2027 budget bill were rejected.
France’s crypto policy push aligns with a wider effort to reduce perceived gaps between realized crypto gains and what is declared to tax authorities.
What the amendment would require
Under the amendment adopted by the Finance Committee, holders of crypto assets that are not held via a crypto-asset service provider would have to report their holdings once they reach the threshold of 100,000 euros. The scope explicitly includes cryptocurrencies held in individuals’ own custody, such as in personal wallets.
The amendment sponsors said it is meant to address tax evasion concerns. To support the policy, they pointed to a parliamentary inquiry into the taxation of wealthy individuals, which reportedly found that crypto capital gains totaled 3.5 billion euros in 2021, while only 400 million euros in crypto holdings were declared to tax authorities for that year.
In legal terms, the text would add a provision to France’s general tax code. It would require disclosure based on how much the assets are worth as of Dec. 31, and it would set a penalty framework for failures to declare—citing fines of up to 10,000 euros.
Who is behind the proposal, and how it fits the committee’s broader approach
The amendment was introduced by Charles de Courson, Jean-Pierre Bataille, and Michel Castellani, three members of France’s Liberties, Independents, Overseas and Territories (LIOT) parliamentary group.
It was one of five crypto-related amendments adopted by the Finance Committee last week. Earlier, Cointelegraph reported on other proposals under discussion in connection with France’s budgeting process, including an exit tax on cryptocurrency holdings above 800,000 euros when taxpayers move abroad, as well as changes that would end tax deferrals on conversions into fiat-backed stablecoins.
Legislative momentum is mixed after budget bill setback
Although the Finance Committee approved the crypto amendments on Friday, the broader legislative picture is not straightforward. According to reporting from French public broadcaster LCP, lawmakers rejected the revenue section of the 2027 budget bill by 31 votes to 3 after the committee’s adoption.
Lawmakers are now scheduled to begin debating the revenue section of the budget in the National Assembly on Tuesday, using the government’s original draft as the starting point. That sequence matters because the crypto amendments would need to be submitted again and approved during the parliamentary proceedings in order to become part of the final legislation, as noted by French tech publication Clubic.
In other words, adoption by a key committee is an important step, but it does not guarantee the proposal will survive the full legislative process—particularly after the rejection of part of the underlying bill.
Why self-custody is the center of this policy push
Much of the debate around crypto taxation and compliance tends to focus on the transparency (or lack of it) offered by intermediaries. The amendment’s emphasis on assets held outside crypto-asset service providers suggests lawmakers see a compliance gap when individuals retain control directly through personal wallets.
If the reporting requirement advances, it would shift the burden toward individuals to disclose holdings to tax authorities, using a valuation date fixed at Dec. 31. That design also implies that taxpayers would have to be prepared to calculate the euro value of their crypto holdings at year-end, then file declarations when holdings cross the 100,000-euro threshold.
Investors and traders with significant exposure to multiple assets in self-custody may therefore need to pay closer attention to record-keeping and valuation methodology, especially because the policy includes financial penalties for failure to declare.
For now, the key question for readers is whether the amendment clears the remaining parliamentary stages after the budget bill’s revenue section was rejected by the committee. The next developments to watch are the Tuesday debate steps in the National Assembly and whether lawmakers reintroduce and successfully incorporate the crypto reporting language into the final 2027 tax framework.
This article was originally published as France Moves Ahead With Mandatory Crypto Wallet Reporting for €100K+ on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.