Crypto Breaking

Charles Schwab is set to expand the range of cryptocurrencies it offers to retail clients, adding Solana (SOL), Avalanche (AVAX) and Chainlink (LINK) to its Schwab Crypto platform in the coming months. The move broadens Schwab’s direct crypto trading beyond its initial support for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH).
Schwab Crypto began rolling out to retail clients in May, allowing customers to trade BTC and ETH through Schwab’s website, mobile app and thinkorswim platform. Schwab has said it intends to add additional digital assets over time, but—beyond naming the three new tokens—it has not provided further details on what else may follow or a more specific schedule.
Key takeaways
Schwab Crypto will add Solana (SOL), Avalanche (AVAX) and Chainlink (LINK), expanding beyond BTC and ETH.
The brokerage started its retail rollout in May, initially offering direct trading for Bitcoin and Ether via Schwab’s existing platforms.
Schwab charges 0.75% (75 basis points) on the dollar value of each crypto trade.
Schwab Crypto availability is limited to U.S. states excluding New York and Louisiana, with no offering in territories or internationally.
The firm’s crypto expansion aligns with a broader push into new trading products, including prediction-style contracts tied to the S&P 500.
Beyond BTC and ETH: Schwab’s next crypto batch
Schwab’s announcement marks another step in the firm’s efforts to integrate digital assets into mainstream brokerage workflows. When the initial rollout began in May, Schwab positioned its service as a direct trading option—bringing crypto into the same environment retail investors use for traditional market exposure.
With SOL, AVAX and LINK now on the roadmap, Schwab is effectively moving from a “two-asset” entry point to a wider selection of widely followed networks and token ecosystems. However, the company has not described any broader framework for how it chooses future listings, nor has it outlined whether additional assets could be added after these three.
For investors, the practical impact is twofold. First, it increases the range of coins that can be traded directly through a familiar brokerage interface rather than via separate exchanges. Second, it potentially changes portfolio construction, because tokens like SOL and AVAX represent different market dynamics compared with BTC and ETH—particularly in terms of sector exposure tied to smart-contract and decentralized application ecosystems.
How Schwab Crypto works—and what it costs
Schwab Crypto operates as a direct crypto trading service offered through Schwab’s banking and brokerage structure. The accounts are provided through Charles Schwab Premier Bank, while affiliated brokerage Charles Schwab & Co. performs certain operational functions on the bank’s behalf.
Pricing is set at 75 basis points, or 0.75%, on the dollar value of each crypto trade. Schwab has also defined geographic limits for customers: the service is available in all U.S. states except New York and Louisiana, and it is not offered in U.S. territories or internationally.
Those restrictions matter because they define who can actually access the expanded token list. Even as Schwab adds new assets, participation will remain constrained by the company’s current regulatory and compliance footprint.
Retail rollout in motion since May
Schwab Crypto’s initial retail availability began with BTC and ETH as Schwab started rolling out the product to customers. According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, the exchange-enabled experience was introduced through Schwab’s website, mobile app and thinkorswim platform for a first group of retail clients.
Schwab has continued to describe the crypto offering as something that will grow over time. The inclusion of SOL, AVAX and LINK therefore fits within that stated plan, but the company’s public communications still leave key questions unanswered for traders—especially around whether it will expand to additional tokens beyond those three and when.
Schwab’s parallel push into prediction markets
Schwab’s crypto expansion arrives as the broker prepares additional trading-related offerings. In June, The Wall Street Journal reported that Schwab plans to offer prediction contracts tied to the S&P 500 index in partnership with Cboe Global Markets. Those contracts would let clients wager whether the index will close above or below a specified level, with the product reportedly expected to launch within months.
Importantly, Schwab’s reported plan differs from platforms such as Kalshi and Polymarket, which are known for broader prediction markets. The Journal report suggested that Schwab’s initial contracts would be limited to index outcomes rather than expanding immediately into other event categories.
From an industry standpoint, the connection is less about crypto specifically and more about how traditional brokerage firms are expanding beyond standard asset classes. If Schwab follows through on both the multi-asset crypto trading roadmap and prediction-style contracts, it signals a broader effort to develop new “trading products” that can sit alongside conventional investments—potentially drawing investor attention to alternative ways of positioning risk and expectations.
What to watch next
Schwab hasn’t provided a precise timetable for when SOL, AVAX and LINK will go live, so investors should watch for official platform updates and client notifications once trading availability is enabled. More broadly, the bigger question is whether Schwab will continue expanding its crypto roster after these three tokens—and how its evolving product menu (from crypto to prediction contracts) reshapes participation for retail traders in the U.S.
This article was originally published as Charles Schwab Adds Solana, Avalanche, and Chainlink to New Platform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple Prime, the multi-asset prime brokerage unit of Ripple, has rolled out a “Delta One” service aimed at institutional investors—bringing US equity derivatives into its existing platform alongside foreign exchange, fixed income and digital assets. The launch is positioned as an expansion of how clients can gain exposure to underlying assets through derivatives rather than direct ownership.
In a Thursday announcement, Ripple Prime said the new offering enables clients to execute total return swaps tied to US-listed equities and indexes, as well as digital assets. Total return swaps are designed to deliver the economic returns of an asset over a specified period without requiring the investor to hold the underlying instrument.
Key takeaways
Ripple Prime’s new Delta One service uses total return swaps to provide exposure to US-listed equities and indexes, plus digital assets.
The product targets hedge funds, asset managers, and other financial institutions that need derivative-based exposure rather than direct ownership.
Ripple Prime says clients can use a single counterparty and cross-margin positions across the supported asset classes.
Ripple Prime said it operates with more than $1 billion in regulatory net capital, supporting its balance-sheet role as a prime brokerage.
The initiative follows recent capital-raising steps, including senior unsecured notes and a credit facility described in earlier coverage.
A prime brokerage step into equity-linked derivatives
Delta One products are often used by institutions to simplify portfolio implementation and risk management. Instead of buying or shorting the underlying assets, investors can gain exposure through swap structures that track the total return performance of a reference asset. Ripple Prime’s announcement extends that model to US equity derivatives, adding equities and indexes to the asset classes it already supports.
The company emphasized operational and risk-management benefits for clients. According to the announcement, clients can execute these trades with a single counterparty and cross-margin exposures across the supported asset categories. The “around the clock” framing suggests Ripple Prime is tailoring the service for continuous trading environments, which matters for institutions managing global schedules and hedging workflows.
What Ripple says the service is designed to solve
Ripple Prime said the Delta One business is aimed at hedge funds, asset managers and other financial institutions. That target customer base typically values derivatives for their flexibility—especially when institutions want to express views quickly, rebalance frequently, or hedge exposures across different markets.
Ripple Prime President Noel Kimmel called the launch “an important development” and described it as a natural extension of the platform the company has built. While the announcement does not elaborate on specific contract terms or asset universe breadth, the core idea—total return swaps linked to US equities and indexes and digital assets—signals a broader attempt to unify trading and settlement workflows under one prime brokerage relationship.
Capital and balance sheet expansion behind the rollout
Prime brokerage and clearing activities rely heavily on capital, risk controls and regulatory capacity. Ripple Prime said it has more than $1 billion in regulatory net capital. It also described the platform’s existing coverage as spanning foreign exchange, derivatives, fixed income and digital assets—suggesting the Delta One product is being positioned inside a multi-asset ecosystem rather than as a standalone equity-only business.
The Delta One launch follows earlier financing steps intended to support growth. Earlier in August, Ripple Prime closed a $275 million private placement of senior unsecured notes, according to prior coverage from Cointelegraph (see Ripple raises $275m for US prime brokerage). In May, it secured a $200 million credit facility from funds managed by Neuberger Specialty Finance, as noted in earlier Cointelegraph reporting (see Ripple Prime secures $200m credit facility).
For investors and trading desks, these kinds of funding moves can be relevant because they affect the prime broker’s ability to take on counterparty exposure, expand lending or financing capacity, and support additional derivative activity. The Delta One service itself is not described as a replacement for other prime brokerage lines; rather, it appears to extend the same institutional infrastructure into equity-linked swap execution.
From Hidden Road to Ripple Prime: building toward a unified platform
Ripple Prime, as a brand and business unit, was created after Ripple completed its $1.25 billion acquisition of Hidden Road in October 2025 and rebranded the operation. That background matters because it explains how Ripple’s prime brokerage push moved from an acquired platform into a broader multi-asset offering.
The Delta One launch also reflects a broader trend in institutional crypto infrastructure: major players are trying to expand beyond spot and custody into regulated market-making and derivatives access. By linking US equity references and digital assets through total return swaps, Ripple Prime is attempting to make it easier for traditional investors to integrate crypto exposures into derivative-led strategies—potentially lowering friction for portfolios that already rely on cross-asset hedging.
Still, the announcement leaves open questions that institutions may want to clarify before onboarding—such as the scope of eligible underlying equities, index references, settlement mechanics, and how the cross-margin model behaves across more complex portfolios. Those details typically determine how smoothly a new Delta One offering fits into an institution’s existing risk and collateral processes.
