ChainGPT AI News

Revolut has quietly launched EURR, a euro-pegged stablecoin, rolling it out to a limited group of retail customers in Denmark, Poland and Portugal as it begins the first real-world deployment from a stablecoin strategy it first flagged more than a year ago. What’s launching - EURR is designed to track €1 and is integrated directly into Revolut’s consumer app, letting users move between euros and on-chain crypto without leaving the platform. - The token will operate on multiple blockchains and can be sent to external wallets. Revolut says a broader rollout across the European Economic Area and additional currency-denominated tokens are planned later this year, “subject to regulatory readiness.” Who issues and who holds the reserves - EURR is issued by Bridge Building S.A., a Luxembourg company licensed by the CSSF as both a crypto-asset service provider and an electronic money institution. Bridge — the stablecoin infrastructure firm that Stripe agreed to acquire for $1.1 billion in October 2024 (the deal closed the following February) — holds and manages the reserves. - Revolut’s role is distribution: the token is being offered via a Cyprus-regulated Revolut subsidiary that is licensed under the EU’s MiCA framework. Scale and positioning - Revolut says the launch connects its roughly 80 million customers to “on-chain finance” and intends the token to unlock everyday stablecoin use cases at retail scale. Emil Urmanshin, Revolut’s head of crypto and new bets, framed EURR as delivering “real-world stablecoin utility that no traditional bank or crypto native can match.” Regulatory backdrop and market context - The euro stablecoin comes amid skeptical views from the European Central Bank. ECB president Christine Lagarde warned in May that euro stablecoins are unlikely to strengthen the euro’s international role and flagged risks including sudden redemption pressure on private liabilities and the potential for weaker transmission of policy rates if deposits shift away from banks. - The stablecoin market remains heavily dollar-dominated: roughly 98% of the roughly $317 billion market was dollar-denominated at the time of the ECB’s comments. Brussels is also preparing a MiCA revision in 2027 that aims to capture foreign issuers — a relevant point given EURR’s Luxembourg issuer and its American ownership ties via Bridge/Stripe. Where this fits in Revolut’s roadmap - Revolut first confirmed plans to issue its own stablecoin in mid-2025. This year the firm secured a UK banking license and was among the companies tapped by the Bank of England for work on sterling stablecoins and digital securities. Revolut’s announcement indicates other tokens are in development “through separate regulatory pathways,” implying the Bridge arrangement may be specific to the euro issuance. Bottom line EURR is a notable step for mainstream fintechs moving into tokenized money, bringing a euro-pegged option to a large retail app. But its ultimate impact will hinge on regulatory developments across Europe — and whether euro stablecoins can overcome both market inertia and the policy concerns raised by central bankers. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Ethereum developers have floated the first concrete infrastructure change aimed at hardening the network’s $100 billion-plus staking layer against future quantum attacks: a rebuild of the deposit contract that every validator uses to enter staking. What’s changing—and why it matters - The current deposit contract is tuned to the BLS12-381 elliptic-curve scheme: it assumes fixed sizes (48-byte public keys, 96-byte signature metadata). That hardcoded footprint leaves no room for post-quantum (PQ) key formats, which are typically much larger. - The proposed replacement removes that bottleneck. It allows validator keys and credential metadata up to 8,192 bytes each, and requires each deposit to declare a “credential scheme” (scheme 0 remains BLS). Other schemes aren’t defined yet; a follow-up EIP would specify what a post-quantum validator key actually looks like. - The contract supports three operational modes—disabled, BLS enabled, and BLS retired—and includes an irreversible retirement pathway: once a system call retires BLS onboarding, it can’t be re-enabled. Technical and governance notes - The proposal passes deposit data to the consensus layer but intentionally leaves the cryptographic definitions to future work. That separation lets the contract accept larger keys without prematurely committing to a particular PQ algorithm. - Turning this into reality will require a coordinated fork across both the execution and consensus layers. - The pull request is a draft in the EIP repo, awaiting editorial review; critical deployment details—contract address, deployment code, activation timestamps—are undecided. Context: cryptography remains unsettled One of the proposal’s authors, Thomas Coratger, emphasized that the PQ landscape is still unsettled in a Twitter thread summarizing Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh’s talk. Key takeaways he highlighted: - Bitcoin and Ethereum are “heavily leaning” toward hash‑based signatures because they rely on assumptions the networks already trust. - Stateless hash-based schemes standardized by NIST run to roughly 8 KB per signature/key—precisely the ceiling this deposit contract sets—while smaller “compact” alternatives carry counters that, if misused, can leak private keys. - Moving to post‑quantum cryptography is not a simple one-off upgrade; it involves trade-offs in size, statefulness, and operational complexity. Why this is urgent - The Ethereum Foundation set up a team last year to plan a post-quantum transition. - A May report from quantum-security firm Project Eleven estimated better-than-even odds of a machine capable of breaking elliptic-curve signatures by 2033, with 2030 possible. - According to that analysis, more than 65% of all ETH sits in addresses whose public keys are already exposed on-chain—heightening the potential attack surface if PQ-capable machines arrive. Bottom line This draft deposit-contract overhaul doesn’t pick a PQ algorithm, but it does remove a fundamental deployment roadblock: the on-chain data model. It’s a pragmatic first step that preserves upgrade flexibility while preparing staking for much larger credential sizes. The next milestones are clear—specify the PQ schemes, secure EIP consensus, and coordinate a fork across both layers—while the broader crypto community resolves which post-quantum primitives to adopt. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Headline: XRP Leads Crypto Pullback as Leverage Unwinds — $1.40 Becomes Make-or-Break Level Crypto markets are taking a breather after a big week: Bitcoin briefly cracked $80,000 on Tuesday before cooling toward the $77,000–$78,000 zone on Wednesday. Traders are eyeing tonight’s core PCE inflation print and Nvidia earnings — two major catalysts that could set the tone into the Jackson Hole symposium. Not every token is benefiting equally from this month’s improved risk appetite. XRP is shedding ground faster than most: it’s down about 6.23% in the past 24 hours to roughly $1.38, the weakest performer among the top ten cryptocurrencies by market cap (CoinMarketCap). That’s a sharp intraday reversal for a token that has been one of the month’s strongest performers — XRP is still up 35.55% over the past seven days, trailing only Hyperliquid (38.65%) among top-ten coins and far outpacing Bitcoin, Ethereum and other majors. Why the pullback? The recent rally was exceptionally rapid. XRP surged from roughly $1.00 on Aug. 18 to an intraday high near $1.69 just four days later, even briefly touching the $1.70 mark. Such a swift move likely left leveraged positions exposed, and Bitcoin’s retreat from $80k began to drag altcoins down. One encouraging datapoint: XRP-linked ETFs have recorded nine consecutive days of net inflows, suggesting institutional buying remains intact and that the move lower may be a leverage-driven correction rather than a wholesale exit by institutions. Technical snapshot - Daily action: XRP opened at $1.4344, hit a high of $1.4513, and is trading around $1.3790 — down about 3.86% on the current daily candle. - Key level: Price has returned to the $1.40 zone that flipped from resistance to support during last week’s breakout — the same level where XRP reclaimed its 200-day exponential moving average. Whether $1.40 holds will be critical: a successful hold would read as a healthy cooldown; a daily close below it could invite deeper selling toward the lower support band formed after August’s breakout. - Indicators: RSI sits at 66.7 — still bullish but approaching the 70 profit-taking threshold. ADX is strong at 44.1, indicating the trend has momentum, with DI+ still above DI- (a bullish tilt). Offsetting that, the 50-day EMA remains below the 200-day EMA, a structural reminder of the broader downtrend that persisted through much of the year. Macro and market context Bitcoin’s ability to maintain the $77k–$78k area will matter for altcoins across the board, including XRP. Tonight’s PCE inflation reading and Nvidia earnings are the next scheduled events likely to swing sentiment; either print could amplify the current unwind or help stabilize markets. Bottom line: This looks like a leverage-led pullback inside a bigger, rapid short-term rally. Holding $1.40 would keep the seven-day gains intact as a normal cooldown. A daily close beneath that level would increase the odds of a deeper retracement. Disclaimer: This article is informational and not financial advice. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Headline: 39 State Banking Groups Launch “BankChain Alliance” to Build a Bank-Owned Blockchain — Aiming for 2027 Thirty-nine state banking trade associations across the U.S. have announced the BankChain Alliance, a coalition that plans to build a shared blockchain network tailored for community and regional banks. The alliance says the platform — targeted for a 2027 rollout — will enable tokenized deposits, stablecoins, programmable payments, and automated settlement for thousands of U.S. financial institutions. What they say it will do - The alliance frames the project as an industry-owned, regulated network that lets banks of all sizes offer modern digital-payment capabilities while staying within current regulatory frameworks. “Through an unprecedented collaboration representing thousands of banks, BankChain Alliance is developing a secure, regulated, industry-built and industry-owned network that allows institutions of all sizes to provide modern capabilities so they can continue serving customers safely and efficiently in rural, urban and regional communities across the country,” said Kathy Kraninger, interim chair of the BankChain Alliance and president and CEO of the Florida Bankers Association. Who’s involved - Members include state banking associations from large markets — Texas, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon — as well as associations from smaller states such as Maine, Vermont, Hawaii, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Ohio is represented by the Ohio Bankers League; the rest of the participants are organized as state bankers associations. Open questions - The announcement leaves major technical and governance details unspecified. The alliance has not named a technology provider, chosen a base blockchain (such as Ethereum, Solana, XRP, or another), defined a governance model, or listed which individual banks will participate. It also has not explained how tokenized deposits or stablecoins would be issued, settled, or made interoperable across other networks. Why it matters - If realized, a bank-owned shared ledger could give smaller institutions access to 24/7 settlement, programmable payment rails, and tokenized assets without each bank needing to build or procure separate infrastructures. That could accelerate mainstream adoption of tokenized deposits and stablecoins among regional and community banks while keeping issuance and controls inside regulated banking networks. Where this fits in the broader landscape - The BankChain Alliance follows a wave of recent bank-led experiments with tokenized deposits and around-the-clock settlement: Custodia Bank and Vantage Bank Texas rolled out an interoperable tokenized-deposit platform for U.S. banks in October; in November, JPMorgan launched a deposit token (JPMD) on Base for institutional clients; in January, BNY announced a private, permissioned platform for tokenized deposits aimed at collateral and margin needs; and in July, Swift said 17 global banks would pilot tokenized-deposit transfers outside traditional banking hours. Next steps - The alliance has set a 2027 target but hasn’t provided a roadmap or governance framework yet. Observers will be watching who supplies the underlying technology, how regulatory compliance is enforced, and whether the network will interoperate with existing public or private chains. The BankChain Alliance did not immediately respond to requests for further comment. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Galaxy rolls out retail crypto-backed credit lines on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Solana Galaxy on Tuesday launched a retail crypto-backed borrowing product on its GalaxyOne platform, letting eligible users borrow cash against Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL) — including staked SOL — without selling a single coin. What it is - Product name: Crypto Portfolio Line of Credit (PLOC). - Structure: One revolving line that lets customers pledge BTC, ETH and SOL together instead of taking separate loans per asset. The line is reusable as you repay and redraw. - Rate & LTV: Variable APR set at 8.99% and an origination loan-to-value (LTV) of 50% (roughly $50,000 borrowable against $100,000 in collateral). - Funding and use: Draws usually fund instantly. Borrowed cash can be spent on-platform or withdrawn as USD or USDC stablecoin. Safety and collateral handling - Galaxy continuously monitors collateral values and says it will warn customers before taking any collateral action if asset prices slip. - Pledged crypto is not rehypothecated — Galaxy will not lend out or reuse your collateral while it secures your line. - Staked SOL remains staked and continues to earn rewards while serving as collateral. Why this matters now Galaxy frames the PLOC as a more protective option compared with the crypto lending failures of 2022 (Celsius, BlockFi, Voyager), when lenders froze funds and forced liquidations. The line runs on Galaxy’s regulated platform rather than routing collateral through external DeFi protocols, and pledged assets stay put rather than being reused — a design meant to reduce counterparty risk. Market backdrop Sentiment in crypto has warmed recently: the market’s mood hit “extreme greed” for the first time since 2024, and Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs added roughly $23 billion in inflows in a single week. Galaxy positions this launch as a timely, regulated re-entry into retail crypto lending with added guardrails. Availability GalaxyOne Lending LLC offers the PLOC in 40 states. The product is not available in California, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada and South Dakota. “We're excited to bring a competitive crypto-backed borrowing product to market via our growing retail platform,” said Zac Prince, Managing Director of GalaxyOne. “By leveraging Galaxy's institutional infrastructure, we are able to offer competitive rates, security and flexibility with our new crypto portfolio line of credit product.” Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Headline: Bill Gates Wants an “AI Token” Tax and Legal Safe Zones for Human Jobs — What That Means for Work (and Crypto) Bill Gates is back with a policy pitch aimed at slowing a possible rush to replace human labor with machines — and this time he’s targeting the economics of AI usage itself. In an essay titled “The turbulent AI era is here. The choices we make now are critical,” the Microsoft co-founder argues current tax rules create a built-in incentive to automate: hire a person, pay payroll taxes; buy a robot or AI service, write it off as a business expense. The result, he says, is that the tax code nudges employers toward machines. A two-part proposal 1) Tax AI usage and robots: Gates proposes a usage tax on AI “tokens” — the units language models consume when processing text and data — plus a tax on robots as capital. His logic: a usage or consumption tax changes firm behavior directly, unlike a corporate tax that only chips away at profits (which can be slim in competitive markets). Payroll contributions fund social protections; machines, which get depreciated, currently contribute nothing to Social Security or similar levies. Gates first floated a “robot tax” in 2017 and drew criticism then from economists who saw it as penalizing productivity. He’s reviving the idea, arguing that a token- or usage-based levy better aligns incentives. 2) “Human Reserved” jobs: Gates wants a legal or policy category of work deliberately kept for people even when AI could technically do the work. Think of it as a nature reserve: you could build there, but society decides some roles are worth leaving intact. His clearest examples are childcare and jury duty — roles he argues contain “irreplaceably human” elements (he cites his father’s dementia care). Education and health care land in a fuzzier middle tier: humans would stay in the loop while relying more on AI assistance. Gates estimates, at most, about 40% of jobs could be put into this “reserved” bucket under his most aggressive version, and he divides the protection into permanent roles (caregiving) and temporary protections for workers who can’t realistically retrain quickly (his example: a 55-year-old construction worker). Why Gates thinks this wave is different Gates argues that prior tech shifts — like moving from farm to factory and then to offices — unfolded over generations and created new human-centered jobs that required judgment. He warns AI is different because it can substitute for human cognition directly — across law, medicine, customer service, software, and manufacturing — and it can do so much faster, potentially within a decade. Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei has made a similar, stark prediction: up to half of entry-level white-collar jobs could vanish within five years. What the data say so far The empirical evidence hasn’t yet shown a mass displacement. A Yale Budget Lab and Brookings study through July found no sign of large-scale job losses in federal employment data. California’s new AI-unemployment tracker likewise hasn’t flagged a statewide layoff wave, though it does show rising unemployment claims among college-educated workers in AI-exposed roles. Gates says he’s not waiting: “I’d love to be convinced that I’m wrong about the job market, but I’m not,” and he claims he’d stake his reputation on AI becoming “very bad for the job market” if unchecked. The big choice ahead Gates frames the moment as a fork: AI can become “the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice,” and he argues the next few years — not decades — will be decisive. To steer the outcome, he calls for new national coordinating bodies and an international institution to manage the transition. And he’s pushing again for a tax approach he first suggested nine years ago, looking for a government willing to test it. Why crypto readers should care Gates’ “AI token” tax will resonate with anyone familiar with crypto mechanics: tokens here are the micro-units consumed by language models (analogous to gas or transaction tokens). A usage-based levy is effectively a tax on compute or token throughput — a policy lever that could shape how fast enterprises adopt AI services and how those services are priced. If governments pursue this route, it could create new compliance regimes for AI providers and new parallels between blockchain economics and AI consumption. Bottom line: Gates wants policy to re-balance incentives before automation accelerates. Whether a token tax, robot levy, or human-reserved jobs regime becomes law remains uncertain — but his essay makes it clear he thinks the time to decide is now. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has taken a key step toward rewriting how advisers and funds hold crypto: it sent a proposed overhaul of custody rules to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Aug. 25 for executive review. That OMB review must finish before the SEC can publish the full proposal and put it up for a commission vote. What’s happening and why it matters - The proposal aims to clarify how registered investment advisers and investment companies may custody crypto assets while complying with existing SEC custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. Current rules were written long before crypto emerged in regulated portfolios, and firms have raised questions about how custody obligations apply when ownership and control hinge on private keys and blockchain custody systems. - The SEC says the planned rule will both clarify custody for digital assets and remove some legacy custody requirements the agency now considers outdated because market practices have changed. - Full details are not public yet. They will only be released after OMB completes its review and the SEC returns the proposal to the commission for a vote to publish it for public comment. How this differs from the earlier “safeguarding” effort - This is a new rulemaking under SEC Chair Paul Atkins, distinct from the Safeguarding Advisory Client Assets proposal first unveiled in March 2023 and withdrawn in June 2025 (a Gensler-era initiative). The earlier rule would have expanded custody requirements to more client assets — including crypto — and required custody with “qualified custodians” in most cases. Many crypto custody providers did not meet that proposed definition, creating industry uncertainty. - The current custody amendments are being developed from scratch. Key topics likely to attract attention include the definition of a qualified custodian for digital assets, acceptable custody arrangements, and how private-key-based custody fits into SEC safeguards — but the exact text won’t be known until publication. Process and timeline to expect - OMB review is the immediate step; once it returns the proposal (possibly with revisions), the SEC’s three sitting commissioners — all Republicans at present — will vote on whether to publish the proposal for public comment. - If published, the rule would typically be open for at least 60 days of public comment. SEC staff will review submissions and may revise the draft before a final rule vote by the commission. - The proposal is listed as “economically significant,” meaning the SEC will assess expected costs, benefits and other economic effects while it develops the rule. Where this fits in the broader crypto rulemaking picture - Custody is one piece of a broader push by the SEC to address digital-asset markets. In July the commission placed three crypto-related proposals on its 2026 regulatory agenda covering: exemptions/safe harbors for crypto assets; how broker-dealer rules should apply to firms handling digital assets; and market-structure rules for trading crypto on alternative trading systems and exchanges. - The SEC’s 2026–2030 strategy likewise emphasizes digital assets, blockchain infrastructure and tokenized financial products, and calls for clearer treatment of digital assets under federal securities laws, plus continued coordination with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). - Congressional action remains consequential. The Senate is negotiating the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (often called the CLARITY Act), intended to set a statutory structure for U.S. crypto markets; the House passed its CLARITY bill in 2025. Some jurisdictional changes, such as giving the CFTC authority over digital commodity spot markets, would require legislation, not agency rulemaking. What industry participants should watch - The definition of a “qualified custodian” for crypto and how custody arrangements that rely on private keys and blockchain-native solutions will be treated. - Whether any legacy custody requirements are eliminated and what new conditions or recordkeeping obligations might be imposed. - Key dates: completion of OMB review, the SEC vote to publish, the public comment window (likely 60+ days), and the commission’s final vote. Bottom line The SEC’s custody revamp could reshape how advisers and funds store and safeguard crypto, clarifying long-standing questions but also raising new compliance issues depending on the final drafting. With the proposal now at OMB, the industry’s next concrete milestone will be the SEC’s publication of the proposal and the start of the public comment process. Expect vigorous engagement from advisers, custodians, exchanges and crypto firms once the text is released. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Headline: Stablecoin compliance could determine which issuers win institutional business, says Aquanow CEO Subhead: New FASB accounting guidance and the GENIUS Act’s licensing push raise the bar on redemption rights, reserves and risk controls — favoring issuers with deep banking ties and robust compliance. The battle for institutional stablecoin adoption could be decided not by tokenomics or on-chain liquidity alone, but by paperwork and legal plumbing — how stablecoins are structured, held and backed — according to Phil Sham, CEO and co-founder of digital-asset infrastructure provider Aquanow. What changed On Aug. 18 the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) released a proposal to clarify when certain digital assets qualify as “cash equivalents.” The guidance doesn’t declare all stablecoins to be cash, but targets those with specific traits: demonstrable price stability, liquid reserves, and contractual rights for holders to redeem directly with the issuer for cash on demand. The FASB update came one day after the U.S. Treasury opened a comment period for implementing Section 3 of the GENIUS Act. Taken together, the accounting and regulatory moves aim to reduce uncertainty — but also raise the compliance threshold for issuers seeking to win institutional customers in the U.S. Why accounting recognition matters — and where it doesn’t Sham told crypto.news that classifying qualifying stablecoins as cash equivalents could remove a “meaningful accounting friction,” making eligible tokens easier to use in treasury management, payments and settlement and simplifying balance-sheet presentation and liquidity assessment. That, in turn, could accelerate institutional integration into existing financial workflows. But accounting recognition is only one piece of the puzzle. Banks, asset managers and corporates will still need to satisfy regulatory capital rules, internal risk limits, collateral standards and contractual obligations. Many lending agreements and credit facilities define “cash” in their own terms; lenders may need to approve any substitution of stablecoins for cash under liquidity covenants. Practical institutional concerns Institutions will continue to scrutinize: - Redemption mechanics: Can the holder redeem at par on demand, even under market stress? - Custody and counterparty exposure: Does the holder have a direct legal claim against the issuer, or only a contractual claim against an intermediary such as an exchange or custodian? - Reserve quality and concentration: Who holds the reserves and how liquid are they? - Operational risk: Governance, cybersecurity, AML, sanctions and business continuity. “Firms ask three practical questions: who owes us the dollar, where is it held, and how quickly can we recover it under stress?” Sham said. A mere claim to a 1:1 reserve isn’t enough — institutions want credible proof they can consistently redeem at par when liquidity tightens. Legal form matters as much as on-chain fungibility On-chain tokens are fungible by design, but legal rights can differ depending on how the token was acquired and held. Buying directly from an issuer may confer on-demand redemption rights; holding through an exchange often creates a claim against the platform rather than the issuer. That extra layer of counterparty exposure could disqualify the same stablecoin from cash-equivalent treatment for one institution but permit it for another. Structures such as bankruptcy-remote trusts or custodial arrangements that pass direct redemption rights to beneficial owners could change the accounting outcome, but details will depend on the final FASB language and contractual documentation. Regulatory timeline and constraints Under the GENIUS Act’s proposed implementation, anyone issuing a payment stablecoin in the U.S. after Jan. 18, 2027 would need an appropriate federal or state license. Foreign issuers targeting U.S. customers must be able to comply with lawful U.S. orders and relevant cross-border arrangements. From July 18, 2028, digital-asset service providers generally could not offer payment stablecoins to U.S. customers unless those coins were issued by a licensed entity. Treasury requested comments on its rule within 60 days of publication in the Federal Register. Market implications: concentration or niche opportunity? The combined accounting and licensing regimes could concentrate institutional activity among a smaller group of large, well-capitalized issuers with existing bank relationships, broad distribution, and compliance teams. Those firms can spread regulatory and operational costs across many users and already benefit from exchange integrations and deeper liquidity — qualities institutions prize for trading, settlement and collateral. “Liquidity may concentrate among established issuers because compliance costs, distribution and network effects favor scale,” Sham said. That makes it harder — though not impossible — for new entrants. Smaller issuers can still compete by focusing on regional payments, industry-specific settlement use cases, or niches underserved by large dollar-backed tokens. But to win institutional support they will need strong regulatory foundations, transparent redemption terms, resilient reserve arrangements and an ecosystem ready to accept the token. Bottom line If FASB and Treasury largely adopt the proposals as drafted, the stablecoin competition could shift from a race driven by supply, yield and exchange listings to one decided by legal claims, reserve access and the practical ability to return dollars during crises. For institutions, the question won’t just be whether a token trades on-chain — it will be whether the legal and operational links behind it can be trusted when it matters most. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Headline: OpenAI: Russia-linked Network Used ChatGPT to Pose as Academic Experts — What Crypto Investors Should Know A Russia-origin network used ChatGPT to fabricate an apparently scholarly influence operation, OpenAI reported Wednesday — a case that highlights how generative AI can be weaponized to create polished but deceptive content that could mislead niche online communities, including crypto participants. What OpenAI found - The company banned a set of accounts after tracing activity to operators who used Russian-language prompts to generate social media posts and comments, mostly in English. They explicitly told ChatGPT to hide signs the content originated in Russia. - Because ChatGPT is blocked in Russia, the operators used VPNs to mask their locations while accessing the service. - The campaign promoted the “International Burke Institute” (IBI), an organization presented as an Israel-based academic think tank. The network created official-looking profiles and impersonated ordinary users to amplify the institute’s output. - OpenAI reviewed 36 articles on the IBI site and found 34 were copied from other sources; multiple pieces were attributed to academics who did not write them. One example: an article on the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor appears to be copied from a Cambridge University Press source but was credited to a University of Nottingham professor whose work focuses on South Asian politics. - OpenAI described the operation as reaching relatively small audiences but noted its “elaborate construction” distinguishes it from other Russia-linked influence campaigns since the start of the war in Ukraine. How this fits a pattern OpenAI linked the IBI case to a broader trend of AI-assisted influence and cyber operations: - In 2024 it documented “Doppelganger,” a separate Russia-linked campaign using ChatGPT to publish articles and social media content that praised Russia and attacked Ukraine, NATO, and the United States. - The company also reported that “Forest Blizzard,” a group tied to Russian military intelligence, used the chatbot to research targets, draft scripts, and assist phishing attacks. Attribution and unresolved questions OpenAI did not attribute the IBI operation directly to the Russian government. The company said some people in Israel may have represented the institute at conferences or through article submissions, but their relationship to the Russian operators remains unclear: “We are not in a position to determine the relationship between these individuals, the IBI, and the operators in Russia,” OpenAI wrote. Why crypto communities should care AI-driven influence operations and identity fabrication are not limited to geopolitics. They pose clear risks to crypto markets and communities: - Fake expert endorsements, fabricated research, or seemingly credible “think tanks” can be used to lend legitimacy to tokens, protocols, or events. - AI-assisted content can amplify social engineering and phishing campaigns that target crypto holders and developers. - Sockpuppet accounts and copied content make it harder to assess credibility and provenance in a space that already relies heavily on online reputation. Practical takeaways for crypto users - Verify authors and institutions: cross-check article origins, author affiliations, and publication history. - Inspect content provenance: be wary of copied or poorly attributed articles; search for original sources and timestamps. - Scrutinize social signals: large followings or polished profiles are not guarantees of authenticity. - Guard against phishing: treat unsolicited research, audit offers, or “exclusive” access with suspicion; confirm through trusted channels. The OpenAI report underscores how quickly AI tools can scale deceptive, professional-looking narratives. For crypto participants — where trust and provenance directly affect value and security — the warning is clear: vet sources rigorously and be alert to the growing sophistication of AI-enabled influence operations. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Taurus connects its tokenization stack to Swift’s blockchain ledger, opening banks to 24/7 tokenized deposit payments Swiss digital-asset infrastructure provider Taurus has integrated its custody and tokenization platforms with Swift’s new blockchain-based shared ledger, giving banks a practical on-ramp to use bank-issued tokenized deposits for round-the-clock cross-border payments. What happened - Taurus linked Swift smart contracts to its Taurus‑CAPITAL (issuance/management) and Taurus‑PROTECT (wallets/key management) products on clients’ permissioned blockchain infrastructure. - The company says the first client connections are expected within days, and the first distributed ledger transactions using the Swift integration should follow within weeks. - Existing Taurus customers can add the Swift connection to production infrastructure quickly; banks without in‑house blockchain nodes can use Taurus’s managed Hyperledger Besu environment with EVM connectivity. Taurus will also connect its tooling to institutions’ existing Besu or other EVM-compatible nodes. Why it matters - The integration gives financial firms a straightforward path to participate in Swift’s tokenized-deposit network while keeping deposits on their own balance sheets and preserving existing compliance, credit and settlement processes. - Swift’s ledger acts as an orchestration layer: it coordinates movement of tokenized deposits between banks while final settlement still occurs via established mechanisms (including RTGS). That lets cross‑border payments operate outside traditional business-hour overlaps — overnight and on weekends. - Tokenized deposits differ from stablecoins because the underlying money remains within the commercial banking system and under bank regulatory frameworks, rather than being held in a separate pooled structure. How Taurus’s components fit - Taurus‑PROTECT: programmable wallets, key management, governance rules, approval workflows and API automation — the operational layer for custody and control. - Taurus‑CAPITAL: issuance and lifecycle management for bank-issued tokenized money, while leaving the underlying deposit on the issuing bank’s ledger. - Deployment options: a managed Besu service for banks without nodes; direct connectivity for institutions running Besu/EVM nodes; or a fast extension for existing Taurus‑PROTECT customers. Context and traction - Swift moved its shared ledger into initial deployment in July after about nine months of development. At rollout, 17 banks across six continents were preparing to test tokenized deposit payments, including HSBC, Citi, BNP Paribas, UBS, ANZ, DBS and Standard Chartered. - More than 40 institutions contributed to designing the system; Swift’s wider messaging network already connects over 11,500 financial institutions and companies across 200+ markets. - The model has already seen production activity: Standard Chartered and HSBC completed the first live cross‑border transaction using separate tokenized deposit systems connected through Swift’s infrastructure. Separately, HSBC executed a blockchain issuance of a digitally native structured product using tokenized USD notes in July. Taurus’s broader product roadmap - The Swift integration extends Taurus’s stack, which already bundles custody, tokenization, blockchain connectivity and staking services for institutional clients. - In June, Taurus added institutional staking through an integration with P2P.org, giving Taurus‑PROTECT users access to validator infrastructure while preserving custody and operational workflows. Staking connectivity covers Ethereum (at launch) and other proof‑of‑stake networks including Solana, Polkadot, Cosmos, NEAR, Cardano and Tezos; P2P.org reported over $10 billion in delegated assets across 50+ networks at the time. - Taurus has expanded its tokenization reach as well — Taurus‑CAPITAL was extended to Solana in February 2025, enabling programmable tokenized assets on that chain. Customers and partnerships - Taurus lists institutional clients including State Street, Deutsche Bank, Santander and CACEIS. Deutsche Bank backed Taurus in a $65 million funding round and continues to collaborate with the Swiss firm on institutional custody infrastructure. - The company also increased its U.S. presence, opening a New York office in October 2025. Quote Taurus co‑founder and managing partner Lamine Brahimi framed the deal as a practical bridge between new digital-asset capabilities and the systems banks already run: the Swift connectivity “allows banks to extend their digital asset capabilities into tokenized deposits and cross‑border payments while retaining control over their infrastructure,” he said. Bottom line Taurus’s Swift integration gives banks three quick paths into a growing tokenized-deposit payments layer: a managed Besu service, direct node connectivity, or a rapid extension for existing Taurus users. With early tests and live transactions already underway, the move marks another step toward mainstreaming bank-issued tokenized money for faster, always‑on cross‑border payments. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Hyperliquid Policy Center and market operator trade[XYZ] have asked the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to allow regulated perpetual contracts tied to WTI crude, Brent crude and Henry Hub natural gas — arguing these 24/7 onchain markets can coexist with traditional futures and improve access and price discovery outside normal exchange hours. What they filed - In a joint submission dated Aug. 26, the groups responded to a CFTC review and asked the agency to establish a legal path for energy perpetuals without waiting for new legislation. - trade[XYZ], the first major third‑party market deployer on Hyperliquid, has offered perpetual energy products since October 2025. The filing cites Bloomberg data saying trade[XYZ]’s markets have generated more than $500 billion in cumulative trading volume across asset classes, including energy. - The proposal urges a technology‑neutral regulatory framework: exchanges and clearinghouses could operate continuous markets so long as they meet existing CFTC core principles for market integrity, customer protection, clearing and recordkeeping. Why perpetuals — and the evidence offered - Perpetual contracts never expire; instead traders pay or receive recurring funding to keep contract prices aligned with the underlying reference. That allows continuous exposure without rolling into a new delivery month. - The submission emphasizes access during off‑hours. After the Feb. 28 Middle East conflict disrupted energy exports, U.S. futures venues were closed until Sunday evening — but oil‑linked perpetuals on Hyperliquid continued to trade over the weekend. The filing says roughly two‑thirds of the oil price move that occurred between Friday close and the benchmark’s Sunday reopening was already reflected in the onchain market. - The filing cites subsequent market moves: Brent approached $120/barrel by March 9 and jet fuel prices doubled within weeks, per news reports. - Hyperliquid Policy Center research compared perpetual prices with the benchmark’s reopening: in nearly 75% of weekend closures studied, the perpetual ended closer to Sunday’s opening price than the benchmark’s prior Friday close. - The filing also reports no statistically measurable deterioration in the quality of CME WTI reopening prices after trade[XYZ] launched its crude contract, using that to argue perpetuals can trade alongside dated futures without weakening established benchmarks. Practical access and market structure points - Contract size matters for access: a standard CME WTI futures contract covers 1,000 barrels (roughly $70,000 notional at recent prices), while the median off‑hours crude trade on trade[XYZ] was about $1,300 — suggesting perpetuals can provide smaller market participants with meaningful ability to hedge or adjust positions out of hours. - The filing acknowledges that traditional dated futures will remain necessary for participants needing physical settlement, exposure to a specific delivery month, or positions tied to the futures curve. Risk controls, surveillance and onchain mechanics - Hyperliquid and trade[XYZ] argue that onchain systems can run trading, margin checks, clearing, settlement and surveillance 24/7. Under trade[XYZ]’s model, positions are pre‑funded and margin is recalculated with each transaction rather than waiting for scheduled settlement. - The filings say standard order‑book liquidations handled 97.9% of all notional volume liquidated across trade[XYZ] markets; predefined backstops covered the rest. - Because transactions, margin changes and liquidations are visible on a public ledger, the groups contend regulated operators could perform real‑time surveillance without adding new reporting burdens for each participant — though U.S. operators would still have to meet all applicable integrity, customer protection and recordkeeping rules. - In July, TradingView integrated Hyperliquid and trade[XYZ] price feeds, making these onchain market prices visible to a broader set of users outside standard exchange hours. Collateral, leverage and other regulatory asks - The filing requests that the CFTC recognize eligible stablecoins and tokenized traditional assets as margin for cleared derivatives, noting blockchain collateral can move while bank rails are closed. - The groups point to the CFTC’s crypto collateral pilot — which already allows some futures commission merchants to accept Bitcoin, Ether and qualifying stablecoins under reporting, capital and risk‑management rules — and ask the commission to clarify how similar treatment would apply to energy markets. They do not seek crypto collateral for uncleared swaps. - Other recommendations include leverage limits tailored by asset class, plain‑language disclosures explaining funding payments and liquidation processes, and market‑integrity standards addressing manipulation risk and reference‑price reliability when physical markets are inactive. - They also ask the CFTC to clarify how rules that reference “business day” deadlines should apply when an exchange, clearing system and collateral network operate nights, weekends and holidays. Regulatory context and next steps - The CFTC opened a public consultation in June on two linked topics: extending standard energy futures to continuous trading and listing perpetual contracts tied to physical or storable energy commodities. The review covers reference‑price reliability, manipulation risks, surveillance, position limits, margin, clearing, customer safeguards and effects on physical energy markets. The comment deadline was extended to Aug. 26. - CFTC Chair Michael Selig has said the agency needs a “clear, data‑driven record” as regulated entities consider longer trading hours and new contract designs. The commission has not approved energy perpetuals and the public consultation does not guarantee authorization. - The filing arrives against a backdrop of industry moves: in May, Intercontinental Exchange agreed to license its Brent and WTI prices for perpetual contracts offered by OKX in selected markets outside the U.S. And in May the CFTC approved Kalshi’s Bitcoin perpetual — the first federally regulated non‑expiring contract in the U.S. — although the agency treated that product as a futures contract and limited its analysis to digital commodities with deep, continuous spot markets. Energy products require separate consideration because of different physical markets, delivery systems and benchmarks. Other parallel filings - Hyperliquid Policy Center has also been pressing for an equity framework. In an Aug. 24 submission it argued that qualifying equity perpetuals should be treated as security futures when they carry established futures features. Why it matters If the CFTC adopts a framework that allows regulated energy perpetuals, it could open round‑the‑clock access to energy price exposure for smaller participants and improve off‑hours price discovery — while forcing exchanges, clearinghouses and regulators to adapt rules and supervision to continuous, onchain trading and settlement models. The agency’s next steps will determine whether and how perpetuals become a regulated feature of U.S. energy markets. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Chainalysis says global onchain crypto activity that could be taxable topped $457 billion in 2025 — but international reporting rules only cover a sliver of it. In a report published Aug. 26, the blockchain analytics firm estimated that just 14% of potentially taxable onchain transactions fall within the practical reach of the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF). The remaining 86% — a category that includes decentralized exchange (DEX) trades, peer-to-peer transfers, onchain income (staking, mining, lending, gambling) and merchant payments — largely sits outside CARF’s direct reporting scope. What Chainalysis measured - Total potentially taxable onchain activity (lower-bound estimate): >$457 billion in 2025. This excludes activity that never appears on a public blockchain, such as trades, staking and lending conducted entirely inside centralized exchanges’ internal ledgers. - Chains analyzed: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Tron, BNB Smart Chain and Base. - Categories: realized gains, income (mining, staking, lending, gambling), and payments (merchant services and P2P-like transfers). - Note: Chainalysis cautions the figure is conservative — it did not cover every blockchain, transaction type, or trading venue. Geographic breakdown highlights - United States: $112.6 billion (payments $64.6B; gains $30.1B; income $17.9B) — the largest country total. - Regional leaders: North America $134.6B; European Union $125.1B; East Asia $54.7B. - Other top countries: Germany $24.1B; China $21B; United Kingdom $19.4B; India $19B; Brazil $16.1B; Canada $15.1B; Japan $13.2B; Russia $13B; Thailand $12.5B. Important caveats These are estimates of activity that could be taxable under commonly used rules, not the amount of tax owed or unpaid. Local tax exemptions, rates and classifications vary, so authorities would not collect these figures as revenue dollar-for-dollar. The enforcement landscape and new reporting rules CARF, developed by the OECD in 2022, sets a framework for cross-border exchange of crypto transaction data from Reporting Crypto-Asset Service Providers — mainly centralized exchanges and brokers. CARF data collection began Jan. 1, 2026, in 48 jurisdictions (including the U.K. and EU members), with most due to start exchanging the collected information in 2027 and other participants joining in 2028–2029. CARF’s strength is access to closed order books: centralized platforms generally know who executed each trade, making it easier for tax authorities to trace taxable activity that flows through those services. CARF can also capture some onchain events — for example, deposits or withdrawals between a private wallet and an exchange when they relate to a sale. But Chainalysis finds CARF’s practical reach is limited. Decentralized finance protocols operate without central custodians or comprehensive identity records; private wallets let users transact without touching a reporting platform; foreign services with no qualifying CARF connection may fall outside its remit. As a result, CARF-covered events amounted to only 14% of the potentially taxable onchain activity Chainalysis observed. Other practical hurdles include cost-basis gaps (when an exchange sees sale proceeds but not the original purchase price or holding period), lack of retroactivity in CARF, and aggregate reports that may not include the transaction-level detail needed to reconstruct a wallet’s full history. Those issues are compounded when investors mix exchanges, self-custody, staking, and liquidity pools. U.S. context and compliance tools For U.S. taxpayers, rules generally treat selling crypto for fiat, swapping tokens, and spending crypto as taxable disposals; mining and staking rewards can be ordinary income. Moving assets between wallets owned by the same person or buying crypto with dollars generally isn’t taxable. U.S. custodial brokers began filing Form 1099-DA for customer disposals in the 2025 tax year; gross proceeds reporting started first and cost-basis reporting phases in for covered transactions made in 2026. Chainalysis also notes prior estimates of a sizable U.S. crypto tax gap (~$50 billion annually in 2022) and congressional projections that Form 1099-DA could generate about $28 billion in federal revenue over 10 years. How tax authorities can close the gaps Chainalysis recommends that authorities pair CARF data with blockchain analytics to trace transfers between wallet addresses, spot interactions with DeFi or foreign platforms, and identify onchain income streams (staking, mining, lending, liquidity provision). Onchain forensics can also help reconstruct cost basis when assets pass through multiple wallets before hitting a reporting exchange — and linking that chain to customer records on regulated platforms creates a route from anonymous onchain activity to an identified taxpayer. These techniques are already being used in the field: Chainalysis cites Italian investigations in which authorities traced more than €1 million in alleged undeclared gains from Bitcoin Ordinals and BRC-20 sales by combining seized hardware-wallet data with exchange records and transaction patterns. Bottom line CARF creates a powerful new data pipeline for tax authorities, but Chainalysis’ analysis shows the framework will capture only a fraction of potentially taxable onchain activity unless regulators supplement platform reporting with blockchain analysis and targeted international cooperation. As tax regimes around the world evolve — from new forms of reporting to national taxes on private-wallet income — enforcement will depend on blending legal reporting requirements with technical onchain tracing. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

A new national survey shows most Americans aren’t ready to see cryptocurrency added to workplace retirement plans — even as federal policy increasingly opens the door. Major takeaways - 53% of Americans oppose employers offering cryptocurrency as an investment option in workplace retirement plans. - 77% view crypto investments as risky; 46% call them “very risky.” - The survey, by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), was fielded Oct. 24–Nov. 14, 2025, with 1,203 U.S. adults age 25+, weighted to reflect the population. Public worry sits alongside broader retirement anxiety NIRS’s results come amid rising concern about U.S. retirement security. Key findings: - 80% of respondents said the country is facing a retirement crisis (up from 67% in 2020). - 61% worry they won’t achieve financial security in retirement. - 68% said preparing for retirement has become harder; 77% said household debt prevents them from saving enough. The survey underscores that resistance to workplace crypto is not only coming from people who generally reject digital assets. Even as usage ticks up — a Federal Reserve survey found 10% of adults used or held crypto in 2025 (up from 7% in 2024), with roughly 7% holding crypto as an investment) — a majority remain uncomfortable with putting crypto into employer-sponsored retirement plans. Why the concern matters NIRS and other analyses point to structural retirement weaknesses that amplify fears about adding volatile assets to savings vehicles: - NIRS’s February 2026 analysis (using Census data) found the median retirement savings balance for the American workforce was below $1,000, and many workers still lack access to employer plans. - Social Security provided about 52% of retirement income for older Americans; only roughly 17% had access to a defined-benefit pension as of Dec. 2022. - The U.S. Government Accountability Office has flagged crypto’s unique price volatility and limited reliable methods for projecting returns — traits that can magnify risks for long-term savers. Policy is moving toward more permissive treatment of alternatives Federal policy has shifted toward treating crypto and other alternative assets more neutrally, even as public skepticism persists: - May 2025: The Department of Labor (DOL) withdrew earlier guidance that had told retirement-plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” before adding cryptocurrency. - Aug. 7, 2025: President Trump issued an executive order on alternative assets (digital-asset vehicles, private equity, private credit, real estate and similar investments), directing the Labor Department and SEC to review guidance and regulations that affect employer-sponsored plans. - Mid-August 2025: The DOL rescinded a 2021 statement that had discouraged fiduciaries from considering private equity and some other alternatives. Those changes did not force employers to add crypto. Under ERISA, plan sponsors and fiduciaries still must assess whether any investment — by cost, liquidity, valuation, fees and risks — is prudent for participants. March 2026 proposal and political pushback In March 2026 the DOL proposed a new rule to clarify how fiduciaries should evaluate alternative assets for workplace retirement plans. The proposal would: - Offer regulatory safe harbors intended to lower litigation risk for fiduciaries who follow prescribed review standards. - Require objective, documented reviews covering performance, fees, liquidity, valuation, redemption terms and whether participants can understand the investment. - Apply to more than 90 million retirement savers, the department said. The proposal explicitly would not require plan sponsors to add crypto or private funds; instead, it replaces categorical restrictions with case-by-case fiduciary reviews. But the plan drew opposition from the left: in June, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Bobby Scott asked the DOL to withdraw the proposal, warning that crypto could expose workers to volatility, fraud and weaker investor protections than public securities. They also criticized broad inclusion of private funds — citing high fees, limited liquidity and valuation challenges. What this means for retirement savers and employers - Short term: Most workers remain uneasy about crypto in retirement plans, and financial pressures (low savings, high debt) make taking added risk less appealing. - Regulatoryly: The trend is toward enabling fiduciaries to consider alternative assets if they can document prudence — but the DOL’s proposal must still pass the federal rulemaking process and could be revised or withdrawn. - For plan sponsors: Nothing forces crypto into menus today; any inclusion would need careful ERISA-based documentation that an asset is suitable for participants. Bottom line: Americans entering retirement feel squeezed, and a majority see crypto as an added hazard. Policymakers are moving to create a framework that could allow crypto in workplace plans under strict fiduciary review — but political and public resistance means the path forward will be contested. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Chainlink brings Coinbase’s tokenized stocks into DeFi lending on Base Chainlink has rolled out price feeds for four Coinbase tokenized stocks on Base, enabling DeFi protocols to accept NVDAc, METAc, AAPLc and GOOGLc as on‑chain collateral. The move — announced on X by Chainlink on Aug. 26 — turns these tokenized shares from tradable assets into composable building blocks that lending markets can value and manage. What Chainlink added - Price feeds for the B20 tokens representing Nvidia (NVDAc), Meta (METAc), Apple (AAPLc) and Alphabet (GOOGLc). - Data delivered via Chainlink’s familiar V3 aggregator interface, the same standard many crypto price oracles use. - Each feed reports a total‑return value that combines the underlying stock market price with a multiplier pulled from Coinbase’s on‑chain oracle registry — so the feed reflects changes in the token’s deposit ratio (for example, when dividends are reinvested after fees and withholding taxes), not just the quoted share price. Why this matters for DeFi - Lending: Protocols can now use Chainlink’s valuations to decide how much to lend against B20 stock tokens, monitor loan health, and trigger liquidations when necessary. That gives holders an alternative to selling their tokenized stocks if they need liquidity. - Composability: By providing reliable price data, Chainlink helps integrate tokenized stocks into lending, AMMs, aggregators and other DeFi primitives on Base. - Developer guidance: Chainlink stresses verifying token contract addresses (tickers can be copied) and assessing each feed’s behavior before relying on it for borrowing or liquidation logic. Issuer and custody details - Coinbase launched these four one‑to‑one–backed tokenized stocks on Base on Aug. 24. They use the B20 token standard for tokenized real‑world assets. - The securities are issued by Coinbase Onchain SPV Ltd., an entity incorporated in the Abu Dhabi Global Market (ADGM). For every token minted, a corresponding share is held in a segregated custody account. - Alpaca Securities is named in the prospectuses as broker and custodian; it’s registered with the U.S. SEC and belongs to FINRA and SIPC. - Tokenholders receive a beneficial interest in the custodied shares rather than being the registered owner on the companies’ books. Verified holders may submit voting instructions, but the issuer’s ability to act has legal and operational limits. Regulatory and access constraints - These ADGM-issued tokenized securities are offered under Regulation S and are not available to U.S. persons. They are not registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 or with state regulators. - U.S. customers who want conventional stock exposure can use Coinbase’s separate brokerage (custody and clearing via Apex Clearing), which operates independently of the Base B20 products. - Services built around the tokenized stocks can also be restricted to non‑U.S. persons. For example, Bitwise’s tokenized portfolios using Coinbase assets are not available to U.S. customers. Market mechanics and operational cautions - Chainlink’s equity feeds provide near‑round‑the‑clock coverage Monday–Friday by combining regular session, extended hours and overnight market data. Coverage and update frequency vary: regular U.S. trading hours have the strongest provider coverage; overnight sessions draw from fewer providers and update less often; weekend prices may remain static because equity markets are closed. - Chainlink applies session‑aware smoothing during trading‑session transitions to blunt thin‑liquidity spikes, but smoothing can also cause the feed to lag during fast moves. - Developers