Crypto Breaking

Bitcoin holders are seeing a return to overall profitability, according to on-chain analytics, but the data also points to a familiar risk: the market may be setting up for another “false breakout” before a sustained recovery is confirmed.
CryptoQuant data cited by contributor thechessONCHAIN shows the share of Bitcoin supply currently trading above its approximate acquisition price—known as Supply in Profit—has climbed to 57.5% as of July 22. That compares with 46.2% on June 30, the platform’s reference point for a 2026 low. While that improvement is significant, CryptoQuant’s framework suggests investors should look for confirmation beyond a single rebound.
Key takeaways
Supply in Profit has risen to 57.5% (July 22), up from 46.2% (June 30), indicating more coins are moving in profit.
CryptoQuant says prior bear-market endings have required supply strength plus long-term holder SOPR staying in a healthy range.
LTH-SOPR remains a key checkpoint: CryptoQuant’s conditions include a 30-day SMA staying above 1.
CryptoQuant highlights that the cycle has already produced one failed attempt at improvement earlier in the year.
Supply in Profit rebounds toward 60%
On-chain analytics platforms track investor cost basis implicitly by looking at the conditions under which coins were last active. In this case, CryptoQuant’s Supply in Profit (%) measures the portion of Bitcoin worth more than its acquisition price. When that percentage rises, it generally implies that a larger share of the supply is back to being held at unrealized gains.
According to CryptoQuant, the metric climbed above the 50% mark in July. In the same summary, thechessONCHAIN pinpointed the move to 57.5% by July 22, following a low of 46.2% on June 30. The speed of the recovery matters: shifting from the mid-40s to the upper-50s less than a month later suggests the market’s repricing has been sharp.
That said, CryptoQuant’s contributor stresses that a sustained bull-market recovery typically requires these improvements to hold—especially when viewed together with long-term holder behavior.
Why long-term holder SOPR is still the gatekeeper
As Supply in Profit improves, CryptoQuant also expects other indicators tied to realized pressure to follow. One such measure is long-term holder SOPR (LTH-SOPR), which compares the sale price of long-dormant coins to their last transaction price.
In CryptoQuant’s framework, long-term holders are entities whose Bitcoin has remained dormant for at least six months. SOPR interprets whether LTH coins are moving at profit on-chain: values above 1 indicate LTH coins are typically being spent at higher prices than their prior transaction, while values below 1 suggest movement at a loss.
CryptoQuant argues that bear markets have not fully ended in previous cycles unless both of the following conditions align:
The 30-day simple moving average (SMA) of LTH-SOPR should remain above 1.
Total Supply in Profit should stay above 64%.
This combination matters because Supply in Profit can rise simply as market prices recover, but it doesn’t always guarantee that long-term holders are structurally comfortable spending into strength. If LTH-SOPR stalls or falls back below 1, it can suggest lingering caution or recurring distribution behavior from older holdings.
Potential for another “failed attempt”
CryptoQuant’s analysis includes a warning based on historical pattern recognition: the current cycle already produced a rebound that looked convincing at the time, only to roll back later.
As described by thechessONCHAIN, from April 28 to June 1 the 30-day SMA of LTH-SOPR held above 1.0 for about 35 days, while Supply in Profit reached 67%. Yet both metrics ultimately reversed, implying the market’s improvement didn’t hold long enough to qualify as a confirmed transition.
Since then, the platform notes that the 30-day SMA of LTH-SOPR has been below 1 for more than 50 days. That detail is important for investors because it means the recent Supply in Profit rebound has not yet been matched by the same level of long-term holder spending profitability implied by CryptoQuant’s “recovery” requirements.
The immediate takeaway is not that the market is bearish, but that the on-chain evidence is incomplete. A rise toward 60% in Supply in Profit can set the stage for healthier conditions, but CryptoQuant’s criteria suggest traders should be cautious about interpreting the move as confirmation of a sustained bull phase.
Broader market signals: bottom timing vs. demand uncertainty
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Bitcoin supply in loss crossing above or past certain thresholds has historically been used to estimate where bear-market bottoms might be forming. That aligns with CryptoQuant’s perspective on why profitability metrics matter: supply transitions from loss to profit tend to coincide with turning-point behavior in prior cycles.
In that earlier context, Cointelegraph described how the supply-in-loss threshold historically preceded a “countdown” toward cycle bottoms. While that doesn’t guarantee a repeat this time, it helps explain why the current move in Supply in Profit is drawing attention.
However, demand signals remain mixed in the surrounding market narrative. Cointelegraph previously pointed to weak spot-market interest in the near term, juxtaposed with a rebound in institutional activity via Bitcoin exchange-traded products. In particular, Cointelegraph referenced weak spot-market interest alongside improving institutional BTC allocation as ETF flows turned into a short-term inflow streak.
For investors, the asymmetry matters: even when profitability metrics improve quickly, insufficient fresh demand can make breakouts fragile. Conversely, if institutional allocation continues while long-term holder SOPR stabilizes above 1, the combination could be more supportive of a durable recovery.
What to watch next
CryptoQuant’s framework implies the next checkpoint is whether LTH-SOPR keeps its momentum—specifically whether the 30-day SMA remains above 1 and whether Supply in Profit can move beyond and hold above 64%. Until those conditions align, Bitcoin’s shift back into aggregate profitability may be best viewed as a promising step that still needs confirmation.
This article was originally published as BTC Supply in Profit Reaches 60%, Analysts Flag Possible Retracement on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple has introduced Ripple Mint, a new institutional platform aimed at simplifying how businesses interact with its US dollar-pegged stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD). The company positions the service as a unified gateway for key stablecoin operations—minting, redeeming, and ongoing management—either through a web interface or via direct API integrations.
Ripple Mint was announced on Thursday as Ripple continues to emphasize enterprise workflows. For investors and builders, the release matters because stablecoins are increasingly being assessed not just on liquidity or issuance, but on how easily companies can integrate them into payments, trading, and treasury systems.
Key takeaways
Ripple Mint is designed to let institutions access RLUSD through a single platform for minting, redeeming, and management.
The platform supports both manual workflows via a web interface and automated workflows through API integrations.
Ripple Mint’s launch follows RLUSD’s December 2024 debut, which has been oriented toward institutional use cases while also drawing retail attention.
RLUSD has grown into one of the larger US dollar stablecoins by market cap, reaching the top 10 less than a year after launch, according to Cointelegraph.
CoinGecko data cited by Cointelegraph shows RLUSD briefly surpassed $1.8 billion in market cap on June 1, 2026.
What Ripple Mint adds for institutions
Ripple describes Ripple Mint as a unified platform intended to provide institutions with “flexible access” to digital dollars through the workflows that best fit their internal operations. In practical terms, that means organizations can manage RLUSD in ways tailored to how they already handle financial processes.
Ripple’s announcement also underlines a dual approach: organizations that prefer a more manual setup can use the platform through a web interface, while those looking to automate stablecoin operations can connect through application programming interfaces. This distinction is important for institutions because stablecoin adoption often hinges on whether issuance and redemption can plug into existing systems without creating operational bottlenecks.
Ripple noted that Ripple Mint is built to support both manual activity and automated integrations as stablecoins increasingly move into roles involving payments, trading, and treasury.
How RLUSD’s positioning has evolved
RLUSD launched in December 2024 with an institutional focus, although Cointelegraph previously reported that it also found traction among retail users. That broader adoption profile is part of the context for Ripple Mint: stablecoin issuers and infrastructure providers are competing on the full lifecycle—acquisition, operational handling, and controls—not only on token availability.
Cointelegraph reported that RLUSD grew into one of the larger US dollar-pegged stablecoins by market capitalization, reaching the top 10 in less than a year after launch. The token’s scale helps explain why a platform like Ripple Mint is being emphasized now: as stablecoins attract more diverse holders, the demand for structured, institution-friendly tooling typically increases.
Market cap momentum around the launch
Ripple Mint arrives during a period where RLUSD has shown notable market-cap momentum. Cointelegraph linked CoinGecko data indicating that RLUSD recorded an all-time high in market capitalization on June 1, 2026, when it surpassed $1.8 billion.
Cointelegraph also stated that around the Ripple Mint launch, RLUSD’s market cap briefly moved from roughly $1.54 billion to about $1.64 billion before settling near $1.59 billion. At the time of publication, the token was ranked as the ninth-largest USD-pegged stablecoin by market cap, per CoinGecko’s data view of the category.
For readers, it’s worth separating two things: market capitalization performance reflects overall demand and supply dynamics, while institutional tooling reflects an issuer’s push to reduce friction for business use. Ripple Mint speaks directly to the latter, but it can also influence the former over time if it improves integration speed and lowers operational complexity for institutions considering stablecoin deployments.
Why API-first stablecoin access matters now
Stablecoin adoption has repeatedly stalled at the integration layer. Even when an asset meets the requirements for settlement or treasury management, institutions often need to connect minting/redemption and operational controls into internal platforms such as ERP systems, compliance tooling, and treasury workflows. Ripple Mint’s emphasis on both web access and API integration targets exactly that problem.
As Cointelegraph noted earlier coverage of stablecoin payment and infrastructure efforts across the industry, the market is moving toward more structured stablecoin plumbing—payments acceptance, liquidity handling, and treasury automation. Ripple Mint fits into that direction by focusing on the operational functions institutions typically care about most: managing supply, executing lifecycle events, and doing so in a way that aligns with both human-in-the-loop processes and fully automated execution.
There is still an open question for investors: how quickly institutions will adopt the new platform and whether Ripple Mint becomes a meaningful driver of RLUSD usage beyond existing channels. The token’s positioning by market cap suggests strong interest, but adoption of infrastructure often plays out over quarters rather than days.
Going forward, market participants should watch for evidence that Ripple Mint is accelerating institutional onboarding—such as increased RLUSD volumes tied to enterprise activity, broader mentions of RLUSD integrations, and any further product expansions that deepen automation and controls for regulated workflows.
This article was originally published as Ripple Rolls Out Mint to Widen Institutional Access to RLUSD on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy, BlackRock, Coinbase, and six other members have launched the Bitcoin Security Consortium to support developers and research into the Bitcoin Network’s long-term security and post-quantum cryptography.
The companies have pledged $15 million over three years to the initiative in support of security research.
The Bitcoin Security Consortium
Nine companies, including Strategy, BlackRock, Coinbase, Galaxy, Fidelity Digital Assets, Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, Block, and Blockstream, have launched the Bitcoin Security Consortium, an initiative to support the long-term security of the Bitcoin network. The consortium brings together Bitcoin holders, cryptocurrency exchanges, custodians, infrastructure providers, payment companies, and asset managers. The founding members have collectively pledged $15 million to support developers working on security and post-quantum cryptography. Day-to-day activities will be coordinated by Mike Schmidt, the Executive Director of Brink, a non-profit organization that funds Bitcoin open-source developers.
Focus On Post-Quantum Cryptography
The initiative’s first focus will be post-quantum cryptography. It noted that while the risk from quantum computers is years away, preparing Bitcoin for these risks is a key priority for the community. Strategy CEO Phong Le stated that Strategy and other Bitcoin holders are hugely incentivized to ensure Bitcoin’s security.
“As long-term holders, we have every incentive to see Bitcoin remain secure for generations. Funding the people who do this work, and helping inform the conversation around it, is a natural way for us to contribute.”
The consortium will publish, update, and maintain information about Bitcoin’s security and continue to support and fund the network’s developer community. It will also help spread awareness about the Bitcoin network and its security.
According to Strategy’s statement, the consortium will not participate in developing or governing the Bitcoin protocol, take positions on protocol changes, or speak on behalf of developers. The responsibility for the network’s development will remain with the Bitcoin community. Robert Mitchnick, BlackRock’s global head of digital assets, stated,
“Bitcoin Core developers do incredibly important work, and we’re pleased that our firm and the others in this group will now be making significant additional funding available to support Bitcoin’s long-term security needs.”
Post-Quantum Preparations: An Industry Priority
The launch comes amid growing efforts by governments and institutions to counter the quantum computing threat. Galaxy announced its Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative this week and committed $5 million towards developer grants to support post-quantum cryptographic tools. It also announced a research program and an advisory council focusing on Bitcoin-specific quantum risks.
US President Donald Trump signed two executive orders, EO 14409 and EO 1441, focusing on quantum computing capabilities and pushing for full post-quantum cryptography migration for high-value federal assets.