What to watch next
Institutional demand for Delta One depends on product breadth, execution quality and risk/collateral mechanics. After Ripple Prime’s US equity derivatives expansion, market participants are likely to watch how quickly the service scales across clients and asset classes—and whether Ripple Prime continues adding reference assets or related hedging tools as it builds out the platform.
This article was originally published as Ripple Prime Launches Delta One US Equity Derivatives for Institutions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple Prime, the multi-asset prime brokerage arm of Ripple, has rolled out a Delta One offering aimed at institutional investors—bringing US equity derivatives into its existing platform. The new service lets clients trade total return swaps tied to US-listed equities and indexes, alongside digital assets.
In a Thursday announcement, Ripple Prime said the Delta One business is designed to broaden how hedge funds, asset managers and other financial institutions gain exposure to returns without needing to hold the underlying assets directly.
Key takeaways
Ripple Prime launched a Delta One service offering total return swaps linked to US-listed equities, indexes and digital assets.
Clients can execute with a single counterparty and cross-margin exposures across the supported asset classes, according to Ripple Prime.
The offering is positioned for hedge funds, asset managers, and other financial institutions seeking flexible access to returns.
Ripple Prime says it has more than $1 billion in regulatory net capital, supporting its prime brokerage and financing operations.
Growth funding included a $275 million senior unsecured notes private placement earlier this year and a $200 million credit facility in May.
A Delta One bridge from prime brokerage to equity derivatives
At the core of Ripple Prime’s launch is a familiar structure from traditional markets: total return swaps. These contracts allow an investor to receive exposure to an asset’s overall returns—typically reflecting price appreciation and other relevant components—without owning the asset itself.
Ripple Prime’s Delta One service extends that approach to US equity-linked instruments. The company said clients can use the platform to obtain exposure through total return swaps referencing US-listed equities and indexes, as well as digital assets. For institutional participants, that combination matters because it can streamline portfolio construction across conventional and crypto-native exposures within one workflow.
Cross-margining and a “single counterparty” approach
Ripple Prime said the product is intended for clients that want efficiency in execution and risk management. By allowing clients to transact with a single counterparty and to cross-margin exposures across supported asset classes, the firm is effectively aiming to reduce operational friction that often comes with running multiple counterparties and separate margin regimes.
The company also framed the service as available “around the clock,” highlighting the practical reality that digital asset markets operate continuously while US equities run on defined trading hours. For multi-asset desks, the pitch is that exposure can be managed more continuously, rather than requiring separate processes across asset types.
How Ripple Prime’s platform is built—and what’s backing it
Ripple Prime is not starting from zero in the institutional services stack. The firm previously offered prime brokerage, clearing, and financing support across foreign exchange, derivatives, fixed income and digital assets. With the Delta One launch, Ripple Prime is adding another layer on top of that infrastructure—specifically by incorporating US equity derivatives exposure into its total return swap toolkit.
Ripple Prime also stated that the business has more than $1 billion in regulatory net capital. In practical terms, net capital is a key metric for firms operating in brokerage and derivatives-adjacent businesses, and it can influence how much risk capacity and lending or financing activity a firm can support.
Funding and corporate buildup behind the expansion
The Delta One announcement fits into Ripple Prime’s broader expansion path. Ripple Prime was created after Ripple completed its $1.25 billion acquisition of Hidden Road in October 2025 and then rebranded the business.
Earlier this year, Ripple Prime moved to strengthen its funding base for growth. In August, it closed a $275 million private placement of senior unsecured notes, according to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph. In May, Ripple Prime also secured a $200 million debt facility from funds managed by Neuberger Specialty Finance to expand its lending capacity for institutional clients, as covered previously by Cointelegraph.
Taken together, those steps suggest Ripple Prime is working to scale lending and prime services capacity while broadening the set of products available to institutional clients. The Delta One launch extends that scaling effort into equity-linked derivatives exposure, rather than keeping the product offering confined to digital assets or FX-based instruments.
For investors and institutional allocators, the most immediate question is how quickly counterparties and clients adopt the new Delta One service and whether cross-margining meaningfully changes margin efficiency for multi-asset portfolios. In the near term, traders should also watch for details on the specific contract terms and supported underlyings as the offering is rolled out, and for any further product expansions that connect Ripple Prime’s digital asset exposure to traditional market structures.
This article was originally published as Ripple Prime Launches US Equity Derivatives via Delta One Unit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The UK government is proposing to give the Bank of England a secondary mandate focused on innovation in digital payments, explicitly covering payment systems that rely on “digital settlement assets” such as stablecoins. The move, announced by HM Treasury on Thursday, keeps financial stability as the Bank of England’s primary responsibility while carving out room for experimentation and development of emerging forms of digital money.
According to HM Treasury, the change would apply to the central bank’s oversight of payment infrastructure, with the expectation that the Bank of England will report progress to Parliament each year on how it is advancing the new payments innovation objective. The government plans to embed the mandate through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is set for further debate in the House of Lords on Sept. 7 and 9.
Key takeaways
The Bank of England would gain a secondary objective to support innovation in payment systems and digital money, while financial stability remains the top priority.
The mandate is intended to cover systems that use digital settlement assets, including stablecoins, linking UK stablecoin policy more directly to payments development.
The Bank of England would provide annual updates to Parliament on its innovation work, potentially increasing public accountability for how stablecoin-related rules are implemented.
The proposal is set to be incorporated through amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, with House of Lords debates scheduled for Sept. 7 and 9.
Industry reaction may hinge on the practical details of how the Bank of England’s annual reporting is used alongside existing stablecoin requirements.
Why the Bank of England’s “innovation” role matters for stablecoins
The announcement effectively broadens the Bank of England’s remit beyond purely stability-focused oversight. Under the proposal, the Bank of England would extend an existing regulatory approach applied to core market infrastructure—specifically central counterparties (CCPs) and central securities depositories (CSDs)—to also incorporate a payments innovation goal.
The significance for stablecoins is that the mandate is not limited to abstract research or central bank digital money alone. HM Treasury states that the mandate would cover payment systems using digital settlement assets, a phrasing that includes stablecoins and helps clarify that they are part of the UK’s wider payments technology agenda.
For market participants, this matters because regulatory emphasis can shape how quickly new payment rails move from pilot to deployment. A formal “innovation objective,” paired with parliamentary reporting, may also influence how the Bank of England balances caution with experimentation as stablecoin rules and related infrastructure testing develop.
Parliamentary reporting could intensify scrutiny
While the innovation mandate is described as secondary to financial stability, the details of implementation may determine how much room it creates for the stablecoin market to grow under the UK’s framework.
According to Maksym Sakharov, co-founder and CEO of WeFi, the annual reporting requirement could shift the balance toward greater public scrutiny. Sakharov told Cointelegraph that because the innovation objective is “secondary to financial stability,” it “overrides nothing,” but the Bank of England would still have to publish annual accounts of its work on payments innovation and digital money.
He suggested that this publication requirement could matter particularly because it would place additional attention on the stablecoin rules the central bank finalized in June. In other words, even if the innovation mandate cannot dilute stability obligations, the reporting component could increase the visibility of how those obligations are applied in practice.
Existing stablecoin requirements and a key reserve debate
Sakharov focused on specific requirements for “systemic stablecoin issuers,” including a reserve structure that—per his comments—requires issuers to keep at least 30% of their backing assets in non-interest-bearing deposits at the central bank.
He argued that the “reserve split is the first thing to fix,” adding that the requirement could influence whether a stablecoin business is commercially viable. This is a notable point for investors and operators because reserve rules directly affect cost structure, risk management, and the economics of issuance—factors that can shape which issuers can scale while still meeting compliance expectations.
Importantly, the Bank of England’s innovation mandate does not automatically change those reserve mechanics. However, by tying central bank reporting to digital payments innovation, the proposal could create additional pressure—politically and publicly—for regulators to explain how stablecoin market design aligns with broader payments modernization goals.
UK stablecoin momentum: from interoperability tests to cross-border alignment
The new mandate arrives as the UK increases its operational and policy work around stablecoins. In August, a group participating in the Bank of England’s Digital Pound Lab began testing whether a stablecoin could interoperate with a simulated digital British pound for a cross-border trade payment. HM Treasury and project reporting described the experimental platform as not using real customers or money.
Earlier, in mid-July, the UK and US published a joint statement on stablecoins that signaled intent to enable their use in cross-border finance and called for closer alignment between regulatory frameworks. The statement indicates the UK is seeking interoperability not just at the technical level, but also in how rules may converge across jurisdictions.
The UK’s approach also shows a pattern of adjusting earlier constraints. Cointelegraph previously reported that the Bank of England dropped plans to cap individual holdings at 20,000 British pounds and business holdings at 10 million British pounds, replacing those limits with a temporary cap of 40 billion pounds (about $52.9 billion) on issuance for each “systemic stablecoin.” That shift, paired with the July and August policy and testing activity, suggests UK regulators are working toward a structure that emphasizes systemic risk while allowing broader participation than earlier retail- and business-specific limits.