should set appropriate safeguards, factor in session differences, and check Base’s sequencer status before using valuations for borrowings or liquidations. Related protocol work - Base lists Aave, Morpho and Euler among protocols providing or preparing lending support for B20 assets. Aerodrome supports tokenized‑stock liquidity, while 0x, 1inch, KyberSwap and CoW Swap provide trading rails. Individual applications decide which tokens and markets to activate. - An Ethereum proposal published Aug. 24 would add an “asset status” interface to let smart contracts distinguish scheduled exchange closures from oracle failures, trading halts, or unavailable redemptions — a distinction that matters when choosing how to behave during an old price or a halted market. Redemption and compliance - Verified holders may request redemption for the underlying share, U.S. dollars, or certain stablecoins (e.g., USDC). The issuer charges a 0.05% redemption fee and may require identity, sanctions and AML checks. - Tokens acquired through DeFi without completing Coinbase’s compliance process remain “unvested” until the holder passes required checks; unvested holders cannot redeem, exercise some holder rights, or submit voting instructions. Bottom line Chainlink’s feeds give DeFi protocols the pricing infrastructure needed to treat Coinbase’s B20 tokenized stocks as usable collateral on Base, expanding how these tokenized securities can be deployed in lending and other composable finance products. That unlocks new on‑chain liquidity paths — but developers and users should weigh session coverage, smoothing behavior, KYC/restrictions, and legal access limits before relying on them. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella landed a record $96.5 million compensation package for fiscal 2025 — a nearly 22% jump from last year’s $79.1 million — reflecting the board’s strong vote of confidence in his AI-and-cloud strategy. What the payout looks like - Total: $96.5 million - Stock awards: more than $84 million - Cash bonuses: about $9.5 million - Base salary: $2.5 million Microsoft says roughly 95% of Nadella’s target pay is performance-based, and nearly 70% of the payout is tied to stock awards — underscoring that his pay is aligned with long-term company performance. Why the big payout Microsoft’s compensation decision comes amid solid top-line momentum. The firm posted 15% year‑over‑year revenue growth and a 17% rise in operating income. Microsoft Cloud was a major driver, with cloud revenue up 23% to $169 billion and Azure growing more than 34% for the fiscal year while generating over $75 billion. What it means for markets — and crypto investors The board’s move signals confidence that Microsoft’s heavy investments in AI infrastructure and cloud services are paying off. Wall Street has been broadly bullish, and there’s a reasonable case that the strong results and continued capital deployment into AI could help lift the stock. For crypto and Web3 audiences, Microsoft’s ramp in cloud and AI spending matters: many blockchain projects, exchanges, and institutional crypto services depend on scalable cloud infrastructure (and AI tools) for security, data analysis, and product development. Continued growth at Azure and Microsoft Cloud can therefore be a tailwind for crypto firms that rely on enterprise-grade hosting and AI services. What to watch next Investors will be watching Microsoft’s next earnings release for confirmation that growth is sustainable — the company’s next report is expected around late October 2026 — and any guidance about AI-related capital spending that could affect both equities and cloud-dependent crypto businesses. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has taken a new step to modernize how crypto assets are held and managed, filing a rule proposal this week aimed squarely at updating custody requirements for the digital-asset era. What the SEC proposed - In a rule change submitted Tuesday, the SEC said it wants to “improve and modernize the regulations” governing custody of crypto assets. - The draft rule would “clarify the framework for the custody of crypto assets” for investment advisers and investment companies and remove “burdens from certain outdated provisions that are no longer needed to provide investor protection given the evolution in the markets and security trading and holding practices,” the proposal states. Why it matters Custody rules determine how funds and advisers hold client assets — a core element of investor protection. Modernized custody guidance tailored to crypto could reduce regulatory uncertainty for advisers and funds, and better align oversight with current blockchain custody and security practices. Context: policy push continues despite stalled legislation - The SEC moved while a congressional vote on the Crypto Clarity Act (often styled the CLARITY Act) remains stalled. That bill seeks broader regulatory clarity and investor protections for the crypto sector. - The agency has nonetheless been actively pursuing crypto-friendly initiatives in recent weeks. Notably, the SEC is preparing an “innovation exemption” that could permit 24/7 trading of tokenized stocks on the blockchain — a move that would expand trading hours and market structure options for tokenized securities. Political and regulatory signals - Last week, the president urged lawmakers to pass the Crypto Clarity Act, and SEC Chair Paul Atkins has said he is “committed to supporting Congress in advancing” the bill. - Still, the SEC’s new custody proposal is narrower in scope than the CLARITY Act. But it fulfills the agency’s stated intent to press forward with targeted crypto rulemaking even if broader legislation stalls. What’s next The custody proposal must go through the SEC’s rulemaking process — including public comment and potential revisions — before any final rule is adopted. If enacted, the changes could provide clearer guardrails for advisers and investment companies custodying crypto, and would be another sign of the regulator’s increasing engagement with crypto-market infrastructure. Bottom line: With Congress gridlocked on comprehensive crypto legislation, the SEC is using its rulemaking powers to push incremental, targeted updates that could materially affect how institutional players hold and trade digital assets. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Tornado Cash developer Roman Storm won’t face a retrial on the two counts a jury deadlocked on until April 26, 2027, after U.S. District Judge Katherine Polk Failla pushed the proceeding more than six months. The order, entered Tuesday in the Southern District of New York, also revises the pretrial schedule: expert disclosures are due February 5, 2027, and a final conference is set for April 20. Failla excluded the intervening time under the Speedy Trial Act, noting Storm’s pending motion for acquittal and “his related request to continue the retrial to a date in late April 2027,” a date the defense proposed. Background and procedural tug-of-war Federal prosecutors in the SDNY, under U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton, had sought an October 2026 retrial (proposing Oct. 5 or 12), but Storm’s lawyers argued that was premature while the acquittal motion remained pending. A Manhattan jury in August 2025 convicted Storm of conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business, while deadlocking on counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering and conspiracy to violate U.S. sanctions—the two counts the government now plans to retry. Those two counts carry a combined maximum sentence of 40 years. Storm has not yet been sentenced on the money transmitting conviction, which carries up to five years. Storm’s reaction and defense themes Storm publicly framed the case as an industry-targeting example. He tweeted that “A jury deadlocked on the two most serious counts against me. And still SDNY won’t stop. It’s about setting an example,” and noted that the filings and exhibits he’s posted are public. He also flagged trial material that, he says, shows blockchain analytics firm Chainalysis once operated a Tornado Cash relayer that generated fees, and complained that the jury never heard that testimony after a Chainalysis witness invoked the Fifth Amendment. Chainalysis declined to comment. Broader context and industry fallout The Storm prosecution has drawn support from privacy advocates, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and high-profile figures such as Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin, who said in January he is “an active user of privacy tools, including those developed by Roman.” The case is part of a wider wave of criminal actions tied to crypto-mixing and related services. In the Netherlands, Tornado Cash developer Alexey Pertsev was convicted of money laundering in May 2024 and sentenced to 64 months; he was released to electronic monitoring in February 2025 while appealing. The Ethereum Foundation has pledged $1.25 million to help fund Pertsev’s defense. In the U.S., Samourai Wallet co-founders Keonne Rodriguez and William Lonergan Hill pleaded guilty to conspiring to operate an unlicensed money transmitting business and were sentenced in November 2025 to five and four years, respectively. In December, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump told Decrypt he would “take a look” at a possible pardon for Rodriguez. Policy friction inside DOJ Storm’s conviction sits awkwardly alongside a change in Justice Department policy. Days after his guilty verdict, Matthew Galeotti—then acting head of the DOJ criminal division—said prosecutors would not approve charges under the statute Storm was convicted under in cases where the software at issue is decentralized and non-custodial, specifying that policy would guide charging decisions going forward. What’s next With the retrial now set for April 26, 2027, and pretrial deadlines moved into early 2027, the case is likely to remain a flashpoint for debates over privacy tools, developer liability, and how regulators and prosecutors treat decentralized software. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Morning Minute — Tyler Warner (views are his own) LayerZero just revealed ATLAS, a new back-end trading and settlement engine that aims to be the neutral “plumbing” beneath exchanges rather than a rival front-end. Announced Tuesday, ATLAS is a headless system: it has no app or user interface. Instead, trading venues plug into the engine, keep their own UX and customer relationships, and offload matching, clearing, settlement and risk systems to LayerZero. Why that matters - By decoupling the settlement layer from exchange front-ends, ATLAS addresses a key institutional concern: firms won’t put their core business on rails operated by a competitor. LayerZero says ATLAS can power any market—spot, perps, tokenized stocks, bonds, commodities, and prediction markets—around the clock with industry-leading performance. - LayerZero will ship two versions: one tailored for crypto apps and prediction markets, and another for firms that need to enforce proprietary rules on the same shared engine. ZRO’s role and token economics - ZRO is integrated into ATLAS’s economics. Venues stake ZRO to earn fee rebates (20%–65%). - After those rebates, 75% of the remaining fees buy and burn ZRO; the remaining 25% goes to the market creator. That design effectively turns ZRO into a claim on trading volume—explaining why the token, trading near $1 earlier in the session, surged more than 20% on the announcement. Context: rebuilding after a rough spring LayerZero’s timing is notable. In April, attackers drained roughly $292 million from Kelp DAO’s LayerZero-powered bridge, triggering a wave of departures. Major assets migrated away, including BitGo’s $7.7 billion in wrapped Bitcoin and Wyoming’s state stablecoin projects—about $15 billion in total—contributing to a significant exodus from the ecosystem. What’s next Despite that setback, the ATLAS launch signals renewed ambition: LayerZero is positioning itself as the neutral settlement backbone for perps, tokenized stocks, prediction markets and broader real-world assets in the next cycle. The critical question now is whether exchanges, institutional counterparties and other potential partners will plug in—and how quickly they’ll trust the rebuilt rails. Corporate Treasuries & ETFs | Meme Coin Tracker Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Headline: Ethereum devs draft overhaul of deposit contract to make staking “quantum-ready” Ethereum developers have put forward a draft proposal to rebuild the deposit contract every validator touches when entering staking — the first concrete infrastructure move aimed at preparing the network’s $100B+ staking layer for post-quantum cryptography. What’s changing - The current deposit contract is hardcoded for BLS12-381 sizes (48-byte public keys, 96-byte signature metadata), leaving no room for the much larger post-quantum public keys and signatures. - The proposed replacement lets deposits include keys and credential metadata up to 8,192 bytes each, and requires each deposit to declare which “credential scheme” it uses. Scheme 0 will represent BLS; no other scheme definitions are included in this draft. - The contract supports three modes: disabled, BLS enabled, and BLS retired. If a system call retires BLS, authors say it cannot be re-enabled later. - The proposal carries the larger deposit data through to the consensus layer but deliberately defers specifying the post-quantum cryptography itself to a future EIP. - Implementing the change will require a coordinated fork across both the execution and consensus layers. Status and authorship - The change is submitted as a draft pull request to the EIP repository and awaits EIP editor review. Deployment address, activation timestamps and other activation details are undecided. - One of the three authors, Thomas Coratger, publicly highlighted in a Twitter thread how unsettled the underlying post-quantum cryptography choices remain, summarizing a talk by Stanford cryptographer Dan Boneh about the practical challenges. Why this matters - Many promising post-quantum signature schemes are far larger than current elliptic-curve signatures. Stateless hash-based schemes that NIST-standardized candidates point toward tend to require on the order of ~8 KB per signature — roughly the new contract’s ceiling — while smaller “compact” PQ schemes often introduce operational pitfalls (e.g., counters that, if misused, can leak private keys). - The Ethereum Foundation assembled a team last year to plan a post-quantum transition. A May report from quantum-security firm Project Eleven estimated better-than-even odds of a machine capable of breaking elliptic-curve signatures by 2033 (with 2030 possible). The report also noted more than 65% of ETH sits in addresses whose public keys are already revealed onchain — increasing potential exposure. Bottom line This proposal is a pragmatic, low-level infrastructure step: it doesn’t pick a post-quantum algorithm, but it unblocks the protocol by widening fields and adding a credential-scheme mechanism so a future EIP can plug in post-quantum key formats. If adopted, it will make the staking entry path ready to accept the much larger keys PQ crypto demands — but it will require coordinated action across Ethereum’s layers and more cryptographic decisions to come. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news

Bitfire rolls out Hong Kong’s first compliant crypto quant strategy as RWA AUM tops HK$2bn Hong Kong-listed Bitfire Group (HKEX: 01611) has launched what it calls the city’s first compliant crypto-asset quantitative strategy, marking a major step in the company’s push into real-world assets (RWAs). The move comes as profit-contributing assets under management (AUM) tied to the group — including Japan-based BitTrade’s asset management services — have recently climbed past HK$2 billion, an 851% increase from pre-transformation levels. What Bitfire is launching - The new strategy is a market-neutral, quantitative approach that uses RWA structures as its core to capture arbitrage opportunities across crypto and AI-related assets. - Returns generated by the strategy will be packaged into asset-management products for professional and institutional clients, designed to provide exposure to crypto- and AI-linked returns without forcing investors to take on the underlying market volatility directly. - This product is the first to roll out under Bitfire’s expanded “full-stack” RWA operator business, which combines RWA issuance, asset management, trading and market-making, and custody. Growth since restructuring - After changing strategy at the end of August 2025, Bitfire said it has added nearly 2,000 clients — including listed companies and executives, family offices and ultra-high-net-worth individuals — an increase of more than 100x from before the restructuring. - The company says profit-contributing AUM have surpassed HK$2 billion. Why Bitfire is pitching a compliant RWA model CEO Livio Weng said many RWA products on the market “lack compliant frameworks and genuine asset backing, with insufficient disclosure,” which can create liquidity stress when markets turn volatile. “When volatility intensifies, liquidity crises and even collapses occur,” he said. Weng argued that long-term development of digital assets will require greater emphasis on compliance, transparency and risk management, and that future competition in Hong Kong’s regulated crypto market will hinge on integrated capabilities across custody, trading and asset management. How the strategy will work - Bitfire plans to link native crypto assets, tokenized U.S. equities and traditional alternative assets via RWA structures. - Support services will include custody, quantitative asset management, trading and market-making, all aimed at professional and institutional investors seeking cross-asset allocation through a regulated structure. - The company defines RWA tokenization as representing traditional assets such as equities and bonds on blockchain networks so they can be traded, settled and programmed on-chain, and says the new strategy will convert quant-generated returns into investible products inside a compliant framework. Context: Bitfire’s recent moves and the broader Hong Kong tokenization wave Bitfire has previously signalled a broader pivot toward stablecoins and institutional services in Hong Kong. In May, the company warned its net loss for the six months through March could reach HK$245 million — versus HK$12.3 million a year earlier — with roughly HK$152 million of that expected loss attributed to declines in the value of crypto assets it held. CEO Weng has described compliant Hong Kong stablecoins as central to the city’s Web3 infrastructure and said Bitfire planned to integrate them into clearing and settlement systems after seeing demand from institutional and high-net-worth clients onboarded during the 2025 restructuring. The launch comes amid growing institutional tokenization activity in Hong Kong this year: - On July 10, HSBC completed a tokenized structured-product issuance using U.S.-dollar digital notes in a private placement for institutional investors, with Marketnode handling blockchain issuance and payment flows. - On June 12, Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation priced an HK$12 billion digital bond — then billed as the world’s largest tokenized bond — drawing orders of about HK$24 billion equivalent from more than 100 institutional accounts. - On July 22, Payward (Kraken’s parent) said it would expand its xStocks tokenized-equities platform into international markets starting with Hong Kong, partnering with infrastructure provider GTN. What this means Bitfire is positioning itself to operate across both issuance and circulation of tokenized assets: issuance and RWA asset management, secondary-market trading and market-making, and custody. By marrying quant strategies with tokenized RWAs inside a regulated framework, Bitfire aims to offer institutional-grade exposure to a converging set of crypto, tokenized equities and alternative assets — while emphasizing compliance and liquidity protections that, in the company’s view, are often missing from the current RWA landscape. Weng described the expansion as the company’s next stage after a year of client and asset growth, with compliance, custody, trading and asset management forming the core operating components of its new RWA business. Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news