The Consortium and other initiatives by Galaxy and the US government indicate that stakeholders acknowledge the threat to Bitcoin by quantum computing.
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 Strategy, BlackRock Launch Bitcoin Security Consortium To Counter Post-Quantum Threat on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The European Union is tightening its crypto-related sanctions against Belarus by extending a prohibition on certain crypto roles and ownership interests to a broader range of service providers under the EU’s MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets) framework.
According to the EU’s Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847, adopted on Thursday, Belarusian nationals and residents will be barred from owning, controlling, or managing EU-based crypto exchange and other MiCA-regulated crypto service entities starting Aug. 25. The decision also sets an earlier entry into force date of July 24 for the underlying legal instrument.
Key takeaways
The EU sanctions change is set by Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847 and will apply to additional crypto-asset activities from Aug. 25.
Belarusian nationals and residents cannot own or control EU entities providing MiCA-defined crypto services, nor hold positions on their governing bodies.
The expansion builds on a prior restriction that focused only on wallet, account, and custody-type services.
The update arrives shortly after MiCA’s transition period ended on July 1, intensifying compliance pressure on crypto firms operating in the EU.
It fits into a wider EU strategy to disrupt crypto-related pathways described as supporting Russia’s sanctions evasion.
What the EU sanctions amendment changes
The EU decision, published under Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847, amends the bloc’s sanctions framework aimed at Belarus. While an earlier restriction applied to companies providing crypto wallet, account, or custody services, the new measure broadens the scope to cover “any other crypto-asset services” that fall within MiCA’s regulatory categories.
From Aug. 25, the prohibition will extend to EU-based entities offering these services if the entity is subject to MiCA’s defined service classifications. Under the amendment, Belarusian nationals and residents are barred from:
Owning or controlling such an EU-based entity; and
Holding positions on its governing body.
MiCA’s service categories, as set out in the MiCA regulation, include activities such as operating trading platforms, exchanging crypto assets, executing and transmitting client orders, placing crypto assets, providing transfers, and offering investment advice or portfolio management. The restriction is therefore not limited to custody or retail wallet services, but can reach a wider set of operational roles involved in crypto market infrastructure and client-facing financial functions.
The decision itself indicates July 24 as the entry into force date for the overall legal act, while the expanded crypto provision specifically starts on Aug. 25.
MiCA transition ends, enforcement pressure rises
The sanctions expansion comes in close proximity to a major regulatory milestone: the end of MiCA’s transition period on July 1. Cointelegraph previously reported that when the MiCA transition concluded, crypto companies lacking proper authorization were ordered to wind down or face enforcement actions (coverage referenced in the original material). That shift matters because, in practice, sanctions aimed at the ownership and governance of MiCA-regulated firms can directly affect corporate structures, board composition, and controlling interests of operators seeking to comply with EU authorization rules.
With the transition window closed, the EU’s approach becomes less about “temporary” arrangements and more about formal regulatory alignment—while simultaneously tightening sanctions rules that constrain who can sit in ownership and management positions within regulated crypto businesses.
Part of a wider EU effort targeting Russia-linked crypto pathways
Beyond Belarus, the EU has been escalating efforts tied to Russia-related sanctions evasion through financial networks, including crypto. As described in the referenced original material, on Thursday the EU—within its 21st sanctions package against Russia—extended a transaction ban to 14 crypto-related service platforms outside the bloc. The package also introduced a mechanism intended to allow the EU to prohibit dealings with any foreign crypto provider used by Russia to evade sanctions.
The decision further builds on an earlier June 11 proposal that targeted 11 crypto platforms, according to the original coverage cited. Taken together, these steps signal that the EU is using sanctions as both a direct tool (blocking specific providers or transactions) and an indirect governance lever (restricting who may control or manage certain regulated entities).
Broader sanctions friction: UK action and disputes around platform-linked allegations
The EU’s tightening measures also follow similar steps in other jurisdictions. Earlier, the UK reportedly sanctioned Huobi Global S.A., the Panamanian company behind HTX, on May 26, alleging support for Russia-linked financial networks involving sanctioned entities A7 and Garantex—an account reflected in the original material. HTX denied wrongdoing and, in commentary shared with Cointelegraph in the referenced coverage, stated that regulatory compliance remains a top priority and that it adheres to the regulatory frameworks of the jurisdictions where it operates.
While the EU’s new Belarus-focused amendment does not depend on those UK allegations, the parallel underscores a recurring pattern in enforcement discussions: regulators and sanctions bodies are increasingly focused on the operational role crypto platforms and related service providers can play in cross-border capital movement—whether via direct compliance frameworks or via allegations of linkage to sanctioned networks.
What EU-regulated crypto firms should watch next
For operators inside the EU, the key risk is not only whether a service provider has a MiCA authorization, but also whether its ownership and governance structure could run afoul of sanctions rules as expanded. Compliance teams should monitor the July 24 entry into force and the Aug. 25 start date carefully, and review board and controlling-interest arrangements to ensure they match both MiCA obligations and the evolving sanctions prohibitions.
This article was originally published as EU Expands Belarus Crypto Ownership Ban to All Service Providers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX is facing a new US class action lawsuit that accuses the crypto derivatives exchange of engineering forced liquidations in order to take traders’ Bitcoin collateral. The complaint, filed in federal court in New York on Thursday by BKX Services Inc. and David Namdar, alleges losses of more than 622 BTC across the plaintiffs caused by liquidation events they say were improperly triggered and timed.
The dispute also arrives at a sensitive moment for BitMEX. The exchange has announced it will shut down after a strategic review by its owner, HDR Global Trading, with services scheduled to end in September—an end date that could affect how remaining users approach disputed positions and collateral claims.
Key takeaways
The plaintiffs claim BitMEX’s liquidation system profited from forced liquidations even when, according to their allegations, collateral should have remained sufficient.
They accuse an internal trading desk of having access to private customer information and of being able to continue trading during events that allegedly prevented ordinary users from acting.
The lawsuit seeks the return of allegedly withheld Bitcoin plus compensatory and punitive damages, targeting US customers who bought BTC swap products from July 23, 2018.
The filing references earlier BitMEX-related class action allegations that were dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2025.
The complaint was filed the same day BitMEX publicly announced its plan to close services on Sept. 23.
Allegations tied to forced liquidations and collateral handling
According to the complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the plaintiffs’ core allegation is that BitMEX’s system automatically liquidated positions in circumstances they say were not justified by the value of their collateral. The filing asserts that BitMEX enabled leverage of up to 100 times users’ collateral and then carried out liquidations while the plaintiffs allege collateral remained worth substantially more than the losses that were ultimately imposed.
In the plaintiffs’ account, the exchange’s insurance fund absorbed remaining Bitcoin after forced liquidations, which they say allowed BitMEX to benefit from liquidation events. The complaint argues that this mechanism effectively converted customer positions into profits for the exchange.
Central to the fraud claim is the allegation that BitMEX’s internal operations could continue while regular customers could not. The plaintiffs state that an internal trading desk had access to private customer information and that it could trade during “server freezes” that allegedly prevented ordinary users from accessing or closing their positions. The complaint frames this as a deliberate setup rather than a malfunction, alleging that the exchange deliberately developed a system that profited from liquidations.
What the plaintiffs want from the court
The lawsuit seeks the return of the Bitcoin that the plaintiffs say was withheld through forced liquidations, alongside both compensatory and punitive damages. The proposed class action would cover US customers who purchased BTC swap products in transactions dating back to July 23, 2018.
In terms of the specific amounts alleged, the complaint states that BKX Services Inc. claims losses of at least 305.81 BTC and Namdar alleges losses exceeding 316.85 BTC, for a combined total of 622.66 BTC.
Before this new filing, the dispute also has a history in the courts. The complaint points to a previous class action brought in 2020 by Brett Messieh and other traders, which asserted similar conduct and brought claims under the Commodity Exchange Act. That earlier case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2025, leaving room for new claims that mirror the allegations.
Case timing as BitMEX prepares to close
The new lawsuit was filed on the same day BitMEX announced it would shut down after 11 years of operation. BitMEX said it would stop providing services on Sept. 23 following a strategic review by HDR Global Trading, the exchange’s owner.
As part of the wind-down, BitMEX has stopped accepting new registrations and plans to block users from opening new positions starting on Aug. 26. The shutdown news was followed by market turmoil around BitMEX’s BMEX utility token, with Cointelegraph reporting a roughly 90% plunge after the closure announcement.
That timeline could raise practical questions for affected traders. With services scheduled to end in September and new position openings paused before then, users who believe their collateral was unjustly seized may have to focus quickly on legal remedies and any administrative steps available from the exchange—assuming any process exists while the platform winds down.
What happens next for traders and the exchange
For traders, the most immediate implication is that the legal fight may center on whether BitMEX’s liquidation behavior can be explained as ordinary risk management—or whether, as the plaintiffs allege, internal systems and access allowed outcomes that ordinary customers could not avoid. The claim that regular users were unable to close positions during “server freezes,” contrasted with the alleged ability of an internal desk to continue operating, is likely to become a focal point as the case progresses.
For BitMEX, the company’s exposure is heightened by the lawsuit’s attempt to frame the conduct as intentional fraud and by the scale of the alleged losses. BitMEX did not respond to Cointelegraph’s request for comment before publication of the report on the filing.
In the wider market, the case adds to the scrutiny that has long surrounded crypto derivatives exchanges—particularly when customer liquidations intersect with operational failures or internal market-making processes. As BitMEX approaches its planned shutdown, affected users may find themselves weighing whether to pursue claims now, wait for court outcomes, or rely on any remaining pathways the exchange may provide before services end.
Readers should watch for the court’s initial handling of the complaint—especially any motions tied to whether the class can be certified—and for how the allegations will be tested against technical records of liquidation and access during the periods in question. With the shutdown already set in motion, the pace of legal developments may matter as much as the merits of the case for the traders seeking their Bitcoin back.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Faces 623 BTC Lawsuit on Shutdown Announcement Day on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX has been hit with a new US class action lawsuit accusing the crypto derivatives exchange of fraudulently arranging liquidations to keep traders’ Bitcoin collateral. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Thursday, targets BKX Services Inc. and David Namdar as plaintiffs and is directed at BitMEX operator HDR Global Trading, according to the court filing.
The lawsuit comes at a sensitive moment for the platform: BitMEX has announced it will shut down after a strategic review by its owner, HDR Global Trading, with services scheduled to stop on Sept. 23. BitMEX also plans to prevent users from opening new positions starting Aug. 26.
Key takeaways
The plaintiffs allege they collectively lost 622.66 BTC due to forced liquidations tied to BitMEX’s automated liquidation mechanics.
BKX Services claims losses of at least 305.81 BTC, while David Namdar alleges losses exceeding 316.85 BTC, per the lawsuit.
The filing asserts an internal trading operation could allegedly continue trading during server freezes that supposedly blocked ordinary users from managing positions.
Customers are seeking return of the allegedly withheld Bitcoin, along with compensatory and punitive damages.
The case follows a prior class action in 2020 that was dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2025, and it is being filed as BitMEX prepares to close.
Allegations centered on liquidation design and collateral seizure
According to the complaint, BitMEX permitted customers to use leverage of up to 100 times their collateral and then automatically liquidated positions at prices the plaintiffs argue were set while collateral remained allegedly sufficient to cover the losses. The plaintiffs claim that collateral was still worth twice the losses they say were ultimately incurred during liquidations.
In the plaintiffs’ account, remaining BTC after liquidation was directed into BitMEX’s insurance fund. They argue that this structure allowed the exchange to profit from forced liquidations rather than limit losses strictly to what was necessary under liquidation rules.
Central to the fraud allegations is the plaintiffs’ contention that BitMEX “deliberately developed a system that profited from the liquidations.” The complaint further asserts that an internal desk had access to private customer information and could keep trading while ordinary users allegedly could not access or close positions during server freezes.
Cointelegraph contacted BitMEX for comment but did not receive a response before publication.
Who is suing, and what relief is being sought
The proposed class action seeks the return of allegedly withheld Bitcoin and requests compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs aim to represent US customers who purchased BTC swap products in transactions dating back to July 23, 2018, according to the filing.
The complaint identifies the alleged losses by plaintiff: BKX Services Inc. is said to have lost at least 305.81 BTC, while David Namdar alleges losses exceeding 316.85 BTC. The lawsuit states that the combined total losses alleged across the named plaintiffs amount to 622.66 BTC.