Additionally, the UK government’s direction to expand the Bank of England’s mandate fits within a broader effort to support innovation in tokenized and distributed ledger-based approaches—an idea echoed by City Minister Lucy Rigby, who said tokenisation and DLT could transform financial markets globally.
As lawmakers prepare for House of Lords debates on Sept. 7 and 9, market participants should watch not only whether the mandate is adopted, but also how the Bank of England translates “innovation” into measurable actions—especially in areas like systemic issuer requirements and reserve design that currently influence stablecoin business economics.
This article was originally published as Bank of England Proposes New Stablecoin Innovation Mandate on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized deposits could make bank funding less “sticky,” potentially increasing borrowing costs for US households and businesses, according to an analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The concern is not about immediate, one-for-one changes to lending, but about how faster deposit movement—enabled by instant settlement and automated transfers—could reshape how banks manage liquidity and credit risk.
In a research note, economists Rosie Levy and Srini Ramaswamy argue that programmable deposit tokens combined with automated transfer mechanisms could allow customers seeking higher yields to switch banks more quickly. They estimate that if deposits became 10% more responsive to interest rates, banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets could decline by roughly $700 billion on a 10-year-equivalent basis. A separate scenario where deposits stayed at banks 10% less time implies a reduction of about $580 billion, expressed in the same 10-year-equivalent terms. These are scenario outcomes, not forecasts.
Key takeaways
Tokenized deposits may increase deposit “rate sensitivity,” making funding more mobile when higher yields appear elsewhere.
Instant settlement and automated transfers could shorten how long deposits remain at a given bank, reducing stability.
Dallas Fed researchers estimate large liquidity and balance-sheet capacity effects under two 10% sensitivity/time scenarios, though they are not direct lending cuts.
Banks are already building shared blockchain-style networks intended to move tokenized deposits within the regulated banking system.
Why instant settlement could destabilize funding
Levy and Ramaswamy’s central mechanism is straightforward: when settlement happens instantly, customers can react to rate differences faster. In traditional banking, moving deposits can take time, which can blunt how quickly funds shift across institutions. With programmable deposit tokens, deposits can be designed to integrate with automated processes—potentially powered by agentic artificial intelligence—that coordinate transfers with less manual friction.
The economists describe this as a shift in deposit behavior: deposits become more sensitive to interest rates and potentially less time-bound at a single bank. That matters because bank lending relies on relatively stable funding to support longer-duration assets.
Importantly, the authors stress that their numerical estimates are scenario-based. The changes are framed in terms of banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets, not as a direct “dollar-for-dollar” reduction in lending.
What the Dallas Fed scenarios imply for banks and borrowers
Under one scenario, the researchers assume deposits become 10% more sensitive to interest rates. Under another, deposits remain at banks for 10% less time. In both cases, they estimate reductions in banks’ capacity to hold long-term assets—about $700 billion and $580 billion, respectively, using 10-year-equivalent measures.
The analysis points to trade-offs banks could face when deposit stability declines. One response could be holding larger portfolios of highly liquid assets, such as reserves and US Treasurys, to better withstand faster outflows. Another could be leaning more on term debt to maintain the lending book.
But both adjustments can come with costs. Increasing reliance on wholesale funding or term debt typically raises funding expenses, and those higher costs can propagate into credit terms for borrowers—precisely the outcome Levy and Ramaswamy say could increase credit costs for US households and businesses.
From research to rollout: bank networks for tokenized deposits
The Dallas Fed concerns arrive as US banks accelerate plans for tokenized-deposit infrastructure. On Tuesday, 39 US state banking associations formed the BankChain Alliance, aiming to develop a nationwide network designed to support tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and automated settlement. Separately, The Clearing House is developing another network backed by major institutions including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY, and Wells Fargo.
Banks have also begun connecting tokenized-deposit systems across organizations. On Aug. 20, Standard Chartered and HSBC completed a live cross-border transaction through Swift’s blockchain ledger. The reported design linked the two banks’ separate systems and recorded obligations on the ledger, with settlement still occurring via existing payment infrastructure.
Taken together, these efforts suggest that the industry is moving beyond pilots toward interoperable systems. From a policy perspective, that raises a key question Levy and Ramaswamy implicitly put on the table: if the plumbing makes movement faster and more programmable, will regulators and banks anticipate and manage the resulting funding dynamics?
Liquidity lessons from instant payments—what’s comparable and what isn’t
Levy and Ramaswamy cite Brazil’s Pix instant-payment system as a comparison point, while emphasizing it is not identical to tokenized deposits. Their reasoning is that instant-payment rails can change how quickly funds can move, which can alter deposit behavior and, in turn, banks’ balance-sheet choices.
A 2025 study by Brazil’s central bank found that heavier Pix use increased banks’ holdings of liquid assets and reduced credit intermediation. While that evidence does not prove the same outcome will occur with tokenized deposits, it offers a relevant reference for how faster payment flows can influence bank liquidity decisions.
For investors and lenders, the policy takeaway is less about whether tokenization will “help or hurt” lending in the abstract and more about how institutions will adapt their asset-liability management. If deposit mobility rises, market participants should watch for shifts in liquidity buffers, reliance on wholesale funding, and credit pricing—channels the Dallas Fed analysis highlights.
Going forward, the key uncertainty is how quickly tokenized deposit networks translate into real consumer and business deposit switching behavior. Readers should watch for regulatory guidance around tokenized deposit frameworks and for measurable changes in banks’ funding structures—especially whether liquidity reserves and term-debt reliance rise as these systems expand.
This article was originally published as Dallas Fed: Tokenized deposits may lift US borrowing costs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb has reportedly secured its first-instance court wins in two lawsuits seeking to recover proceeds from users who sold Bitcoin that the exchange mistakenly credited to their accounts. The rulings come as regulators continue to scrutinize the earlier operational lapse and Bithumb works to contain the financial impact.
According to a report by Chosun Biz, the Seoul Central District Court ruled in Bithumb’s favor in two of four unjust enrichment cases filed against users. The lawsuits involved different amounts: one ruling concerned a claim of 194 million won (about $140,000), while the other related to 5 million won (about $3,600). Two additional cases—seeking roughly 14.8 million won (about $10,700) and 500 million won (about $362,000)—remain pending, the report said.
Key takeaways
Bithumb has won first-instance rulings in two of four unjust enrichment lawsuits tied to a February Bitcoin crediting error.
The court decisions cover claims of 194 million won and 5 million won, while two other claims are still awaiting outcomes.
The lawsuits proceeded via service by public notice because standard delivery methods for court documents failed for the defendants.
The legal push targets proceeds from users who sold Bitcoin credited by mistake before affected accounts were frozen.
How the court cases connect to Bithumb’s February mistake
The underlying dispute traces back to an event on Feb. 6, 2026, during which Bithumb intended to distribute rewards denominated in Korean won. As described in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, Bithumb said the error happened during a promotional activity: an employee allegedly selected Bitcoin as the payment unit instead of the intended fiat currency.
Rather than crediting the planned reward amount in won to 249 users, the exchange reportedly credited customer accounts with 620,000 BTC. At the time of the incident, that volume was valued at more than $40 billion, according to the reporting that followed the episode. Bithumb later stated that it recovered the vast majority of the mistakenly credited amount—618,212 BTC—leaving only a small residual shortfall.
However, the problem was not purely theoretical. Some users had reportedly already sold 1,788 BTC worth of the credited balances before Bithumb moved to freeze the affected accounts. It is those early sales that became the focus of Bithumb’s March litigation strategy.
What Bithumb is trying to recover through unjust enrichment suits
As reported by Cointelegraph, Bithumb filed four unjust enrichment lawsuits in March against users who sold the mistakenly credited Bitcoin and did not return the proceeds. The exchange’s approach, as characterized in that earlier reporting, was to seek monetary recovery from the sale proceeds rather than compel users to return Bitcoin itself.
The newly reported first-instance rulings therefore represent more than symbolic legal progress: they support Bithumb’s argument that users who benefited from the mistaken credits should compensate the exchange to the extent of the sold proceeds. Still, with half of the cases remaining pending, the broader extent of Bithumb’s ultimate recovery is not yet fully determined.
For users, the developments also underscore a practical risk in operational error scenarios. Even when a credit is unintended, actions taken immediately after the balance appears—such as trading or exchanging the credited asset—can later become a subject of legal dispute if the credit is subsequently reversed or invalidated.
Service by public notice highlights delivery hurdles in the lawsuits
Chosun Biz also noted that both of the cases that reached rulings advanced through service by public notice. The court reportedly used this method because it could not deliver the necessary documents to the defendants through ordinary channels.
That procedural detail matters because it can affect how quickly cases move and how defendants participate. While service by public notice is not unusual in certain jurisdictions when direct service fails, it can raise questions about whether defendants were fully informed in time to respond through standard procedures. The reported decisions, however, indicate the court proceeded to judgment nonetheless.
Regulatory pressure continues alongside the litigation
While the lawsuits play out in civil court, Bithumb is also facing ongoing regulatory scrutiny related to the February error. South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) reportedly investigated the incident, focusing on how the exchange could credit customers with Bitcoin it did not hold.
Cointelegraph previously reported that the regulator sent Bithumb an inspection opinion in early August, which marked the formal start of sanctions proceedings, though no final penalty had been announced at the time of that reporting. In the same earlier coverage, Cointelegraph said it reached out to the Financial Services Commission (FSC) for an update but did not receive a response by publication.
Separately, Bithumb has faced other legal and compliance challenges this year. South Korean police reportedly raided its offices in June as part of an investigation unrelated to the Bitcoin crediting error, involving allegations of favoritism related to lawmaker Kim Byung-ki. The company is also contesting a separate six-month partial business suspension over alleged Anti-Money Laundering violations; Cointelegraph reported that a Seoul court stayed the suspension in April pending the outcome of Bithumb’s challenge.
Taken together, the court rulings and the regulator’s continuing work indicate that Bithumb’s February incident is being treated as both a financial and governance issue—not merely a one-off operational glitch. For investors and market participants, the key question is whether Bithumb’s internal controls reforms and compliance measures will satisfy regulators after a mispayment of this magnitude.
What to watch next
With two remaining unjust enrichment lawsuits still pending, the next development will likely be whether Bithumb’s legal strategy yields further first-instance judgments and how those cases ultimately resolve. At the same time, market observers will continue to watch for any FSS sanctions outcome, since regulatory findings could shape how exchanges in South Korea tighten operational controls to prevent similar crediting errors.
This article was originally published as Bithumb Prevails in Two Lawsuits Over Mistaken Bitcoin Credits on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s push to reclaim the $80,000 area is running into a familiar problem: overhead liquidity. New on-chain research from Glassnode suggests that the path higher is likely to be tested by long-term holders and fresh sell-side supply clustered between roughly $81,000 and $86,000.
While bulls may want $80,000 to act as support, Glassnode’s latest The Week Onchain analysis argues that the more difficult hurdle may arrive closer to $83,000—where long-term holders who bought through a prior drawdown could face an incentive to sell near breakeven.
Key takeaways
Glassnode identifies a dense long-term holder supply band between $83,000 and $86,000 that has persisted through a full drawdown cycle.
Additional “ask” liquidity has reappeared on exchange order books in the same broader zone, potentially limiting upside momentum.
Glassnode says multiple tracked overhead structures now overlap, placing recovery demand and selling pressure in the $81,000–$86,000 range.
On the chart, several widely watched moving-average levels cluster around the current price area, reinforcing $80,000 as a resistance test.
Glassnode points to long-term holder supply under $86,000
In its latest edition of The Week Onchain, Glassnode flagged multiple pools of BTC that could be released back into the market if Bitcoin rises toward $86,000. The most notable segment is long-term holder (LTH) supply—coins held without selling for at least six months.
Glassnode’s analysis emphasizes that the first heavy supply structure sits in the $83,000–$86,000 region and is “effectively all” long-term holder supply that survived the prior drawdown. The key implication: if price reaches that band, it may test whether LTHs remain willing to hold rather than sell at or near breakeven.
“Above, the first heavy structure is $83K-86K…,” Glassnode wrote, describing how $83,000 would pressure the resolve of the LTH cohort not to sell at breakeven.
Exchange asks and “overhead shelves” reinforce the same resistance band
Beyond on-chain holder behavior, Glassnode also pointed to new sell-side liquidity appearing on exchange order books. According to the report, these re-laddered asks may not be intended to execute immediately; instead, their owners could be aiming to keep orders positioned above spot price should Bitcoin push higher.
Glassnode framed this as part of a broader stack of overlapping supply structures rather than a single isolated wall. It cited several elements across price ranges, including a “self-custody cost-basis shelf” starting around $80.8K, dealer-related “gamma” flipping negative near $82.3K, and a liquidation shelf extending to $86K. It also referenced a “patient-supply wall” filling the $83K–$86K area.
Most importantly for traders, Glassnode summarized that every overhead structure it tracks currently sits between $81,000 and $86,000—describing the band as where demand for recovery meets a concentrated test.
“Every overhead structure we track now sits between $81K and $86K; that band is where the recovery’s demand meets its test.”
Price action: multiple trend indicators converge near $80,000
On top of the on-chain supply picture, Glassnode’s discussion aligns with chart-level constraints around $80,000. The area has seen multiple trend lines converge, strengthening its role as a resistance hurdle.
According to TradingView data referenced in the article, Bitcoin’s 50-week and 100-week exponential moving averages (EMAs) currently sit at $77,353 and $78,485, respectively. The same dataset places Bitcoin’s 365-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP) around $82,600—another figure that sits relatively close to today’s decision zone.
That clustering matters because it can compress the market’s “decision space.” If price trades within or near multiple major averages while overhead liquidity remains intact, upside attempts can repeatedly meet sellers—particularly when they overlap with historical supply bands.
Why this matters for bulls: $80,000 may not be the final hurdle
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph highlighted market skepticism about whether Bitcoin’s rebound would last, and noted calls for patience before declaring a durable trend shift. In particular, trader and analyst Rekt Capital stressed that Bitcoin needs to hold the 50-week EMA for longer before a meaningful change can be considered, with expectations for bearish market timing to continue until the end of 2026.
Read alongside Glassnode’s findings, that framing suggests bulls may need more than a single reclaim of $80,000. If the $81,000–$86,000 band truly concentrates both long-term holder supply and exchange ask liquidity, then any breakout may require sustained buyer demand to absorb supply—especially as price approaches the $83,000–$86,000 segment.
There’s also a timing asymmetry to consider. Once liquidity is already sitting overhead—particularly from long-term holders and re-laddered sell orders—upside can stall quickly if buyers fail to step in before the market reaches the highest-concentration area.
For readers watching the next phase, the key is whether Bitcoin can progress through the $81,000–$86,000 corridor without triggering a meaningful sell response from long-term holders and order-book liquidity. Until that’s clearer, $80,000 may remain less a floor than a gateway—one that leads into a narrower, harder test farther up.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s $83K Breakpoint Tests Real Demand as Liquidity Rises: Glassnode on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korean crypto exchange Bithumb has reportedly secured its first-instance court wins in two of four lawsuits aimed at recovering money from users who sold Bitcoin that was mistakenly credited to their accounts. The decisions, handed down by the Seoul Central District Court, mark another step in the exchange’s attempt to unwind a high-profile accounting error from February 2026.
According to a report by Chosun Biz, the court ruled in favor of Bithumb on Wednesday and Thursday in two separate cases. One decision covered a claim of 5 million won (about $3,600), while the other involved 194 million won (about $140,000). Two additional lawsuits—seeking roughly 14.8 million won (about $10,700) and 500 million won (about $362,000)—remain pending.
Key takeaways
Bithumb won first-instance rulings in two lawsuits over alleged unjust enrichment tied to mistakenly credited Bitcoin balances.
The court decisions relate to claims of 5 million won and 194 million won, while two other cases are still before the courts.
Both cases reportedly proceeded through service by public notice because the exchange could not deliver documents to defendants via standard methods.
The rulings support Bithumb’s broader recovery effort following its Feb. 6 promotional error involving 620,000 BTC.
Separately, South Korea’s Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) has begun sanctions-related steps over the incident, though no final penalty has been announced.
Court wins follow Bithumb’s February crediting mistake
The dispute traces back to Bithumb’s February 6, 2026 promotional event, when the exchange intended to distribute rewards denominated in Korean won to a group of users. Cointelegraph previously reported that Bithumb confirmed the error after abnormal Bitcoin trades emerged following the promotion. The company said an employee mistakenly selected Bitcoin as the payment unit instead of Korean won, and credited customer accounts with 620,000 BTC.
At the time of the incident, the mistakenly credited Bitcoin was valued at more than $40 billion, according to the earlier reporting. Even though the amount was enormous on paper, Bithumb took steps to stop the fallout from spreading. Cointelegraph reported that Bithumb later stated it recovered 618,212 BTC (about 99.7% of the erroneously credited amount). However, some users had already converted part of the credited balances by selling 1,788 BTC before Bithumb froze the impacted accounts.
What the lawsuits are trying to recover
Rather than focusing exclusively on returning Bitcoin, the lawsuits reportedly sought cash proceeds derived from users’ sales of the credited funds. In March, Bithumb filed four unjust enrichment lawsuits against users who sold the mistakenly credited Bitcoin and did not return the proceeds, according to the earlier Cointelegraph coverage.
Chosun Biz’s latest report indicates that two cases have now reached first-instance outcomes favorable to Bithumb. The decisions cover different amounts—5 million won and 194 million won—suggesting the court is addressing specific user-by-user claims rather than issuing a single consolidated ruling for the entire promotional error.
The court also reportedly handled notice service via public notice in both cases. This occurred because standard methods for delivering documents were unsuccessful, meaning the procedural pathway relied on court-permitted service when defendants could not be reached through ordinary delivery attempts.