Notably, the new case explicitly frames the dispute around how collateral was handled after liquidations and how access to trading tools may have differed between internal participants and regular customers during alleged service disruptions.
Background: earlier BitMEX class action and a renewed push
While the new filing revives longstanding scrutiny of BitMEX’s internal trading operations and liquidation engine, it is not the first time traders have attempted to pursue legal claims. The complaint references a class action filed in 2020 by Brett Messieh and other traders alleging similar conduct.
That earlier case, which included claims under the Commodity Exchange Act, was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on June 30, 2025. The renewed lawsuit therefore raises the question of how plaintiffs plan to refine or reframe their allegations after that dismissal and what evidence they believe supports the renewed claims.
For BitMEX users, the shift matters because earlier proceedings ended without a final resolution on the merits. A refiled suit suggests plaintiffs believe they can proceed more effectively—whether by adjusting legal theories, assembling additional factual support, or both.
Filed as BitMEX moves toward shutdown
The lawsuit was filed the same day BitMEX announced it would close after 11 years in operation. In its shutdown plan, BitMEX said it would stop providing services on Sept. 23, following a strategic review by HDR Global Trading.
BitMEX has already stopped accepting new registrations. The exchange also plans to prevent users from opening new positions starting on Aug. 26, according to the announcement. The timing is likely to be closely watched by affected traders and counterparties, as the platform’s winding down could affect how quickly claims can be assessed and how remaining customer-related matters are handled operationally.
BitMEX’s closure announcement was also followed by sharp market moves in the exchange’s BMEX utility token, with Cointelegraph reporting a roughly 90% plunge after the shutdown news. While token volatility does not determine the legal merits of the allegations, it underscores the broader uncertainty and reputational pressure that frequently accompany shutdowns and litigation.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that BitMEX had already begun delisting a large number of trading pairs and derivatives in July amid its exchange shutdown process.
What to watch next
As the case heads through initial US court steps, the key unknowns will be how the allegations are supported procedurally and factually, and whether BitMEX responds with challenges to the plaintiffs’ theory of fraud and the causal link between alleged liquidation behavior and the claimed Bitcoin losses. With BitMEX preparing to exit the market by Sept. 23, plaintiffs and users will also watch how the shutdown affects evidence access, user documentation, and the practical timeline for any potential recovery.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Receives 623 BTC Lawsuit Filing the Day It Announces Shutdown on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A federal court is set to review whether a $5 million settlement between the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Gemini should be reversed, even as Gemini co-founder Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have directed substantial Bitcoin donations to political groups supporting President Donald Trump. The latest development comes from a new disclosure by the MAGA Inc. Super PAC.
In a Federal Election Commission (FEC) filing dated Monday, MAGA Inc. Super PAC reported receiving two Bitcoin contributions exceeding $5 million each on June 19—totaling $10 million in BTC—sent by the Winklevoss-run Gemini Trust Company. The donation timing overlaps with the period when the CFTC and Gemini are seeking to revisit the earlier enforcement outcome in federal court.
Key takeaways
MAGA Inc. Super PAC’s July FEC report says Gemini Trust Company sent two Bitcoin contributions of more than $5 million each on June 19.
The payments were made about three weeks after the CFTC and Gemini jointly filed a motion to reverse a January 2025 settlement.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig previously characterized the original enforcement as politically targeted under the prior administration.
A CFTC spokesperson told Cointelegraph in June that, if the court grants relief, the $5 million penalty would not be returned to Gemini.
Separately, lawmakers have pushed the Trump White House to nominate additional CFTC commissioners as the agency prepares to oversee broader crypto-market rules.
Bitcoin donations disclosed amid court fight over Gemini settlement
According to the MAGA Inc. Super PAC report filed with the FEC, Gemini Trust Company made two separate transfers of Bitcoin on June 19. Each contribution was valued at more than $5 million, bringing the disclosed total to $10 million.
The filing indicates the super PAC can use the funds for independent expenditures supporting Trump. That matters because super PAC spending can influence elections indirectly—by funding advertising and other political activities—rather than making direct coordination with candidates.
The June 19 contributions came roughly three weeks after the CFTC and Gemini jointly moved in federal court to revisit a settlement dated to January 2025. In that earlier case, the CFTC alleged Gemini made false or misleading statements. The current joint filing seeks a reversal of that settlement in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
When the CFTC and Gemini filed their joint motion, Cointelegraph reported that CFTC Chair Michael Selig argued at the time that the enforcement during the Biden administration “politically targeted” the Winklevosses. The broader implication is that the dispute is not only about legal interpretation of statements, but also about whether the CFTC’s enforcement posture should be treated as politically motivated.
What’s known about the CFTC-Gemini motion—and what remains unanswered
While the joint motion was filed in May, Cointelegraph reported that no decision has yet been posted to the public docket. That means the court’s view on whether the settlement should be reversed is still pending.
Cointelegraph also said it reached out to the CFTC and Gemini’s counsel, Avi Perry, for comment on the $10 million contribution but did not receive an immediate response. A CFTC spokesperson, however, provided context in June about the penalty outcome: both sides “agreed that the $5 million penalty will not be returned to Gemini” if the court grants the reversal.
This point is important for market watchers because it separates two possible outcomes. Even if the settlement is overturned, the agency’s position (as relayed by a spokesperson) suggests the immediate financial consequence may not change in Gemini’s favor. In other words, the court fight may affect precedent or regulatory record more than it affects the transfer of funds already paid.
The dispute is occurring as crypto regulation in the US continues to evolve—especially around how regulators determine what constitutes improper statements and how they translate market-facing communications into enforcement actions.
Winklevoss political support spans multiple BTC donations
The MAGA Inc. disclosure is the latest entry in a broader pattern of political involvement by the Winklevoss brothers and Gemini leadership.
Cointelegraph reported that both brothers donated $1 million each to Trump’s 2024 election campaign and supported the then-candidate through social media posts. After Trump took office in January 2025, the twins attended a stablecoin payments bill signing ceremony for the GENIUS Act. They also supported American Bitcoin, a crypto mining venture associated with Trump’s sons, and contributed $21 million in Bitcoin to the Digital Freedom Fund PAC, according to earlier coverage.
These actions do not establish any legal relationship to the CFTC-Gemini case on their own. But they do intensify political attention on the timing and dynamics between regulatory enforcement, court strategy, and high-profile political backing—particularly when lawmakers are already debating the degree of independence regulators should maintain.
Concerns from lawmakers and a CFTC shaped by a lone chair
Criticism of the CFTC’s joint approach to reversal has come from members of Congress. Cointelegraph reported that Senator Elizabeth Warren, in a June letter to CFTC Chair Selig, described the joint motion for reversal and other factors as “concerning signs” of a commission influenced by political pressures and aligned interests, rather than governed strictly by rule of law and a duty to protect investors and market integrity.
At the same time, the CFTC’s internal composition remains a central policy issue. Cointelegraph noted that Selig remains the sole commissioner leading the agency, with no additional nominations announced as of Thursday. The CFTC is usually governed by a bipartisan set of five commissioners, so a one-person board structure can shape both enforcement priorities and how quickly the agency can adopt new regulatory approaches.
Many lawmakers have been urging the Trump administration to nominate additional commissioners. That pressure coincides with congressional work on crypto market structure legislation, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, which—per Cointelegraph’s reporting—is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority in regulating and overseeing digital assets.
With the White House not yet announcing nominations, Selig effectively directs the agency’s agenda for now. That matters to investors and market participants because the CFTC’s leadership and regulatory posture can influence which enforcement theories are pursued, how compliance expectations are interpreted, and what rulemaking momentum looks like in practice.
Separately, Cointelegraph reported that as of June 30, MAGA Inc. had received more than $397 million. That figure underscores the scale of political fundraising activity around the election cycle, even as individual disclosures like the June 19 BTC transfers keep drawing scrutiny to the intersection of crypto wealth, regulation, and politics.
As the court considers whether the Gemini settlement should be reversed, the key watchpoints are whether the docket produces a ruling soon, how the CFTC frames the reversal in legal terms if relief is granted, and whether additional CFTC commissioner nominations are announced—developments that could determine how aggressively the agency’s crypto oversight evolves next.
This article was originally published as Gemini Transfers $10M Bitcoin to Trump PAC After CFTC Motion on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin may be nearing a more stable trading base, but at least one prominent asset manager says investors shouldn’t pin the next major upside cycle on the same drivers that defined earlier booms. In a new write-up, Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan argues that the next bull market will be powered by deeper TradFi-to-crypto integration—specifically by platforms that can bring crypto’s 24/7 trading features into mainstream financial workflows.
Hougan points to Hyperliquid’s widening footprint and Robinhood’s push into crypto infrastructure as two concrete examples. In parallel, Bitwise data cited by Hougan and a separate X post from Bitwise research head Andre Dragosch suggest that “apparent demand” for BTC may be starting to improve after a prolonged period of weakness.
Key takeaways
Matt Hougan (Bitwise) says the next crypto bull market is more likely to be driven by TradFi integrations than by purely crypto-native catalysts.
He highlights Hyperliquid’s growing use cases across conventional assets and product expansion as a sign of broader convergence.
Hougan sees Robinhood-related infrastructure as another bridge that could help “lift” a wide range of crypto assets.
Bitwise’s framework for “apparent demand” indicates BTC demand may be “re-accelerating,” even as spot demand remains a recurring concern.
Why Bitwise thinks the next cycle starts in TradFi
Hougan framed his positioning thesis around the idea that the market’s next sustained expansion will come from crypto benefits becoming easier to access for traditional investors. In a blog post published Wednesday, he asked how to begin positioning for what he expects to be a new bull market and answered with a pair of entities he believes represent convergence from opposite directions.
“By looking at two entities that are leading this convergence from opposite sides: Hyperliquid and Robinhood.”
The underlying premise is that crypto’s structure—particularly constant markets and instant settlement—creates advantages that traditional finance has historically lacked. For Hougan, the key question is not whether Bitcoin will bottom, but whether new demand channels will be able to scale once mainstream firms and familiar interfaces adopt crypto trading patterns.
On Hyperliquid, Hougan emphasized that the platform’s activity is not confined to crypto pairs. According to his description, nearly half of Hyperliquid’s volume is tied to “conventional assets like oil, silver, and the S&P 500,” and the venue is reportedly expanding into spot commodities, prediction markets, and options.
That mix matters because it signals an appetite for trading experiences that look and feel familiar while still operating with crypto-native mechanics. If those flows continue to grow, Hougan argues that the effect should reach beyond isolated tokens and instead support the broader sector.
The “rising tide” thesis for majors and crypto equities
Hougan also ties his outlook to the competitive pressure from traditional financial players entering the crypto ecosystem through infrastructure and distribution. He referenced Robinhood’s “Chain layer-2 network” as an example of how legacy finance might become more directly connected to crypto market dynamics.
“I suspect the coming bull market will be big enough to lift most of the sector.”
From there, he lays out a portfolio-style approach: he says he remains bullish on major assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, while also expressing optimism about crypto equities. The common thread in his argument is that broadening participation tends to support liquidity across the market, not just the most narrative-driven names.
Hougan’s positioning aligns with his broader tone entering 2026. Earlier this year, he argued that the end of the “crypto winter” could arrive sooner than expected, and he maintained that view while markets continued to work through weakness.
BTC: “apparent demand” shows a possible reversal
While Hougan’s thesis focuses on what could power the next cycle, the day-to-day question for traders is whether Bitcoin’s demand backdrop is stabilizing. Cointelegraph previously reported that many market participants were looking for bottoming signals, but also suggested the bear phase could still have months left depending on how spot demand evolves.
In that context, the spotlight has remained on the question of whether spot buying is returning—particularly on shorter time frames where demand can appear fragile even when longer-term conditions are improving.
However, Bitwise is pointing to a different metric that may be shifting. According to an X post on Thursday by Andre Dragosch, Bitwise’s European head of research, BTC “apparent demand” is “re-accelerating.” Dragosch’s post frames the change as a meaningful departure from the prior slowdown.
What “apparent demand” means: it measures the difference between newly mined BTC and the supply that has remained inactive for at least one year. In effect, it provides a way to infer whether recently produced coins are being absorbed rather than circulating from dormant holdings.
That distinction matters for investors because a sustained improvement in apparent demand can indicate that the market is finding new buyers—even if spot volumes are not yet fully convincing across every trading window. Still, the metric is not identical to spot demand, and it won’t resolve instantly the question of where a bottom will form on price alone.
What to watch next as TradFi integration and demand signals collide
Hougan’s argument implies that even if Bitcoin’s near-term chart shows gradual stabilization, the bigger inflection point will likely depend on how quickly mainstream access and crypto trading mechanics begin to reinforce each other. Hyperliquid’s ability to attract volume tied to conventional assets and its expansion into additional derivatives-style products could provide one path, while Robinhood-related ecosystem development is another.
At the same time, BTC investors appear to be watching for whether the “re-accelerating” apparent demand signal persists beyond a short burst. If apparent demand continues to improve while broader spot demand recovers, the market may be closer to a durable transition than “bottom” headlines alone would suggest.
This article was originally published as Bitwise Exec: Hyperliquid and Robinhood Could Boost Bitcoin’s Next Bull Run on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kazakhstan has approved a new regulatory framework for large-scale “strategic” crypto mining that ties access to electricity quotas at regulated tariffs to participation in a state-backed digital asset reserve. The rules were approved on July 18, according to Zakon.kz, which cited Government Resolution No. 638 published in Kazakhstan’s PRG.kz legal database.
Under the framework, designated miners receive electricity access in exchange for transferring part of the cryptocurrency they mine to Astana Hub, a government-supported technology cluster. The Kremlin of mining policy is likely to be felt first by industrial operators looking to scale, as the new model sets relatively high technical and infrastructure thresholds before a company can qualify.
Key takeaways
Kazakhstan’s strategic digital mining rules link regulated electricity tariff access to transfers of mined crypto assets to Astana Hub.
Applicants must meet infrastructure requirements, including a mining data center capacity of at least 150 MW and hardware with minimum 150 TH/s per unit.
The framework introduces additional operational and compliance conditions, including staffing, repair capabilities, internet service contracts, and being current on tax and other payments.
The government resolution is set to enter into force on Aug. 1, 2026.
Why Kazakhstan’s “strategic” model matters
Kazakhstan is widely recognized as one of the world’s largest Bitcoin mining jurisdictions. In the April 2025 Cambridge Digital Mining Industry Report, it ranked fifth globally by Bitcoin mining activity, according to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance. The approval of this new framework suggests the country wants to keep mining activity moving while steering it into a more formal state-linked structure.
Investors and operators should pay attention to how the policy could change the economics of mining. Instead of purely commercial arrangements for power and site operations, “strategic” miners will gain access to electricity quotas at regulated tariffs, but in return they must participate in a reserve mechanism tied to Astana Hub. That trade-off effectively adds a new policy-driven cost component—sharing mined assets—while potentially improving power affordability for eligible participants.
Eligibility requirements: a high bar for applicants
The rules define strategic digital mining as an arrangement that grants miners electricity quotas at regulated tariffs, contingent on transferring a portion of mined assets to Astana Hub. Zakon.kz reports that applicants must satisfy strict prerequisites before they can be recognized as strategic miners.
Among the cited requirements, mining companies must:
Own a digital mining data center with at least 150 megawatts (MW) of capacity.
Use mining hardware where each unit has a minimum computing power of 150 terahashes per second (TH/s).
Have qualified technical staff and repair facilities located at their data centers.
Maintain multiple internet service contracts.
Be current on required tax and other payments.
In addition, the rules place the operational burden on firms to demonstrate readiness beyond just having equipment and power. For large-scale operators, this may reinforce an industry shift toward purpose-built facilities and contracted power and connectivity. For smaller miners, it could mean the “strategic” pathway is out of reach even if electricity costs are attractive.
Electricity access traded for a mined-asset reserve
Once approved, strategic miners must enter into agreements connected to Astana Hub’s autonomous cluster fund and purchase electricity from eligible power-generating companies under the new framework. The policy is designed to function like a barter between subsidized or regulated electricity access and transfers into a reserve mechanism.
However, the precise transfer percentage is not stated in the publicly described summary of the rules. Local media cited a 10% transfer rate, but the article notes that Cointelegraph could not independently verify that figure. For market participants, that uncertainty is significant: even small changes in the transfer share can materially affect cash flow and treasury planning for mining firms.
The reserve mechanism also reflects a broader policy direction: Kazakhstan appears to be building state-linked digital asset infrastructure rather than leaving mining incentives entirely to market forces. This approach could influence how miners structure operations, including whether they treat mined reserves as liquid holdings or as assets bound by policy transfer obligations.
A wider state-backed crypto push
The strategic mining framework arrives as Kazakhstan expands the role of state-backed structures in the crypto sector. In September 2025, Kazakhstan launched the Alem Crypto Fund, described in earlier coverage as a state-backed vehicle focused on long-term digital asset reserves, with its first investment involving BNB through a partnership with Binance Kazakhstan (as reported by Cointelegraph).
Kazakhstan has also been moving toward regulated crypto-related financial services. In July 2026, Alatau City Bank and Binance Kazakhstan launched Crypto Pay, a service allowing users to make crypto payments via QR codes and point-of-sale terminals integrated into the bank’s acquiring network, according to the bank’s announcement on its website.
These steps—mining policy, a reserve fund, and payment infrastructure—point to a coordinated national approach: rather than treating crypto as a purely private activity, Kazakhstan is assembling mechanisms that funnel participation into government-supported platforms and compliance-oriented channels.
As the strategic mining rules transition from approval to implementation, the most important details to watch are how the reserve transfer works in practice—especially the actual share miners must contribute—and how the eligibility requirements will be enforced during the run-up to the Aug. 1, 2026 effective date. For miners, the next question is whether the promise of regulated electricity quotas will outweigh the added reserve transfer obligation for companies that qualify.
This article was originally published as Kazakhstan Greenlights Crypto Mining Rules Linked to National Reserves on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ether’s valuation picture is looking more compelling relative to Bitcoin, but on-chain data suggests the market may not yet have reached a decisive long-term bottom. CryptoQuant’s latest weekly analysis points to ETH trading below a key “realized value” benchmark while several other indicators are improving—just not all at the historical turning points seen in prior cycle lows.
In the report, CryptoQuant says ETH is approximately 17% under its realized price, an on-chain metric that reflects the average cost basis of ETH held across the network. That realized value is currently estimated at roughly $2,300, a level that historically has aligned with periods of broad undervaluation and longer-term bottoms. Still, CryptoQuant cautions that only part of its indicator set has reached the extremes typical of fully confirmed cycle transitions.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant estimates ETH is trading about 17% below its realized price (realized value around $2,300), a historically undervalued regime.
Two of CryptoQuant’s five “bottoming” indicators are at historical reversal levels, while the remaining three are improving but not yet at prior cycle lows.
ETH relative to BTC shows signs of stabilization: ETH/BTC spot volume has shifted into a range historically seen near market bottoms.
Exchange inflows appear to be cooling while ETF holdings have started to recover after months of weakness, according to CryptoQuant’s account.
Ethereum’s circulating supply continues to tighten as staking participation rises, with 34% of supply reported as staked by Staking Rewards.
ETH under realized value, but the bottom isn’t “confirmed”
The core of CryptoQuant’s valuation argument is that ETH is still trading at a discount to realized price. When market participants transact at prices below the average on-chain acquisition cost, it can indicate capitulation-like behavior—especially if sustained. CryptoQuant says this condition previously marked periods of undervaluation and longer-term basing for ETH.
However, the company frames its message carefully: even if the discount is present, a complete bottoming process typically requires multiple on-chain signals to align. In its weekly report, CryptoQuant notes that only two of five bottoming indicators have reached historical reversal levels. The rest are moving in the right direction, but they have not yet reached the extreme readings seen at previous cycle lows.
For traders and investors, the practical takeaway is that ETH’s valuation is improving relative to its own on-chain history, but the market’s “cycle bottom” may still be forming rather than fully established. That distinction matters because the typical pattern of post-bottom recovery can be uneven—particularly when some indicators have flipped while others remain mid-transition.
Shifts in ETH/BTC: cheaper relative to Bitcoin and calmer trading activity
CryptoQuant also highlights ETH’s improving relative posture versus Bitcoin. The analytics firm points to several metrics that, together, suggest Ethereum may be shedding an overvalued phase relative to BTC.
Among the factors cited: CryptoQuant says the ETH market value-to-realized value (MVRV) ratio has retreated from extreme overvaluation. It also reports that exchange inflows have declined and that ETF holdings have started to recover after months of weakness. On top of that, the firm notes that ETH/BTC spot trading volumes have fallen into a range historically associated with market bottoms.
CryptoQuant’s historical framing is important because it implies investors should consider not only where prices are, but how activity is behaving across markets. A shift toward lower relative volume can indicate reduced speculative churn—often a feature of consolidation during basing phases. At the same time, falling volume can also mean liquidity and volatility conditions are changing, which may affect how quickly price trends develop once sentiment improves.
CryptoQuant data also suggests the ETH/BTC MVRV ratio has fallen sharply from nearly 0.95 in August 2025 to around 0.65, signaling that Ethereum has become materially cheaper relative to Bitcoin. That degree of compression is consistent with a market moving away from the kinds of relative richness that can precede drawdowns.
Supply dynamics: exchange outflows, rising staking, and corporate accumulation
Beyond valuation, CryptoQuant’s broader on-chain lens aligns with a tightening supply narrative forming in Ethereum. A key component is exchange behavior. During the week beginning June 29, withdrawal activity on Binance—described in earlier coverage as the largest crypto exchange by trading volume—rose to its highest level in more than three years, according to reporting from Cointelegraph.
While exchange outflows are often interpreted as a sign that holders are moving assets toward self-custody or staking rather than leaving them on exchanges for potential sale, CryptoQuant’s kind of framework typically treats those flows as suggestive rather than determinative. Outflows can coincide with long-term conviction, but they can also reflect operational movements or transfers that do not automatically translate into net accumulation.
On the staking front, Ethereum’s supply appears to be increasingly locked away from immediate trading. Staking Rewards data referenced in the coverage indicates that 34% of Ethereum’s circulating supply is now staked, a record level. This matters because higher staking participation reduces the liquid portion of ETH available for frequent exchange-level trading—potentially easing short-term selling pressure if demand holds up.
Corporate accumulation also factors into the supply story. Cointelegraph previously reported that Tom Lee’s Bitmine Immersion Technologies, identified as the largest corporate ETH holder, increased its holdings by 325,000 ETH over a one-month period even while sitting on large unrealized losses. The company reportedly has a target to hold 5% of the second-biggest crypto.
Taken together, these elements—less ETH sitting on exchanges, more ETH being staked, and large holders adding—create an environment where upward price moves may face less immediate sell pressure than they would in a purely liquidation-driven setup. Still, supply tightness does not guarantee a bottom, which is why CryptoQuant’s multi-indicator approach remains central to its caution.
What’s happening in price action—and why macro optimism could matter
CryptoQuant’s on-chain caution arrives while price action has shown moments of strength. The report notes Ether briefly climbed above $1,950 this week, while Bitcoin topped $67,000, supported by optimism around the US CLARITY Act. The same coverage also references market analysts pointing to the possibility of capital rotating out of richly valued AI stocks and back into crypto—an argument that, if it materializes, could broaden risk appetite and support ETH alongside BTC.
Even so, the on-chain message is not “wait for confirmation” in a vague sense—it is more specific: only two of the five bottoming indicators have reached historical reversal levels, meaning key extremes still appear to be missing. For market participants, that implies monitoring should focus on whether the remaining metrics continue to accelerate toward prior-cycle low patterns rather than treating the current valuation discount as the whole story.
Going forward, the main question is whether the unconfirmed indicators catch up—especially those tied to market behavior such as inflows, valuation extremes, and volume conditions—while staking and exchange outflows keep tightening ETH’s liquid supply. If those trends persist, CryptoQuant’s “improving but not finished” framework could shift toward a more definitive bottoming profile; if they fade, the market may remain in a drawn-out consolidation instead of entering a clean rebound.
This article was originally published as CryptoQuant: Ethereum Approaches BTC Market Lows, Key Signals Not Confirmed on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX’s decision to shut down is reigniting debate about how mature the crypto derivatives market has become—and whether the industry’s next chapter will be defined by consolidation. Once a dominant venue for Bitcoin perpetuals and other leveraged products, the exchange is now being cited by analysts as a case study in how mid-sized centralized platforms struggle as liquidity concentrates and regulatory burdens rise.