Bigger pressure on Bithumb from regulators
While the civil litigation moves through the courts, the exchange has also faced scrutiny from South Korea’s financial regulator. Cointelegraph previously reported that the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS) investigated Bithumb over the February 6 incident—specifically how the exchange could end up crediting customers with Bitcoin it did not hold.
In that earlier coverage, it was reported that the FSS sent Bithumb an inspection opinion in early August, formally triggering sanctions proceedings. However, as of the time Cointelegraph reached out for an update, there was no announced final penalty. Cointelegraph said it approached the Financial Services Commission (FSC) for additional information but did not receive a response by publication.
The combination of civil court actions and the regulator’s sanctions track is notable for investors and users because it underscores how operational mistakes in crypto market infrastructure can escalate into both contractual/legal disputes and formal oversight measures. Even if Bithumb ultimately recovers most of the misplaced assets, authorities can still assess whether internal controls, monitoring systems, and payment/crediting processes were adequate.
Other legal and compliance challenges add complexity
The Bitcoin crediting error is not the only legal pressure Bithumb has encountered this year. Cointelegraph reported that South Korean police raided Bithumb’s offices in June as part of an unrelated investigation into alleged hiring favoritism involving lawmaker Kim Byung-ki. In addition, Bithumb has been challenging a separate six-month partial business suspension tied to Anti-Money Laundering violations, with a Seoul court temporarily blocking the suspension order in April pending a decision on Bithumb’s challenge.
Against that backdrop, the outcome of the user recovery lawsuits may influence how Bithumb manages risk and customer-facing processes going forward. A pattern of first-instance wins could strengthen the exchange’s position in remaining pending cases, while any reversals on appeal would likely reignite uncertainty around how these errors are treated legally and practically.
Readers should watch next for what happens in the two remaining lawsuits still pending, as well as whether the FSS sanctions process concludes with a specific penalty or additional guidance. The resolution of these cases will also matter for broader market confidence in exchange internal controls, especially in a jurisdiction where regulators have shown willingness to pursue sanctions after operational failures.
This article was originally published as Bithumb Prevails in Two Lawsuits Over Incorrect Bitcoin Credits on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized bank deposits—made possible by instant settlement and automated transfers—could destabilize bank funding and eventually raise borrowing costs for US households and businesses, according to an analysis by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
In a report by Rosie Levy and Srini Ramaswamy, the authors argue that technologies enabling deposits to move more quickly between banks would make funding portfolios more sensitive to interest-rate changes. They frame their work as scenario-based modeling rather than a forecast of immediate outcomes, but the conclusions add a new risk lens as the banking sector accelerates shared infrastructure for tokenized settlement.
Key takeaways
The Dallas Fed economists warn that instant settlement could let depositors chase higher yields faster, increasing deposit “rate sensitivity.”
In their scenarios, a 10% increase in deposit sensitivity to interest rates could reduce banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and assets by about $700 billion in 10-year equivalents.
A separate scenario—deposits staying at banks for 10% less time—could lower that capacity by about $580 billion (also in 10-year equivalents).
The analysis emphasizes that the figures are not direct, dollar-for-dollar reductions in lending, but reflect changes in banks’ balance-sheet room over time.
Banks are already building networks intended to move tokenized deposits around the clock while keeping funds within regulated banking channels.
Why tokenized deposits may change bank funding dynamics
Levy and Ramaswamy’s central point is that deposit behavior could shift if tokenized deposits make it easier—potentially near-instantly—for customers to move their money between institutions. They note that programmable “deposit tokens” and automation tools, including agentic artificial intelligence, could reduce the friction typically associated with switching banks.
That, in turn, could affect the stability of deposit funding—a key input for how banks manage long-term lending. Traditional banking relies on the assumption that many depositors do not change banks immediately when yields move. If tokenized settlement shortens the window in which deposits remain with a particular bank, banks may face funding profiles that respond more rapidly to interest-rate changes.
What the Dallas Fed model suggests—interest-rate sensitivity and liquidity trade-offs
To illustrate potential impacts, the economists quantify two hypothetical scenarios. First, they estimate the effect if deposits become 10% more sensitive to interest rates. In their modeling, that increased sensitivity could reduce banks’ capacity to hold long-term loans and other assets by roughly $700 billion, expressed in 10-year equivalents.
Second, they model a situation where deposits remain at banks for 10% less time. Under that scenario, the reduction in banks’ capacity to hold long-term assets is estimated at about $580 billion in 10-year equivalents.
Levy and Ramaswamy stress that these are scenarios designed to capture balance-sheet sensitivity; they do not claim a direct dollar-for-dollar drop in lending. Still, their work connects funding volatility to potential credit tightening pressures: if banks cannot rely on stable deposits, they may need to adjust asset and funding structures to manage risk.
How banks could respond: more liquidity, more wholesale funding
Rather than predicting an inability to lend, the report outlines likely adjustments banks might make when facing more volatile deposits. The authors suggest banks could increase holdings of highly liquid assets—such as reserves and US Treasurys—to ensure they can meet withdrawal or transfer demands.
They also point to the possibility of relying more heavily on term debt to sustain lending portfolios. However, the report indicates that funding loans through wholesale debt could increase credit costs for consumers and businesses, which is where the consumer impact implied by “higher credit costs” enters the analysis.
In other words, even if tokenized deposits do not immediately shrink lending totals, they may alter the cost and structure of funding in ways that propagate to borrowers over time.
Infrastructure is already moving: networks for tokenized deposits and real-world linking
The analysis lands as the banking industry builds mechanisms intended to support tokenized deposits and automated settlement. On Tuesday, 39 US state banking associations formed the BankChain Alliance to develop a nationwide network for tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and automated settlement. Separately, The Clearing House is developing another network backed by major banks including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, BNY, and Wells Fargo.
Beyond broad network planning, banks have also started connecting systems across institutions. On Aug. 20, Standard Chartered and HSBC reported completing a live cross-border transaction using Swift’s blockchain ledger, which linked their respective tokenized-deposit systems and recorded obligations prior to settlement through existing payment infrastructure.
This matters for the Dallas Fed’s thesis because the practical goal of these networks is to enable rapid, potentially continuous movement of deposits within the regulated banking perimeter. The more that implementation reduces settlement delays and operational friction, the more relevant the scenario of increased deposit mobility becomes.
Lessons from instant payments—comparisons and limits
To ground the discussion, Levy and Ramaswamy look to instant-payment systems as a partial analogy. They cite Brazil’s Pix, while noting that it is not identical to tokenized deposits. The report references a 2025 study from Brazil’s central bank that found heavier Pix usage was associated with banks holding more liquid assets and reducing credit intermediation.
That comparison doesn’t prove tokenized deposits will replicate Pix’s effects. But it supports the broader mechanism the Dallas Fed economists emphasize: when money moves faster and more easily, banks may rebalance toward liquidity and away from activities that require stable funding, at least relative to the counterfactual.
What to watch next
As tokenized-deposit networks advance from pilots to wider rollouts, the key unknown is how quickly depositors actually alter behavior when transfers become easier and settlement is effectively “always on.” Investors, borrowers, and regulators should watch whether banks respond primarily by shifting to more liquid asset buffers or by leaning more on term funding—both of which could influence credit conditions and the broader cost of capital.
This article was originally published as Tokenized deposits may lift US credit costs, Dallas Fed warns on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) continued to pull in fresh capital on Wednesday, recording $232.1 million in net inflows. While that figure was down from the prior day, it still extended the funds’ streak of consecutive positive sessions to eight trading days, according to SoSoValue data.
The latest inflow total represented about a 26% decline versus Tuesday’s $314.4 million and was the smallest daily inflow since Aug. 18. Even with the slowdown, cumulative flows remain strongly positive, with eight-day net inflows totaling roughly $2.8 billion. Year-to-date, net outflows have narrowed to about $2.03 billion, while cumulative net inflows have risen to $54.6 billion and total net assets reached $98.6 billion, according to SoSoValue.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs logged $232.1 million in net inflows on Wednesday, extending an eight-day streak.
Inflows slowed versus Tuesday’s $314.4 million, but cumulative performance remains firmly positive.
Bitcoin’s price action has been relatively flat after briefly moving above $80,000, while ETF demand continues.
US spot Ether ETFs also posted a continued run of inflows, while XRP ETFs saw their largest daily inflow since Jan. 5.
Bitcoin ETF inflow streak continues despite softer daily totals
Wednesday’s $232.1 million inflow follows a day when US spot Bitcoin ETFs received $314.4 million, and it marks a visible cooling from the stronger buying pace seen earlier in the streak. SoSoValue data also indicates Wednesday’s total was the smallest since Aug. 18, underscoring that while investor appetite has not disappeared, the intensity of daily purchases is fluctuating.
That matters for market participants because ETF flow patterns often serve as a real-time barometer of institutional and retail allocation behavior. With the eight-session run now in place and cumulative net inflows reaching $54.6 billion, the broader direction remains constructive—even as day-to-day numbers vary.