While BitMEX helped popularize perpetual swaps that later became a baseline feature of digital asset derivatives trading, its momentum weakened as early as 2021. CryptoQuant data cited in earlier reporting shows BitMEX’s daily Bitcoin futures volume fell starting around May 2021 and never returned to its 2020 daily peak, which ranged between $1 billion and $5 billion.
Key takeaways
BitMEX will end trading on Sept. 23 following a strategic review by its parent company, HDR Global Trading.
CryptoQuant data indicates BitMEX’s daily Bitcoin futures volume declined from around May 2021 and did not rebound to 2020 levels.
Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights growing concentration of liquidity among the largest exchanges, reducing viable scale for smaller and mid-tier venues.
The shutdown comes as regulated competitors increasingly offer perpetual-style products in major jurisdictions, including the US and UK.
From derivatives pioneer to market shrinkage
BitMEX was founded in 2014 by Arthur Hayes, Ben Delo, and Samuel Reed and became closely associated with offshore perpetual derivatives at a time when comparable products were scarce through regulated channels. But the exchange’s decline has been visible in both trading dynamics and market-share rankings.
Cointelegraph previously noted that BitMEX’s utility token, BMEX, triggered a sharp sell-off after the shutdown plan was announced. The token fell by more than 90% as traders reacted to the prospect of reduced utility and a shrinking platform footprint.
Meanwhile, market-share snapshots from CoinGecko suggest BitMEX’s position weakened over time. CoinGecko ranked BitMEX ninth among derivatives exchanges in August 2023, with a 0.9% share of trading volume. By 2025, CoinGecko’s research indicated BitMEX was no longer listed among the firm’s top 10 perpetual exchanges.
Those changes are happening even as the broader perpetual market expanded. CoinGecko’s annual reporting cited in the coverage states that aggregate annual perpetual trading volume across leading platforms rose 47.4% to a record $86.2 trillion.
Why consolidation pressure is intensifying
Legal and restructuring adviser Roshan Dharia, speaking to Cointelegraph, argued that BitMEX’s closure reflects pressures concentrated on mid-sized centralized exchanges rather than a short-lived downturn. In his view, liquidity has increasingly clustered among the largest players, leaving smaller venues with slimmer margins and limited pathways to scale.
The top five platforms now control an estimated 80% of global spot volume, leaving mid-tier and regional exchanges with shrinking margins and no viable path to scale… The headwinds are structural, not cyclical.
Dharia’s framing matters for traders and builders because market structure influences liquidity quality, execution costs, and product resilience. When trading activity consolidates, smaller exchanges may struggle to attract enough depth—particularly in highly competitive perpetual markets where traders prioritize low spreads and reliable order books.
In parallel, compliance costs continue to rise. While the coverage does not quantify those costs, the broader argument is that regulatory obligations can become increasingly difficult to absorb for firms that lack the balance-sheet scale of industry leaders.
Regulated venues move closer to “perpetual” reality
A key backdrop to BitMEX’s decline is that regulated competitors have expanded access to perpetual-style products. BitMEX rose by delivering derivatives offshore years before licensed venues offered comparable functionality. Today, that gap appears to be narrowing as major platforms operate under US and UK frameworks.
In the United States, Cointelegraph coverage referenced developments involving the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Coinbase launched perpetual-style futures on a CFTC-regulated exchange in May after receiving no-action relief from the regulator. The CFTC also approved Bitcoin perpetual futures for Kalshi. In June, Kraken followed with CFTC-regulated perpetual futures for eligible US traders via its recently acquired Bitnomial exchange.
The shift is not limited to the US. The same reporting notes that Coinbase obtained a UK investment services license, which it framed as a step toward expanding its derivatives business ahead of the country’s new crypto regulatory regime.
For market participants, this matters because regulatory pathways can affect institutional adoption, custody and compliance workflows, and the ease with which traditional finance players can interact with crypto markets. As regulated venues offer similar exposure formats, some traders may prefer locations where compliance processes are clearer.
What happens to users and liquidity when an exchange shuts
BitMEX’s end date—trading scheduled to stop on Sept. 23—puts a timetable around a process that can affect open positions, hedging workflows, and the availability of familiar liquidity venues. The coverage does not detail specific settlement mechanics for outstanding positions, but the shutdown itself highlights operational risk that leveraged-trading users implicitly assume when choosing venues.
The broader lesson is that derivatives markets are especially sensitive to venue continuity. Liquidity concentration already changes how quickly traders can enter or exit positions; a sudden withdrawal of a longstanding venue can add friction, particularly in niche contracts or where traders have built execution habits around a specific platform.
Looking ahead, traders and investors should watch whether liquidity meaningfully migrates to regulated competitors or remains fragmented across remaining venues, and how quickly order-book depth adjusts for the most common perpetual instruments. In parallel, industry participants will be watching for further consolidation signals—especially from exchanges that face similar scale and compliance challenges.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Exit Signals Faster Crypto Consolidation, Analysts Say on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped below the $65,000 mark on Thursday, touching a three-day low around $64,799 on Bitstamp, as broader risk markets weakened amid renewed US-Iran tensions. The drop came alongside a selloff in US equities, a rally in oil, and rising expectations that US interest rates could stay higher for longer.
With traders split over whether recent relief will extend—or fade—attention has turned to nearby technical levels, including a widely watched moving-average area that could influence the next leg of momentum.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin fell to three-day lows near $64,799 on Bitstamp as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq slid on Thursday.
US-Iran escalation fears fed into risk-off sentiment, lifting oil prices and pushing yields higher.
Coinciding with the selloff, CME FedWatch odds shifted toward a potential 0.25% hike by the upcoming FOMC, a typical headwind for crypto.
Traders are watching moving-average support and the $68,000 resistance zone for clues on whether BTC can attempt a bigger breakout.
Geopolitics hits risk assets, and BTC follows
According to TradingView data cited in the report, BTC/USD reached three-day lows of $64,799 on Bitstamp. The move lower was part of a broader pattern: when equities and other high-beta assets struggle, crypto often struggles too.
US market pressure intensified after President Donald Trump warned that he would blame Iran for recent Houthi strikes on Saudi commercial vessels. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said he was “very disappointed” in the Houthis and referenced attacks on US ships from 2025.
By the close of New York trading, the S&P 500 had fallen 1.2%, while the Nasdaq dropped 2.2%. Oil strengthened sharply as well, with Brent crude rising to its highest level since early June and topping $100 per barrel.
That mix—weak equities, higher energy prices, and tightening financial conditions—can be hard for speculative assets. One signal highlighted by The Kobeissi Letter on X was that inflation expectations and interest rates were rising again, reinforcing the sense of renewed macro pressure on risk-taking.
Fed expectations shift: a potential 0.25% hike becomes more likely
Crypto traders often treat changes in Federal Reserve expectations as a direct input into near-term risk appetite. In this case, the report pointed to CME Group’s FedWatch Tool showing an increased chance of a 0.25% hike ahead of the Federal Reserve’s next decision.
Odds neared 40% on Thursday, compared with roughly 12% a week earlier. Historically, expectations for additional rate hikes tend to weigh on assets that typically benefit from easier financial conditions.
The Kobeissi Letter also referenced 18-month highs in US 10-year bond yields, framing the move as evidence of fresh economic stress. Higher yields can tighten liquidity and raise discount rates—conditions that often challenge the multiples and leverage embedded in speculative markets.
BTC traders disagree on the path forward
As price weakened, the market message wasn’t consistent. The report described a split among traders about whether BTC’s relief could continue or whether the recent rally was approaching a turning point.
One commentator, Exitpump, argued on X that the “July rally” may end by late July and that traders should be prepared for downside if price breaks below $65,000. Their view—posted late on Wednesday—was effectively a stop-out narrative for longs: close positions near resistance and turn cautious once the $65K area gives way.
Other traders were more constructive. Crypto trader Jelle suggested BTC was “still making progress,” describing a path in which clearing a local area could open a route toward the $70K region and potentially establish a new trading range. The difference in outlook matters because it determines how quickly traders reposition—whether they treat the current decline as a continuation of bearish momentum or as consolidation before the next attempt higher.
Technical focus: moving averages and the $68,000 hurdle
Beyond macro catalysts, technical levels are currently driving day-to-day decision-making. The report highlighted crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe’s view that a 21-week simple moving average (SMA) around $64,073 represents key support.
Van de Poppe said, via an X post dated Thursday, that as long as BTC remains above the 21-Day MA, there should be room for a higher valuation in the near term. In the same post, he pointed to the “final hurdle” for a larger breakout: the $68,000 resistance zone, which he noted had been tested once and would now face a second attempt.
He also outlined a bullish target near $73,000 if BTC can break through that resistance area. For traders, this framing matters because it sets up a clear conditional roadmap: support preservation may keep the higher valuation thesis alive, while a sustained failure below key averages could invalidate the breakout scenario.
Heading into the next sessions, traders will likely keep one eye on macro signals—especially Fed expectations and bond yields—and the other on whether BTC can hold the $64K moving-average area and challenge $68,000 again without another sharp slide. The tension between geopolitics-driven risk aversion and the technical bullish targets is likely to define how quickly conviction returns to either side.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Drops Below $65K as Iran Tensions Lift Oil to $100, Yields Rise on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A federal court is set to weigh whether the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) should reverse a $5 million settlement with crypto exchange Gemini—an enforcement dispute that has become politically charged. In the meantime, filings show Gemini co-founders Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss have backed a pro–Donald Trump political action committee (PAC) with large Bitcoin contributions.
According to the MAGA Inc. Super PAC’s July report to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Gemini Trust Company, which the Winklevosses run, made two separate Bitcoin donations of more than $5 million each on June 19. The PAC said it may use the funds for independent expenditures supporting Trump.
Key takeaways
The MAGA Inc. Super PAC reported receiving two Bitcoin contributions from Gemini Trust Company on June 19, each over $5 million.
The donations occurred roughly three weeks after the CFTC and Gemini filed a joint motion to reverse a January 2025 settlement.
A CFTC spokesperson previously told Cointelegraph that, even if the court grants the reversal, the $5 million penalty would not be returned to Gemini.
Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the reversal effort, calling it a sign the CFTC may be influenced by political pressures.
The CFTC chair remains the only confirmed commissioner, with lawmakers pressing the White House to nominate additional CFTC members as major crypto legislation advances.
Bitcoin donations emerge alongside the Gemini settlement fight
The political donations come as Gemini and the CFTC continue to litigate the settlement. The CFTC and Gemini jointly filed a motion in federal court in May seeking reversal of a January 2025 settlement tied to allegations that Gemini made false or misleading statements.
The timing is notable: MAGA Inc. disclosed the Bitcoin transfers on June 19, about three weeks after the joint motion was submitted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The filings referenced in the story tie the dispute to the CFTC’s earlier enforcement posture under the prior administration.
Cointelegraph previously reported that CFTC Chair Michael Selig said at the time that the agency had been “politically targeted” against the Winklevosses under former President Joe Biden’s administration. In contrast, criticism from lawmakers has focused on whether the reversal request reflects outside influence rather than a purely legal correction.
What the CFTC-Gemini reversal request means in practice
While the court considers the reversal, the contours of potential outcomes are already clear in one respect: a CFTC spokesperson told Cointelegraph in June that both sides “agreed that the $5 million penalty will not be returned to Gemini” even if the court grants the motion.
That detail limits what “reversal” could realistically accomplish for Gemini from a financial standpoint. Even if the legal settlement is undone procedurally, the record presented to the public suggests the $5 million penalty would remain in place. As a result, investors and market participants are left watching what the court’s decision would change beyond the money—such as how the agency’s enforcement record is treated and whether the case signals a broader shift in CFTC posture toward crypto firms.
Cointelegraph also reported that since the attorneys filed the joint motion in May, no decision has yet appeared on the public docket.
Winklevoss political involvement extends beyond the latest PAC transfer
The June 19 contributions to MAGA Inc. add to a broader thread of political engagement by the Winklevosses. The article notes that Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss each donated $1 million to Trump’s 2024 election campaign and supported the candidate with social media posts.
After Trump took office in January 2025, the twins also reportedly participated in crypto-related policy and industry events. They attended the signing ceremony for the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin payments bill backed by Trump’s administration. They also supported American Bitcoin—linked to Trump’s sons’ crypto mining venture—and contributed $21 million in Bitcoin to the Digital Freedom Fund PAC, according to the reporting cited in the article.
For readers trying to understand what this could signal for crypto policy, the key point is not only the size of the donations but their concentration around moments when regulation is actively being reshaped. The donations align with a period in which the CFTC is at the center of ongoing conversations about digital asset market structure.
Lawmakers question whether enforcement is being politicized
One of the sharpest critiques referenced in the article came from Senator Elizabeth Warren. In a June letter to Chair Selig, Warren called the joint motion for reversal and other related factors “concerning signs of a CFTC beholden to political pressures and interests of the wealthy insiders,” adding that the agency appeared “unbound by the rule of law” and “failing to protect investors and market integrity.”
Warren’s concern underscores a broader tension frequently debated in U.S. crypto enforcement: whether regulatory actions reflect technical findings based on statutes and evidence, or whether high-profile political dynamics shape the trajectory of major cases. In this instance, the case’s timing—paired with prominent political contributions—has amplified skepticism among critics.
At the same time, supporters of the reversal effort could argue that legal outcomes can evolve independently of campaign activity, and that political support should not automatically be equated with improper decision-making. What remains uncertain for now is how the court will frame the reversal request and what legal reasoning it will accept or reject.
CFTC leadership remains concentrated as nominations stall
The broader governance picture also matters. The article states that Selig remains the only confirmed commissioner at the CFTC, leaving him to effectively direct the agency’s agenda. The CFTC chair is a Republican confirmed by the U.S. Senate in December 2025, and the agency usually operates as a bipartisan body of five commissioners.
The absence of additional nominations has drawn pressure from lawmakers, particularly as Congress considers comprehensive market-structure legislation. The story notes that the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act is expected to give the CFTC more authority over digital assets. Several lawmakers have pushed Trump to announce additional CFTC nominations in parallel with this legislative process.
As of Thursday, the White House had not announced any nominations, according to the article—meaning Selig continues to hold a disproportionate share of influence during a key period for crypto regulation.
With a reversal motion pending in federal court and CFTC leadership concentrated in a single confirmed commissioner, the next developments will likely come from two directions: what the Southern District of New York decides on the Gemini settlement, and whether the White House moves to restore a fuller CFTC commission as market-structure legislation advances.
This article was originally published as Gemini Transfers $10M in Bitcoin to Trump PAC After CFTC Joint Motion on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new U.S.-focused economic study argues that the domestic crypto sector is already delivering a measurable real-economy footprint—from jobs to consumer spending—estimating that salaries, worker spend and output will contribute $55 billion this year. The analysis was released Wednesday by the Pragmatic Policy Group on behalf of the National Cryptocurrency Association (NCA), an organization backed by Ripple Labs.
According to the report, the industry’s total impact is calculated through direct, indirect and induced employment, meaning not only workers employed by crypto firms, but also jobs supported elsewhere in the economy due to crypto-related activity.
Key takeaways
The NCA-linked study estimates crypto contributes $55 billion to the U.S. economy in the current year through direct, indirect and induced effects.
Crypto companies are said to directly employ about 34,000 people, while the broader industry supports 232,000 jobs across the U.S.
The report highlights particularly large contributions tied to securities and commodity contracts ($9.7 billion) and housing/real estate ($4.8 billion).
States with the most industry-related employment include Texas, Washington, North Carolina, California and New York, while the report points to Colorado and North Dakota as fast-growing or infrastructure-oriented hubs.
The same period has also seen multiple crypto-linked shutdowns, underscoring that industry scale and project-level viability do not necessarily move in tandem.
How the study measures crypto’s U.S. footprint
The report’s main headline is the projected $55 billion economic contribution to the United States this year. It frames the impact in economic terms tied to workforce effects—jobs created or sustained by crypto activity ripple outward as spending and production elsewhere increase.
On the employment side, the NCA estimates that about 34,000 people are directly employed by crypto companies. That figure is positioned as a comparatively small share of a much larger total: the study claims crypto activity supports 232,000 jobs across the broader economy when indirect and induced employment are included.
The report also includes sector-level emphasis. It identifies investments in securities and commodity contracts as among the largest contributors at $9.7 billion. It further states that housing and real estate together account for $4.8 billion in contributions.
To help contextualize the scale of direct employment, the study compares the number of people working directly in crypto to employment levels in other manufacturing and aerospace segments, citing U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data.
Where crypto jobs are concentrated—and why some states stand out
Geography matters in the report. It says the states employing the most people involved in the industry are Texas, Washington, North Carolina, California and New York. Those findings align with the broader pattern that U.S. crypto labor demand tends to concentrate in large and financially significant states.
At the same time, the report draws attention to states it describes as gaining momentum. It calls Colorado a “growing blockchain hub,” attributing the development to friendly regulatory policies. For North Dakota, the report characterizes the state as “becoming an energy-integrated digital infrastructure hub,” pointing to tax treatment for crypto mining and favorable flare gas policies.
For investors and builders, the practical value of this kind of regional analysis is that it can hint at where talent, infrastructure, and compliance pathways may be converging. Still, the figures reflect an economic model rather than a real-time census, so readers should treat them as a snapshot of estimated impact rather than a precise headcount of every role touching crypto.
NCA’s origins and Ripple’s involvement
The NCA itself launched in March 2025 as a non-profit focused on consumer crypto education. In the report’s framing, the group received $50 million in backing from Ripple, and the organization’s leadership lists Stuart Alderoty, Ripple’s chief legal officer, as the head of the group.
That background matters because it helps explain the policy and communications context of the study. The report is presented as an economic assessment but produced through a policy group on behalf of an industry-backed association—an important consideration for readers who want to weigh the methodology and incentives behind any advocacy-adjacent research.
Economic scale does not prevent project shutdowns
While the economic study argues crypto’s broader contribution is growing, 2026 has also brought shutdown announcements from several projects—highlighting a tension between macroeconomic claims and the reality of operational challenges inside the sector.
Earlier in the year, the report references multiple crypto-linked wind-downs. Entropy, a New York-based startup, said in January that it would shut down after four years of operation. Dmail, a decentralized email platform based in Singapore, began ceasing operations in May, according to coverage cited by the source article, pointing to costs such as bandwidth, storage and computing.
In addition, the source indicates that governance-focused platform Tally and Balancer Labs also shuttered in March. While these developments are not the same thing as a sector-wide contraction, they do reinforce that individual teams can face scaling and market-condition pressures even when the industry’s economic footprint appears to be expanding.
For users, the practical takeaway is that employment and ecosystem size do not automatically translate into long-term product continuity. For builders and investors, it’s a reminder to scrutinize runway, unit economics, and infrastructure costs—especially for applications with compute or storage-heavy requirements.
Going forward, the key question for readers is whether future reporting from the NCA and similar research efforts will consistently show the same employment and output patterns as more projects attempt to scale—or whether shutdowns will increasingly concentrate around the same business models. The next signal to watch is how regional job gains and sector contributions evolve alongside project-level survival and the broader regulatory environment.
This article was originally published as NCA Study: U.S. Crypto Industry Could Add $55B by 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Empery Digital has committed $20 million to Cardinal Data Power, purchasing an approximately 8% stake in the private developer behind “powered” data center campuses designed for AI and high-performance computing workloads. The capital injection is tied to Cardinal Data Power’s Series A round of roughly $70 million and is intended to help advance a 750-megawatt campus project in West Texas.
While the investment highlights growing demand for large-scale compute infrastructure, it also lands in the middle of Empery’s own strategic shift away from its earlier Bitcoin treasury approach. Over the past two months, the company sold about 1,400 BTC for approximately $87.1 million, leaving it with 1,514 BTC after the transactions.
Key takeaways
Empery Digital invested $20 million for an ~8% stake in Cardinal Data Power as part of a Series A of about $70 million.
Cardinal’s West Texas powered data center campus is expected to begin delivering power in 2027, expand to around 1 GW by 2029, and ultimately exceed 5 GW.
Empery’s Cardinal investment follows a reduction in its Bitcoin holdings, after it sold roughly 1,400 BTC over two months.
Across the broader market, Bitcoin treasury firms are splitting between continued accumulation and exits or restructurings.
Investors are watching whether corporate Bitcoin strategies increasingly prioritize operational assets—such as AI infrastructure—over pure balance-sheet accumulation.
Empery backs AI-focused “powered” campus development
Cardinal Data Power builds data center sites that integrate power generation, natural gas supply, and electrical infrastructure into a single development model. According to Empery Digital, the goal is to accelerate the delivery of large-scale computing campuses for artificial intelligence and HPC customers.
The company’s current plan centers on a West Texas campus with an initial scale of 750 MW. Cardinal expects first power in 2027, then scaling to about 1 gigawatt by 2029. The longer-term target is to exceed 5 gigawatts, implying a phased buildout designed to support expanding demand as AI workloads and compute capacity requirements grow.
For investors and data center developers, the appeal of “powered” campus design is that it aims to reduce bottlenecks often associated with securing power capacity and the infrastructure required to deliver electricity at the scale large AI deployments demand. Empery’s decision to place capital into this model suggests it sees AI infrastructure as a near-to-medium term driver of value creation rather than relying solely on financial asset appreciation.
Bitcoin treasury strategy under pressure at Empery
Empery’s investment decision comes during an ongoing adjustment to its treasury posture. Earlier this year, the company moved away from an electric powersports business and adopted a Bitcoin treasury strategy in mid-2025, positioning Bitcoin holdings as a key part of its balance sheet.
However, the company recently reported that it sold about 1,400 BTC over a two-month period for approximately $87.1 million. Empery said it intends to use those proceeds to fund AI infrastructure investments and repay debt.
After the sales, Empery’s Bitcoin holdings dropped to 1,514 BTC. BitcoinTreasuries.NET data indicates Empery previously held as many as 4,081 BTC before beginning to trim its position in March.
The reduction appears to have taken place amid shareholder activism: the filings and coverage referenced in the source say that shareholder Tice P. Brown urged the company to abandon its Bitcoin treasury strategy and called for the resignation of the chief executive officer and the board. The pressure helps explain why Empery’s corporate narrative is shifting from a “hold Bitcoin” approach toward funding operational and infrastructure projects—at least in part using realized value from earlier BTC holdings.
Bitcoin treasury firms diverge: unwind, restructure, or persist
Beyond Empery, the broader Bitcoin treasury landscape continues to show a wide range of strategies and outcomes. Some companies remain committed to accumulation, while others are winding down positions, changing corporate direction, or revising how Bitcoin appears on their balance sheets.
Satsuma Technology is one of the clearest examples of an exit. According to the source, shareholders voted overwhelmingly on July 20 to sell the company’s Bitcoin holdings, return substantially all of its capital to investors, and delist from the London Stock Exchange. More than 90% of votes cast supported both the capital return and delisting.
Meanwhile, a different kind of change played out through attempted consolidation. The proposed merger between Tether-backed Twenty One Capital, Strike, and Bitcoin miner Elektron Energy was scrapped earlier this week. The source notes that Strike will remain a standalone company while discussions between Twenty One and Elektron continue. Even after the abandoned deal, Twenty One remains among the largest publicly tracked corporate Bitcoin holders with 43,514 BTC, ranking behind Strategy.
Taken together, these moves show that the corporate Bitcoin treasury model is not static. Some firms treat BTC accumulation as a long-term thesis; others appear to conclude that capital can be deployed more effectively elsewhere or that shareholder appetite is better aligned with liquidity and balance-sheet simplification.
A new playbook: Bitcoin alongside permanent-capital business ownership
Another strand of development comes from efforts to reframe Bitcoin’s role inside corporate structures. The source says Bitcoin analyst Lyn Alden co-founded Orange Juice HODLINGS, a permanent-capital holding company backed by Mexican billionaire Ricardo Salinas. It reportedly launched with $40 million in initial funding.
Rather than using Bitcoin strictly as an asset to accumulate and hold, the described plan is to acquire and retain profitable businesses indefinitely, while using Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset. The strategy aims to combine long-term ownership of operating companies with a Bitcoin-backed balance sheet—an approach that differs from both pure accumulation and pure exit.
For readers trying to understand where the market may be headed, this is a meaningful shift in framing. It suggests corporate actors may increasingly treat Bitcoin as one component of a diversified capital stack, rather than the sole centerpiece of a treasury thesis—particularly as institutional narratives around AI infrastructure, compute scaling, and power availability gain traction.