Price pauses above $80,000 as sentiment edges higher
ETF inflows came as Bitcoin’s momentum appeared to stall. After briefly climbing above $80,000 on Tuesday, Bitcoin traded around $78,759 at the time of publication, down 0.3% over the preceding 24 hours, based on CoinGecko data.
Despite the less exciting price tape, broader sentiment improved. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index rose to 71 from 65 a day earlier, staying in “Greed” territory, according to Alternative.me. For traders, this divergence—steady ETF inflows alongside a pause in near-term price strength—can be a sign that demand may be driven by longer-horizon positioning rather than purely momentum-chasing.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted the market’s brief push above $80,000 during Tuesday’s session, providing context for the subsequent consolidation.
Ether and XRP ETFs add to a mixed but supportive picture
Beyond Bitcoin, other major US spot crypto ETF products also saw inflows. US spot Ether ETFs recorded an eighth consecutive day of net inflows on Wednesday, bringing in $192.4 million, according to SoSoValue. The continuation across multiple fund categories suggests that the demand driving ETFs may not be limited to a single asset.
Meanwhile, US-listed spot XRP ETFs attracted $28.1 million on Wednesday. SoSoValue data characterizes this as the largest daily inflow since Jan. 5. XRP’s cumulative net inflows now stand at $1.62 billion, providing another datapoint that flow strength is persisting across the broader ETF landscape rather than being concentrated entirely in Bitcoin.
Taken together, the Wednesday results show a market where institutional-style allocation—reflected in ETF inflows—remains active even as Bitcoin’s price action cools after a near-$80,000 move.
What investors should watch next
With Bitcoin ETFs continuing to post positive days, the key question is whether the next sessions bring a re-acceleration in daily inflows or signal a gradual normalization after the early streak. Readers should also monitor whether sentiment indicators like the Fear & Greed Index remain in “Greed” territory as price volatility returns, and whether Ether and XRP flows keep extending their respective runs.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETF Inflows Drop to $232M as BTC Stays Below $80K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy says he has successfully carried out an experimental, quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction directly on the Bitcoin mainnet—an onchain test intended to validate a proposal originally outlined earlier this year. StarkWare described the transfer as the first transaction of its kind, using Levy’s “Quantum Safe Bitcoin” (QSB) scheme.
According to StarkWare, the transaction was confirmed Wednesday in Bitcoin block 964,199. Mempool data shows the spend used a 10,000-satoshi output protected by Levy’s QSB authorization, while MARA Pool mined the block after receiving the transaction via its Slipstream service. The test is notable not because it changed Bitcoin’s consensus rules, but because it demonstrates a quantum-resistant spending construction that can be executed within existing Bitcoin infrastructure.
Key takeaways
StarkWare reports an onchain QSB transaction was confirmed in Bitcoin block 964,199, marking a move from theory to a mainnet demonstration.
QSB is designed to be quantum-resistant without requiring a Bitcoin protocol upgrade, relying instead on transaction-level cryptographic construction.
The computation required to create QSB transactions remains expensive, with StarkWare estimating the final test cost in the low hundreds of dollars (around $150–$200).
QSB transactions are treated as nonstandard by Bitcoin Core relay policies, meaning typical nodes may not propagate them automatically.
Bitcoin developers are already considering protocol-level changes, including proposals such as BIP-360, that aim to reduce quantum exposure for specific spend paths.
From proposal to a confirmed mainnet spend
Levy’s QSB work combines two cryptographic ideas: hash-based one-time signatures and computational searches that bind an authorization to a specific transaction. StarkWare’s research framing is that this construction should prevent forgery even if a future quantum computer undermines the elliptic-curve cryptography used by Bitcoin today.
The onchain test matters because it shows that this specific quantum-resistant mechanism can be expressed under Bitcoin’s current consensus rules—at least in a way that results in a valid, confirmable spend. StarkWare said the demonstration was carried out without a protocol change, moving the project from “paper and code” into a working mainnet transaction.
Levy’s paper and associated code repository describe QSB in more detail, including how the one-time signature and transaction-bound authorization work together to create the security target against quantum-enabled forgery.
Cost and practicality: compute-heavy by design
Quantum-resistant cryptography usually involves a tradeoff: stronger security against future threats often comes with higher computational and operational costs. StarkWare’s spokesperson Nathan Jeffay told Cointelegraph that completing the tested transaction cost “low hundreds of dollars,” estimating roughly $150 to $200. StarkWare also said the overall process involved hours of computation.
This echoes earlier expectations around QSB’s resource intensity. In April, Levy introduced QSB and estimated then that generating a transaction could require between $75 and $150 in GPU computation. In the current test, StarkWare’s final estimate suggests the method is feasible for experimentation, but far from something that can scale as a default spending option for everyday users.
Levy’s approach has also been framed as a “last-resort measure” rather than a full replacement for protocol-level improvements. That distinction is important for readers trying to understand what QSB is solving: not immediate mass adoption, but a credible bridge for security concerns while Bitcoin’s broader roadmap for post-quantum resilience is still being discussed.
Why nodes may not relay QSB transactions by default
Beyond cost, QSB faces a practical integration barrier: Bitcoin Core’s default relay policy. Levy’s repository classifies QSB transactions as nonstandard, and StarkWare said this means ordinary nodes would not automatically propagate them before confirmation.
In other words, a QSB transaction may not travel through the usual network “gossip” path. For the confirmed test, the transaction was submitted through MARA’s Slipstream service so it could reach miners despite its nonstandard status.
This is a reminder that even when a cryptographic scheme is valid under consensus, network policy still shapes real-world usability. Until relay behavior changes—or until spending routes are standardized—quantum-resistant transactions may remain mainly the domain of researchers and specialized operators.
Protocol upgrades are still on the table
QSB’s transaction-level strategy also raises a broader question: what happens as Bitcoin evolves toward quantum readiness at the protocol layer?
In earlier reporting, Google researchers estimated that if a sufficiently capable quantum computer emerged, it could potentially derive a Bitcoin private key nine to 12 minutes after its corresponding public key becomes visible—creating a window where an attacker might replace a pending transaction. The implication is that certain spending constructions may be more vulnerable than others once quantum capabilities arrive.
Levy introduced QSB with the notion that it does not require a network-wide upgrade, but still provides a safety net. StarkWare’s Eli Ben-Sasson indicated in comments to Cointelegraph that he expects a soft fork to eventually happen, describing QSB as a transitional protection while protocol-level safeguards are developed.
Bitcoin developers are separately weighing proposals that target specific spend paths. One example mentioned by StarkWare is BIP-360, a proposed soft fork that would introduce a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type while removing Taproot’s quantum-vulnerable key-path spend. This kind of proposal differs from QSB by aiming to reduce exposure directly through changes to how certain outputs are constructed and spent, rather than relying on transaction-level workarounds.
Notably, QSB in this test is presented as a validation that one quantum-resistant approach can be executed without a protocol change. The next step for the community will be whether standardized relay and broader compatibility can be achieved, and how that compares with the security and complexity tradeoffs of protocol-level soft forks.
What to watch next
For now, the key uncertainty is scalability and integration: whether future QSB tests can lower compute cost, and whether changes to Bitcoin relay standards—or eventual soft fork designs like BIP-360—will reduce the friction that currently makes these transactions nonstandard. Readers should also look for more mainnet demonstrations that clarify how reliably the method can be used across different mining and submission workflows.
This article was originally published as StarkWare Runs Quantum-Resistant Bitcoin Spend on Mainnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

StarkWare researcher Avihu Levy says he has successfully completed what the company describes as the first quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction on the mainnet—an onchain test of Levy’s Quantum Safe Bitcoin (QSB) approach.
According to StarkWare, the transaction was confirmed Wednesday in Bitcoin block 964,199, and onchain data indicates it spent a 10,000-satoshi output protected using QSB. Block propagation for the test relied on MARA Pool’s Slipstream service, reflecting that the experiment did not follow Bitcoin Core’s default transaction relay rules.
Key takeaways
First mainnet demonstration: StarkWare reports QSB was confirmed in Bitcoin block 964,199, moving Levy’s April proposal from concept to live spending.
No consensus upgrade required: StarkWare says the test was compatible with Bitcoin’s existing consensus rules, without changing the protocol.
Higher compute costs: StarkWare estimates the transaction required “low hundreds of dollars,” with computation taking hours.
Relay constraints: QSB transactions are treated as nonstandard under Bitcoin Core default policies, so they required direct submission via Slipstream rather than normal peer-to-peer propagation.
Stops short of a network-wide fix: QSB hardens individual spending, while broader protocol proposals (including BIP-360) aim to reduce quantum exposure more systematically.
QSB reaches mainnet: hash-based signatures plus transaction-bound authorization
Levy’s QSB combines two ideas intended to counter scenarios where quantum computers undermine Bitcoin’s elliptic-curve cryptography. In StarkWare’s description of the scheme, QSB uses hash-based one-time signatures and pairs authorization to a specific transaction through computational searches.