What to watch next
With Empery using realized Bitcoin proceeds to fund AI infrastructure and with Cardinal’s campus ramp targeting multi-year power delivery milestones, investors should watch for how quickly capital commitments translate into construction progress, power milestones, and incremental financial disclosures. At the same time, the broader split in corporate treasury outcomes—unwind versus restructure versus hybrid models—will likely shape how future corporate Bitcoin strategies evolve under shareholder pressure and shifting capital allocation priorities.
This article was originally published as Empery Digital’s $20M Bitcoin Treasury Invests in Cardinal AI Data Centers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has voiced support for a US Senate bill intended to reshape crypto market structure, arguing that the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act is “not perfect” but could help create a more consistent framework for participants.
According to a Thursday report by Politico, Solomon framed the legislation as necessary to establish a “level playing field” that could improve market stability as digital asset markets continue to develop.
Key takeaways
David Solomon says the CLARITY Act is “not perfect,” but supports it for creating a more “level playing field” to bolster stability.
Many industry leaders oppose the bill’s approach, including concerns that it would allow certain crypto firms to pay yield related to stablecoins outside existing financial-institution rules.
Republicans released the CLARITY Act text ahead of a potential Senate vote, but Senate leaders had not scheduled timing as of Thursday.
Democrats and critics highlighted ethics provisions, with objections centered on enforcement and accountability mechanisms.
The bill likely requires additional Democratic votes to reach the Senate’s 60-vote threshold.
Solomon’s “level playing field” argument
In comments reported by Politico, Solomon emphasized that legislation is rarely flawless, but maintained that CLARITY’s central purpose is to normalize how digital asset markets operate—at least relative to how traditional finance is regulated.
His view stands in contrast to broader skepticism within parts of traditional banking circles, where executives have questioned whether CLARITY expands regulatory permission in ways that could weaken investor and depositor protections.
Politico’s report also notes that Solomon’s endorsement is relatively uncommon among leaders at major financial institutions considering the bill.
Banking concerns over stablecoin yield permissions
A key point of contention involves whether crypto firms would be allowed to offer interest or yield on stablecoins under rules that critics say do not map cleanly to the protections expected of regulated financial institutions.
Earlier coverage highlighted that many peers oppose the bill on these grounds, arguing that the proposal’s stablecoin yield approach does not provide the guardrails banks would be expected to meet. Cointelegraph previously reported on these concerns.
The contrast in views is also reflected in remarks from JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon. As reported in an interview conducted in May, Dimon said CLARITY would let crypto companies pay interest on stablecoins “without the protection that they should have,” arguing that banks would not accept a similar arrangement. The interview was shared on YouTube.
Democrats focus on ethics provisions and enforcement
Even as the CLARITY Act moves toward a possible Senate vote, Democratic lawmakers have signaled resistance—not only on technical market-structure issues, but also on ethics language attached to the bill.
As described in reporting from Cointelegraph and subsequent commentary, Democrats are concerned that the ethics provisions do not go far enough and that enforcement would be left to the US Department of Justice rather than state authorities. If Republicans are unable to secure enough support beyond their ranks, the bill could stall at the 60-vote threshold required to advance in the Senate.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading Democratic critic, said in a statement released alongside the Wednesday publication of the bill text that she believes the legislation is designed to protect President Donald Trump’s crypto profits and that it fails to adequately safeguard investors, the financial system, and national security. The statement was posted by the Senate Banking Committee’s minority.
Cointelegraph earlier also reported on Democrats’ objections to the ethics language during the markup process, underscoring how these provisions have become a central political obstacle for CLARITY. Earlier coverage details the core Democratic concerns.
What happens next in the Senate
Republicans released the full CLARITY Act text on Wednesday, setting the stage for potential Senate action. However, as of Thursday, Senate leaders had not scheduled a vote, according to the Politico report.
With multiple factions still divided—particularly over stablecoin yield permissions and ethics/enforcement mechanics—the immediate question for investors and market operators is whether amendments can narrow the gap between competing priorities or whether the bill will face a larger momentum reversal.
Readers should watch for whether Senate leaders set a vote date soon and, more importantly, whether any compromise emerges that could attract enough Democratic support to meet the 60-vote threshold—since the bill’s advancement appears tightly linked to both ethics politics and the future regulatory treatment of stablecoin-related yield.
This article was originally published as Goldman Sachs CEO Endorses “Not Perfect” CLARITY Act Ahead of Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Negotiations over the long-awaited US Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—known as the CLARITY Act—have reportedly narrowed to one of the most politically sensitive issues: ethics rules for federal officials and who will enforce them. After months of drafting and bargaining, a dispute over a “code of conduct” element is now threatening to derail a bill that many in the industry view as crucial for regulatory certainty.
Democratic senators say the current version of the proposal does not go far enough, particularly on ethics provisions covering elected officials and related consumer and market-integrity safeguards. Republicans, meanwhile, argue that ethics enforcement should remain within the Department of Justice (DOJ) under a single national framework, rather than being handled by state attorneys general.
Key takeaways
Seven Democratic senators said the current CLARITY Act text “falls short,” calling for stronger ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflict-of-interest, and market-integrity provisions.
The latest draft would bar senior federal officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office, alongside limits on crypto platforms listing such assets.
Democrats want ethics enforcement to allow state attorneys general to step in if DOJ does not enforce the law; Republicans insist DOJ should be the sole enforcement channel.
Multiple policy and industry stakeholders say lawmakers may still be able to compromise, but uncertainty over ethics is becoming the central bottleneck.
Even if senior officials are restricted from sponsoring or issuing new tokens, the draft would still allow covered officials to own cryptocurrencies.
What the new CLARITY ethics language would change
According to the latest Senate draft made public Wednesday, the CLARITY Act would prohibit the president, vice president, members of Congress, and other senior federal officials—along with their spouses—from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while they are in office. This would apply to officials covered under the bill’s ethics framework.
The draft also includes a platform-facing restriction: crypto platforms would be prevented from listing assets issued or sponsored by covered officials. As described in coverage of the text, these prohibitions are set to expire in 2029, after President Donald Trump’s current term ends.
Importantly for investors and market participants, the restrictions would focus on “issuing or sponsoring” while in office, not on personal ownership. Covered officials would still be allowed to hold cryptocurrencies even during the restricted period.
Why Democrats say the proposal isn’t strong enough
In a joint statement released Wednesday, seven Democratic senators argued that the bill’s current provisions are inadequate. They said “key provisions,” including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest, and market integrity, must be strengthened.
“Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened,” the senators said.
Senator Angela Alsobrooks—speaking at a Semafor event on Wednesday—stated that while negotiations may be “fairly close,” the ethics language remains a dealbreaker. She indicated she would not support the legislation on the Senate floor unless it includes stronger ethics provisions.
Alsobrooks’ primary concern is both the substance and the enforcement structure. She said it cannot be taken for granted that DOJ will enforce the law effectively, framing the issue as a credibility problem rather than a purely theoretical one.
Democrats’ stance has been amplified by scrutiny of President Trump’s growing crypto-related business interests, which have reportedly included meme coin activity and a broader portfolio of digital asset exposure. Critics argue that this creates incentives and potential conflicts that stronger ethics and enforcement mechanisms should address.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has also signaled that she views the draft as insufficient, arguing that it would not prevent the president from profiting from new crypto activity in a way that could be economically significant. Separately, former SEC official Amanda Fischer argued that the restrictions could still allow the president to benefit from existing crypto projects, with the proposed limitations aimed at future income streams.
Republicans push for DOJ-only enforcement
Republicans contest the idea that the ethics provisions are too weak, while also objecting to Democratic calls for additional enforcement leverage for state attorneys general. They argue that federal ethics requirements should be enforced through a single national mechanism—DOJ—rather than through a patchwork of state interpretations and political priorities.
Attorney and former Republican Senate candidate John Deaton said the CLARITY Act is federal legislation and that DOJ, not “fifty different state AGs,” is the appropriate body to enforce federal law. In this view, allowing state officials to intervene would risk undermining the uniformity that supporters say the bill is intended to provide.
Other Republican-aligned commentators characterized the ethics language as unprecedented. For example, Senator Bernie Moreno described the current draft as containing “the most powerful ethics language in US history.”
Patrick Witt, a former White House and Senate counsel, suggested the disagreement may be driven by two incompatible Democratic positions: that ethics rules would be meaningless without state AG enforcement, or that the proposal could not be changed in a way that would satisfy concerns about constitutional constraints. Witt argued that endorsing the first position would effectively dismiss the enforceability premise behind existing federal ethics laws, while the second position would be difficult or impossible to meet without violating constitutional principles.
Industry and policy observers see a path—but not an easy one
Despite the ethics dispute, many observers believe the bill can still progress through negotiation. Kristin Smith, former CEO of the Blockchain Association and now president of the Solana Policy Institute, told Cointelegraph that the latest draft reflects meaningful compromise on ethics—an element viewed as necessary for Senate Democrats to come closer to supporting the measure.
Smith also emphasized that ethics is only one component of the broader package. She pointed to additional elements added to the Senate’s work, including a disclosure regime, an illicit finance section, and improved spot market regulation. In her view, rejecting the bill on ethics alone could mean lawmakers lose more than just the ethics language—they could lose the rest of the regulatory structure altogether.
“There is no version of a ‘no’ vote that produces a stronger bill,” Smith said. “A ‘no’ vote produces no bill at all: no disclosure regime, no illicit finance protections, no spot market improvements, no ethics provisions, nothing.”
Vincent Chok, co-founder and CEO of stablecoin issuer First Digital, likewise suggested that narrowing negotiations to ethics rather than the overall structure indicates progress. He framed the question less as whether the US needs a framework and more as how to finalize one that can attract broad support.
Chok argued that no regulatory scheme is likely to be perfect at the start, but businesses can adjust if the market gets clarity. Long periods of uncertainty, he said, make it harder to justify long-term investment and product development.
Other industry figures expressed cautious optimism while still criticizing how far the initial ethics proposal goes. Salman Banaei, head of public policy at Plume, a blockchain network focused on tokenized real-world assets, said compromise may be possible, but cautioned that the White House’s initial ethics proposal was “not a good starting point.”
At the heart of the debate remains the enforcement question: the current draft appears to rely heavily on DOJ for ethics implementation, while Democrats want a mechanism that gives state attorneys general a clearer role if federal enforcement falls short. How lawmakers balance these competing views—without stalling the broader CLARITY framework—may determine whether the bill reaches the next stages.
As negotiations continue, the key variable for readers is whether the parties can agree on an enforcement structure that satisfies Democrats’ concerns about DOJ reliability while preserving Republicans’ push for a single federal enforcement lane. With the bill’s timetable dependent on this remaining sticking point, investors and builders should watch for the next revised ethics draft and any accompanying language changes that clarify whether enforcement authority can shift beyond DOJ.
This article was originally published as Why the CLARITY Act’s Ethics Deal Faces Major Negotiation Hurdles on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMEX’s utility token (BMEX) has suffered a dramatic collapse following the exchange’s announcement that it will wind down operations. Data from CoinGecko shows the token fell by nearly 90%, dropping to as low as $0.002 from about $0.06, and it was trading around $0.0063 at the time of writing.
The selloff started shortly before the shutdown became public. According to CoinGecko pricing, BMEX began sliding at around 7:00 am UTC—approximately an hour before BitMEX posted its shutdown notice on X, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Key takeaways
BMEX lost almost all of its value after BitMEX announced it would cease operations, with CoinGecko data indicating a move from ~$0.06 to near $0.002.
The token’s drop began about an hour before the public shutdown message on X, suggesting markets were already repricing quickly ahead of confirmation.
CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju linked the decision to BitMEX’s reduced Bitcoin futures share, citing ~0.08% and about $84 million in daily BTC futures volume.
Blockchain research firm 10x Research told Cointelegraph the exchange’s owners explored a possible $1 billion sale in 2025 before opting for an orderly wind-down.
What triggered BMEX’s sharp repricing
The immediate catalyst for BMEX’s decline was BitMEX’s decision to wind down. The token’s value had recently traded closer to $0.06, but it then experienced a sudden, sustained fall as the market absorbed the implications of an exchange shutting down.
CoinGecko’s timestamps place the start of the selloff around 7:00 am UTC, roughly an hour before BitMEX’s shutdown announcement on X. That timing matters for traders because it suggests the market had already begun anticipating severe downside—or at least a major operational change—before the message was made public.