The goal is to prevent forgery even if a quantum computer eventually breaks the cryptographic primitives underpinning Bitcoin’s typical key-path spending. Rather than replacing Bitcoin’s cryptography across the network, QSB is designed as a construction for individual transactions—effectively a “last-resort” safety net that can be used when quantum risk becomes more urgent.
StarkWare points to Levy’s published paper and code repository as the technical basis for the method, with the repository detailing how transaction-specific authorization is bound into the spending conditions.
What changed vs. earlier proposals—and what remains theoretical
The QSB test is best understood against earlier academic and research milestones. In March, researchers at Google estimated that a sufficiently capable quantum computer could theoretically derive a Bitcoin private key within minutes after an attacker learns the corresponding public key from a pending transaction, potentially enabling key replacement during the confirmation window.
In April, Levy introduced QSB in response to that kind of threat model, describing the approach as costly and intended for rare use rather than routine replacement of existing defenses.
StarkWare’s Wednesday mainnet confirmation therefore marks an important shift: it demonstrates that a quantum-resistant spending construction can be executed under Bitcoin’s current consensus rules, at least in this controlled experiment. That matters for investors and builders because it suggests a path for incremental, transaction-level hardening while longer-term protocol changes are debated and implemented.
Cost, computation time, and the reality of running it on Bitcoin
While the concept is aimed at quantum resistance, the test also highlights the practical trade-off: compute intensity. StarkWare previously estimated that generating a QSB transaction would require between $75 and $150 in GPU computation, framing it as a fallback option rather than a universal tool.
For the confirmed mainnet run, StarkWare’s spokesperson Nathan Jeffay told Cointelegraph that the total cost landed in the “low hundreds of dollars,” estimating around $150 to $200. StarkWare’s release also said the process took hours of computation.
That pricing and time profile is critical context for market participants: even if QSB can be made to work without a protocol update, its cost structure will likely limit how often it can be used in practice until either hardware efficiency improves or alternative constructions reduce compute requirements.
Why it required a special submission path: nonstandard relay policies
Beyond cost, StarkWare’s testing approach underscores another bottleneck: Bitcoin nodes may not relay QSB transactions in the same way they handle standard transfers.
Levy’s repository classifies QSB transactions as nonstandard under Bitcoin Core’s default relay policies. StarkWare says this means ordinary nodes would not propagate the transaction before confirmation, so the test needed to be submitted directly through MARA’s Slipstream service.
In practical terms, that implies a two-stage readiness problem. Even if the spending is valid under consensus rules, the transaction’s ability to spread through the network—at least by default—can affect timing, reliability, and user experience. Observing whether QSB can become easier to submit, relay, or include under broader conditions will likely be one of the next milestones builders watch.
QSB as a bridge while protocol-level protection advances
StarkWare’s leadership also positions QSB as incomplete by design. The method applies to individual transactions rather than upgrading cryptography throughout the Bitcoin network. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson said, “A soft fork should happen, and I believe it will,” framing QSB as a safety net while protocol-level protections are developed.
That broader effort is already reflected in public proposals discussed in the Bitcoin ecosystem. One example mentioned by StarkWare is BIP-360, a proposed soft fork that would introduce a Pay-to-Merkle-Root output type while removing Taproot’s quantum-vulnerable key-path spend.
The tension here is straightforward: QSB can demonstrate feasibility today, but protocol changes aim to make quantum-resistant spending practical at scale—potentially without requiring specialized submission routes or heavy computation per transaction.
For traders and long-term holders, this also changes how to think about “quantum readiness.” Instead of a single all-or-nothing moment, the landscape appears to be moving toward layered defenses: transaction-level constructions that prove the mechanics, paired with eventual consensus changes that reduce exposure and simplify use.
Going forward, the key question is whether QSB tests like this can be repeated reliably across different infrastructure and whether future improvements—or soft fork proposals such as BIP-360—make quantum-resistant spending cheaper, easier to relay, and more broadly usable without specialized services.
This article was originally published as StarkWare Runs Quantum-Resistant Bitcoin Transactions on Mainnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockstream CEO Adam Back may have long played down the immediacy of quantum threats, but the company he leads is moving forward with concrete work on how Bitcoin could upgrade if sufficiently powerful quantum computers ever become a practical reality. That progress just received a fresh milestone: a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) for the company’s experimental post-quantum signature scheme, SHRINCS, was published on the project’s GitHub repository.
The development matters because Bitcoin’s current elliptic-curve signature system (used for spending authorization) is widely understood to be vulnerable to the key-recovery capabilities of future quantum machines. While the exact timeline remains debated, cryptographers agree the worst-case scenario would allow attackers to derive private keys from public keys and steal funds—making migration planning an industry priority rather than a reactive scramble.
Key takeaways
Blockstream published a BIP for SHRINCS, positioning it as an actionable candidate for Bitcoin’s post-quantum signature upgrade path.
SHRINCS is designed to be “Bitcoin-native” and smaller than many NIST-aligned post-quantum signature alternatives, helping it fit Bitcoin’s block and witness constraints.
The proposal’s approach is more “stateful,” which can reduce on-chain size but introduces wallet/device recovery and interoperability risks.
Blockstream’s ongoing research explores complementary ideas—like signature-size reduction and potential ZK proof aggregation—while keeping governance and deployment decisions separate.
From quantum skepticism to BIP-level implementation
Adam Back has been associated with a cautious stance toward quantum timelines—arguing in earlier comments that the threat may not materialize for decades. Yet, Blockstream’s work shows how even a “farther away” threat can justify engineering now: building, testing, and documenting cryptographic changes before the political and technical window closes.
Blockstream Research has previously demonstrated SHRINCS as an experimental post-quantum signature scheme operating in production on Liquid, a Bitcoin sidechain. The new BIP—published earlier today in the SHRINCS repository—takes that experimental work and frames it explicitly for Bitcoin improvement discussions.
Jonas Nick, a Blockstream Research researcher, characterized the BIP as “the first concrete proposal” for a post-quantum signature scheme built specifically around Bitcoin’s needs. He also cautioned that SHRINCS is not presented as Bitcoin’s “final” signature design and is not optimal on every dimension—an important distinction for investors and builders trying to evaluate how close a proposal is to consensus-level readiness.
Why signature size is the core Bitcoin constraint
In most post-quantum signature designs, public parameters and signature payloads are substantially larger than Bitcoin’s current elliptic-curve signatures. According to the article’s cited comparison, NIST-endorsed post-quantum hash- and lattice-based signature schemes are between 38 and 123 times larger than Bitcoin’s ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. The practical consequence is straightforward: larger signatures mean more data per transaction, which can reduce throughput.
The same reporting notes that deploying those larger NIST-style signatures directly in Bitcoin could push performance down to a fraction of a transaction per second. Ethereum’s post-quantum team, as referenced in the article, has discussed addressing the blockspace problem by aggregating signatures using a small zero-knowledge proof per block—an approach that, if feasible, can reduce on-chain footprint. Bitcoin, however, would face a different social and technical hurdle: adding ZK proof aggregation would represent a major change to the system’s validation and activation politics.
Blockstream’s alternative is to shrink the signature payload itself. The approach discussed here aims to reduce Bitcoin-relevant signature sizes by about 13.23 times compared with baseline NIST-aligned hash-based post-quantum signatures, while retaining enough compatibility with Bitcoin’s operational constraints to keep the upgrade conversation realistic.
What SHRINCS targets—and what trade-offs it makes
The SHRINCS design was unveiled by Blockstream researchers in December 2025, with an opcode proposal published in May. It is a hash-based post-quantum signature scheme built to work within Bitcoin’s signature-size realities. The scheme is reported as having a minimum size of 548 bytes plus a 48-byte public key, with maximum sizes that can reach 4,619 bytes.
A key selling point is “Bitcoin-native” construction: one cited explainer describes the scheme as real code signing real transactions on Liquid mainnet and as an attempt to address post-quantum migration without breaking Bitcoin’s block economics. That said, it remains early-stage research. The article references a warning embedded in the BIP text that a formal security proof is “TODO,” indicating the cryptography is promising but not yet fully validated at the level Bitcoin-style upgrades normally demand.
Even with SHRINCS’s improvements, the scheme is still described as significantly larger than current Bitcoin signatures—about nine times larger than Schnorr signatures (64 bytes). The report also emphasizes that the impact is not as simple as a “9x blocksize increase,” because Bitcoin’s Segregated Witness changes how signature bytes are accounted for in block weight.
Where SHRINCS makes a more controversial engineering choice is in its state management. Traditional stateless designs can store everything required to verify and update signatures in the public structure, but they often require large signature artifacts. The article describes SHRINCS as intentionally reducing those artifacts by using one-time keys and keeping track of “used keys” on the device—meaning the scheme behaves in a stateful way.
This can affect users in concrete ways. Each time a signature is used, it adds roughly 16 bytes to the signature. More importantly, if a device is lost, the fallback mechanism can require a very large transaction (the article cites about 5,777 bytes) to recover. Additionally, the BIP warning cited in the article notes that different SHRINCS implementations may not interoperate safely if they use incompatible stateless-component settings—raising the risk of lost funds during key import.