BitMEX’s shrinking futures footprint
In explaining the broader context for BitMEX’s exit, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju pointed to the exchange’s declining position in Bitcoin derivatives. He said BitMEX’s share of the Bitcoin futures market had fallen to about 0.08%, alongside roughly $84 million in daily Bitcoin futures trading volume.
Ju also emphasized the exchange’s historical impact, saying on X that it helped shape the industry and that it was now “passing the torch” to newer platforms that grew out of the model BitMEX pioneered.
BitMEX cofounder Arthur Hayes later echoed the sentiment in a separate X post, writing that it had been “an amazing ride” and that the team had “done something special together.”
Details behind the wind-down: sale talks and operational reality
Beyond the headline closure, 10x Research shared additional context with Cointelegraph: BitMEX’s owners had explored a potential $1 billion sale in 2025 before selecting an orderly wind-down process.
The report suggests the shutdown wasn’t simply an abrupt break with operations, but the outcome of a longer decision cycle—one where finding an acquirer may have been considered, but ultimately did not materialize into a transaction.
This matters to investors in tokenized exchange ecosystems because “utilities” tied to a platform’s activity can lose their economic meaning when the underlying venue stops operating. When wind-down plans advance, holders often anticipate reduced buyback or incentive mechanics (if any existed), weaker demand for token usage, and—most importantly—a fading buyer base for any token that derives value from exchange activity.
A legacy built on perpetual swaps, now ending
BitMEX previously highlighted its industry role by marking its 11th anniversary in November 2025. The exchange credited its influence in creating the perpetual swap—a futures contract structure with no expiration date—that became a cornerstone for modern crypto derivatives trading.
That legacy contrasts sharply with BMEX’s post-announcement price action. The disconnect underscores a key point for market participants: reputational and historical contributions do not automatically translate into ongoing token value once market structure changes, derivatives competition intensifies, and operational costs rise.
Cointelegraph also reported that a restructuring advisor and CEO of investment firm Echo Base, Roshan Dharia, described the closure as part of wider “structural corrections” across digital asset markets. He linked the pressures to a combination of a more competitive environment, increasing regulatory and compliance costs, and reduced tolerance for operational inefficiency.
In other words, BitMEX’s ending appears less like an isolated event and more like an outcome of sector-wide tightening—where exchanges that cannot maintain scale or profitability face limited pathways forward.
Going forward, attention is likely to shift to what happens to BMEX holders as the wind-down proceeds—whether any remaining token incentives, liquidity provisions, or related mechanisms persist, and how quickly markets reprice any residual expectations. With the timeline and final operational steps not detailed in the available reporting here, traders and long-term observers should watch for further updates from BitMEX, plus signals from analytics and on-chain activity that indicate how derivatives volume migrates to competing venues.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Token Drops 90% After Exchange Announces Shutdown on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy has unveiled the Bitcoin Security Consortium, a new coalition of financial institutions and Bitcoin-focused companies aimed at strengthening the network’s resilience against the potential impact of future quantum computing breakthroughs. In a Thursday announcement, Strategy said the group plans to commit an aggregate $15 million over the next three years toward developer efforts focused on “quantum security” work for Bitcoin.
The initiative adds formal institutional backing to a debate that has been running through the Bitcoin ecosystem for years: how and when (or whether) quantum computers could force a shift in how the network secures transactions. While experts disagree on timelines, the consortium’s creation signals that large players are preparing for long-horizon security challenges rather than waiting for consensus to harden.
Key takeaways
Strategy says the consortium will fund $15 million over three years to support developer work on Bitcoin’s quantum security.
Founding members include major asset managers and crypto firms such as BlackRock, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Blockstream.
Day-to-day coordination will be handled by Mike Schmidt, a volunteer executive director of Brink, a non-profit focused on Bitcoin open-source developers.
Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in separate grants earlier this week and formed a quantum-advisory council for research on migration solutions.
Bitcoin’s quantum risk timeline remains contested, with industry estimates ranging from decades away to only a few years.
A consortium built around long-term quantum resilience
According to Strategy’s press release, the Bitcoin Security Consortium brings together financial institutions and Bitcoin companies with the shared goal of supporting work designed to protect the network against a potential quantum-security threat. Strategy’s stated focus is enabling developers to pursue approaches that would help Bitcoin adapt if quantum capabilities reach a threshold that undermines existing cryptographic assumptions.
The consortium’s plan is structured as a multi-year funding pool: $15 million in total commitments over the next three years. While the announcement does not detail specific deliverables or milestones, the emphasis on developer support indicates that the effort is intended to translate research and engineering into practical upgrades and implementation work over time.
Who’s involved, and how the work will be managed
The consortium names a broad set of founding participants. In addition to Strategy, the list includes Anchorage Digital, ARK Invest, BlackRock, Block, Blockstream, Coinbase, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Galaxy, among others.
Strategy also said the consortium’s daily operations will be coordinated by Mike Schmidt in a volunteer capacity. Schmidt is described as the executive director of Brink, a non-profit that supports Bitcoin open-source developers. The operational link to a developer-support organization matters because quantum security work is likely to require sustained engineering capacity—areas like cryptographic tooling, testing, and migration planning often take longer than headline news cycles.
Recent quantum-security funding momentum from Galaxy
In the same broader timeframe, Galaxy Digital separately announced support for quantum security-related development. Earlier coverage noted that Galaxy pledged up to $5 million in grants for developers working on Bitcoin’s quantum security and formed a council of quantum-advisory experts to study quantum-resistant migration options.
While the consortium and Galaxy’s grants are distinct efforts, together they reinforce a pattern: institutional capital is increasingly targeting the “preparation” phase—funding research and engineering before a crisis scenario forces rushed changes.
Disagreement on timelines, but shared urgency on preparedness
Bitcoin’s quantum risk debate is not purely academic. It influences how investors evaluate the durability of the network’s security model and how engineers prioritize long-term roadmap items.
Community concern is tempered by disagreements about when a meaningful quantum threat might arrive. Strategy’s announcement points to the ongoing debate rather than resolving it. In November 2025, Blockstream CEO Adam Back said Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph in an article about the topic (“Bitcoin faces no meaningful quantum threat for at least the next 20 to 40 years,” Back said).
Other viewpoints compress that timeline dramatically. In April, investment manager Bernstein suggested Bitcoin has roughly three to five years to prepare for a post-quantum security upgrade, as discussed in Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage (Bernstein said Bitcoin has about three to five years to prepare).
This split matters because it shapes what “useful funding” looks like. In a decades-ahead scenario, the priority is gradual research and maintainable upgrades. In a short-window scenario, the emphasis shifts toward accelerating migration planning and ensuring that any transition path can be executed with high confidence.
Institutional backing signals confidence in core development capacity
Alongside the consortium announcement, Strategy’s partner ecosystem includes large traditional finance and crypto incumbents. BlackRock’s involvement, for example, is tied to its view that Bitcoin developers are doing critical work. As stated in the announcement, Robert Mitchnick, BlackRock’s global head of digital assets, said Bitcoin core developers do “incredibly important work” and that BlackRock is pleased to provide “significant additional funding” to support Bitcoin’s long-term security needs.
For investors and market participants, that message carries a specific implication: quantum security is being treated not as a speculative side project, but as a core infrastructure concern worthy of institutional budget lines. Even if the exact timing of quantum risk remains uncertain, multi-year funding structures are better aligned with how protocol security improvements actually get built—through testing, peer review, and coordinated development rather than emergency patching.
At the same time, it’s worth noting the consortium does not claim to settle the timeline question. Instead, it appears designed to fund the unknowns: research gaps, migration options, and implementation readiness that could become valuable under multiple scenarios.
Looking ahead, the key question is how the consortium and parallel grant efforts translate funding into concrete engineering outputs—such as migration research, candidate upgrade work, and developer tooling—while the broader community continues to debate quantum timelines. Observers should watch for updates that clarify priorities and measurable milestones over the consortium’s three-year window.
This article was originally published as Strategy-Led Consortium Commits $15M to Quantum-Resilient Bitcoin Network on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bernstein reiterated that it is still overweight on Bitcoin mining, arguing that the sector’s expanding partnerships are increasingly tied to the power needs of AI data centers. In a Thursday research note shared with Cointelegraph, the firm pointed to a steady stream of AI-related deals throughout July—evidence, it said, that access to electricity is becoming the decisive constraint for AI infrastructure buildouts.
According to Bernstein’s Bitcoin mining industry deal tracker, the number of AI-related transactions recorded in July averaged at least one per week. Combined, those deals total more than 7.5 gigawatts of capacity, or the contracted equivalent of $150 billion across multi-year agreements.
Key takeaways
Bernstein says Bitcoin miners’ third-party computing capacity remains valuable as AI growth is constrained more by power availability than by software or hardware supply.
In July, Bernstein’s tracker recorded AI-related deal flow at roughly a weekly pace, totaling over 7.5 GW and the equivalent of $150 billion in multi-year contracted value.
Recent announcements from Hut 8 and IREN linked mining firms to large-scale AI infrastructure and cloud revenue models.
Bernstein also highlighted political pushback in the US that could slow new data center construction—making contracted capacity sourced from miners and other providers harder to replicate.
Why Bernstein still favors miners
The core of Bernstein’s argument is that AI data center development is increasingly bottlenecked by electricity access. As power becomes harder to secure, miners and other third-party computing providers—already operating energy-intensive facilities—may be better positioned to supply the incremental capacity AI companies need.
Bernstein’s note framed this as a structural opportunity rather than a short-term market trade. The firm linked the attractiveness of the mining sector to the growing number of partnerships that allow AI-focused operators to secure power and compute capacity through contracted arrangements.
July deal momentum and what it signals
Public market interest in the “AI-miner” theme accelerated after Bitcoin mining companies announced major infrastructure and cloud deals. On Monday, shares tied to AI infrastructure moves posted double-digit gains, following announcements from Hut 8 and IREN.
Hut 8 disclosed a 15-year, $9.8 billion lease for its AI data center campus. IREN, meanwhile, announced $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers. Bernstein’s upbeat framing aligns with a broader investor focus on miners converting their physical capacity into more predictable, contract-based revenue streams.
As Seeking Alpha contributor The Curious Analyst wrote in a Thursday commentary, IREN appears to be turning an infrastructure advantage into “contracted and more predictable revenue,” while noting execution risk as the key potential downside.
Beyond those two names, other publicly traded miners also expanded their AI ambitions. Earlier in July, MARA Holdings said it planned to acquire a Texas site with up to 2 gigawatts of capacity to support its AI and digital infrastructure business. TeraWulf signed a 20-year data center lease with AI startup Anthropic, which the company said could generate roughly $19 billion in contract revenue. Bitdeer has also moved into AI cloud services and high-performance computing.
Bernstein’s ratings, as reported in the research note shared with Cointelegraph, include an outperform stance on all of the stocks it discussed except MARA, which it rates as market perform. Sector performance reflected the same narrative: CoinShares Bitcoin Mining ETF (WGMI) was up ahead of the Nasdaq open, with several miner stocks also higher in premarket activity.
US political friction could raise the value of contracted capacity
Bernstein’s analysis also tied the AI-miner alignment to a policy environment that could complicate new data center construction. The firm said bipartisan political pushback is increasingly shaping the timeline and feasibility of building additional facilities, especially amid concerns about local impacts such as water use and electricity costs.
In Texas, a report by the Houston Chronicle said a proposal backed by Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico would strengthen local approval processes and repeal certain tax breaks for AI data centers. In Oregon, US Senator Ron Wyden has publicly raised concerns about water scarcity during drought conditions, arguing that large data centers can consume up to 5 million gallons of water per day and asking operators to explain how they would reduce groundwater withdrawals to protect local supplies.
At the federal level, the Trump administration published a “Ratepayer Protection Pledge” aimed at expanding AI infrastructure without increasing electricity bills for households and small businesses. Separately, state governors released plans to expand the grid to meet rapidly growing AI data center demand, while emphasizing that new facilities should bear the costs they create instead of shifting them to existing residential and small business customers.
For investors, the implication is straightforward: if political and infrastructure constraints delay new capacity coming online, the market may increasingly reward entities that already have power access and can lock in compute demand through multi-year contracts.
What to watch next
With Bernstein pointing to both deal volume and policy headwinds, the next signal for the sector is whether miners can sustain the rate of AI-linked contracting and translate that into longer-term revenue visibility—especially as regulators and local communities continue to scrutinize data center construction.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: Bitcoin mining deals could ease AI energy constraints on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.