That tension—smaller signatures in exchange for operational fragility—is likely to shape governance debates more than raw cryptographic novelty. Bitcoin’s consensus rules are permanent maintenance obligations, and wallet-side assumptions can become user failure modes.
Iterating for deployment: hardware wallets, SHRIMPS, and options for aggregation
Blockstream says it has continued refining SHRINCS through 2026 and recently demonstrated that SHRINCS and other post-quantum signature schemes can run on common hardware wallets. That is not a trivial detail: even well-designed cryptography can stall adoption if it cannot fit the performance and memory constraints of real wallet environments.
The article also references work on a companion backup/derivation concept. Earlier in March, Blockstream introduced “SHRIMPS” to support signing by backup devices initialized from the same seed in a way that aligns with SHRINCS signing behavior. In the BIP update described here, the SHRIMPS naming is dropped and the scheme is incorporated as a built-in stateless path under the same 48-byte public key, optimized with a non-standard parameter set to be about 26% smaller.
Beyond hash-based signatures, Blockstream’s research also experiments with lattice-based signature approaches, which are often smaller but described as less proven and less reliable than hash-based designs in the current literature. The article further notes Blockstream’s consideration of zero-knowledge proof aggregation. According to its estimates, pairing ZK aggregation with SHRINCS could potentially double Bitcoin’s speed in this modeled scenario.
Notably, Blockstream is reported to have separated signature-choice work from the separate, more contentious questions of block size increases and ZK aggregation. That decision reflects a pragmatic recognition: pairing multiple disruptive changes at once can make it harder to build consensus. If Bitcoin is to migrate to post-quantum security, the pathway likely needs modular governance milestones rather than one all-at-once overhaul.
As one explained perspective cited here puts it, the “binding constraint” may not be cryptography alone but governance—how Bitcoin chooses among a growing menu of engineering options (including references to other proposals like BIP-360, BIP-361, and STARKs) before an upgrade clock runs out.
For readers, the next signal to watch is whether the SHRINCS BIP gains traction in the broader Bitcoin development and review ecosystem—particularly around its stateful design risks, key recovery/fallback behavior, and interoperability guarantees between wallet implementations. The proposal’s publication is a meaningful step from experimentation toward deployment planning, but the hard part will be convincing the network that the trade-offs are acceptable and the security path is complete enough for consensus.
This article was originally published as Quantum-Secure Bitcoin via SHRINCS BIP: Benefits With a Trade-Off on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A new survey from the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) finds that most Americans remain wary of including cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans. The research comes as U.S. policymakers work to broaden the range of alternative assets available in 401(k) and other defined-contribution plans—potentially placing crypto more directly in retirement-savings conversations.
According to the NIRS survey, 77% of Americans view cryptocurrency included in workplace retirement plans as risky, with 46% describing it as “very risky.” In parallel, 53% oppose employers offering crypto as an investment option.
Key takeaways
77% of respondents say crypto exposure in workplace retirement plans is risky, including 46% who call it very risky.
53% oppose employers adding crypto to retirement plan investment lineups.
Concerns about retirement security are rising: 80% say the U.S. faces a retirement crisis, up from 67% in 2020.
Debt and affordability pressures persist: 77% say debt blocks them from saving adequately.
Regulatory direction is shifting: multiple federal actions have moved away from prior “extreme care” language and toward a framework that may facilitate alternative-asset inclusion.
Survey signals distrust even as retirement pressures mount
The NIRS report ties its crypto findings to broader anxieties about retirement outcomes. 80% of survey respondents said the U.S. faces a retirement crisis—an increase from 67% in 2020—while 61% said they are concerned about achieving financial security in retirement.
Affordability challenges also appear central to the survey’s picture. The research reports that 68% say it is becoming harder to prepare for retirement, and 77% say debt prevents them from saving enough. In that context, investor protection and risk tolerance are likely to remain key fault lines for any plan sponsors considering crypto-like exposures.
The survey was conducted by Greenwald Research between Oct. 24 and Nov. 14, 2025, surveying 1,203 Americans aged 25 and older. Results were weighted by age, gender, and income.
From “extreme care” to neutrality: a policy pivot
While public opinion in the NIRS survey skews negative toward crypto in employer retirement plans, regulatory posture has been moving in the other direction. The NIRS report points to changes under the Trump administration and federal regulators aimed at expanding access to alternative assets in defined-contribution plans.
One turning point came when the U.S. Department of Labor rescinded guidance from May 2025 that had urged 401(k) plan fiduciaries to exercise “extreme care” when considering cryptocurrency investments. In its place, the Department of Labor returned to a neutral approach that neither endorses nor discourages crypto as an investment option.
The policy shift accelerated further after Aug. 7, 2025, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order intended to “democratize access to alternative assets for 401(k) investors.” The order calls for expanding access to alternative assets in defined-contribution retirement plans, including those carried by investment vehicles that hold digital assets, while directing the Labor Department and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to consider regulatory changes.
Labor Department guidance continues to broaden the door
Following the executive order, the Department of Labor also rescinded earlier language. A few days later, it rescinded a 2021 guidance document that had discouraged 401(k) fiduciaries from considering alternative assets, saying investment decisions should instead be assessed through a neutral, principles-based framework.
More recently, the Department of Labor has moved from rescinding older guidance toward outlining how fiduciaries could evaluate alternative assets within plan lineups. In March 2026, it proposed rules describing how 401(k) fiduciaries could include alternative assets—again, with the stated goal of providing structures that reduce litigation risk. The proposal would require fiduciaries to consider factors such as fees, liquidity, valuation, and performance.
Still, the debate is far from settled. The NIRS report notes pushback from lawmakers, including Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Bobby Scott, who urged the Department of Labor in June to withdraw the proposal. Their objections, as described in earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, cite crypto’s volatility and argue that safeguards for investors are insufficient.
Why the divide matters for retirement investors
The NIRS survey and the ongoing regulatory shift point to a significant mismatch between how Americans perceive crypto risk and how the regulatory framework may evolve around retirement-plan menus.
For plan sponsors and fiduciaries, this gap is likely to shape how proposals land with employers, participants, and policymakers. Even if rules become clearer about what diligence should look like, the core question for retirement consumers is whether crypto exposures align with retirement risk tolerance—especially when the same survey shows many Americans are already struggling with affordability and debt constraints.
For participants, the next phase to watch is whether proposed Labor Department rules finalize in a way that meaningfully changes what employers can offer, and how regulators address the specific concerns raised by lawmakers—particularly around volatility, liquidity, and valuation transparency.
As NIRS data underscores, public skepticism is high; the coming regulatory decisions and any resulting plan changes will therefore be tested not only by legal standards, but by whether they can earn participant trust in the context of retirement security.
This article was originally published as Survey Finds 77% of Americans View Crypto as Risky in Retirement Plans on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken a procedural step toward rewriting how investment advisers and investment companies handle client custody rules—potentially including clearer guidance for crypto asset custody. The agency’s proposal was submitted on Aug. 25 to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), where it will undergo review by the White House Office of Management and Budget before returning to the SEC and, if approved, being opened for public comment.
According to the SEC’s regulatory agenda, the rules are intended to reduce uncertainty over how regulated firms may hold crypto for clients while complying with federal securities requirements tied to the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. The SEC has not yet published the full proposal for public view, and OIRA retains the ability to request revisions before the SEC considers whether to advance the draft.
Key takeaways
The SEC submitted “Amendments to the Custody Rules” to OIRA on Aug. 25, a necessary step before any potential public rulemaking.
The proposal would address custody practices for investment advisers and funds, including how those entities may custody crypto assets for clients.
The agency says the intent is to clarify compliance expectations and reduce uncertainty currently affecting institutional crypto custody.
The broader context includes the SEC’s shift toward rulemaking under current leadership, as the CLARITY market-structure bill faces delays in Congress.
OIRA review marks a new phase for custody-rule changes
Under the U.S. regulatory process, submissions to OIRA are typically part of the administration’s review pipeline, which includes assessing potential economic impacts and other policy considerations. The SEC’s regulatory agenda indicates it is considering either amendments to existing custody rules or new provisions under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
The SEC’s agenda framing highlights compliance clarity as the core objective: institutions have needed more predictable standards for how they can custody digital assets while meeting securities-law obligations. Still, the proposal has not yet been released, so investors and service providers will have to wait to see the exact custody mechanisms and compliance conditions the SEC is considering.
The timeline also matters. Even after the OIRA review, the SEC must decide whether to issue the draft publicly for comment. In the meantime, the drafting remains in a pre-public phase, leaving the precise details—such as how the SEC plans to define permissible custodial arrangements for crypto—unknown.
Why crypto custody rules are now a focal point
Institutional participation in crypto markets has long been tied to custody infrastructure and compliance. Custody is not simply a technical function; it’s also a legal and regulatory question tied to fiduciary duties and the requirement to protect client assets. By exploring custody-rule changes for investment advisers and investment companies, the SEC is effectively aiming to address a practical bottleneck: when custody standards are ambiguous, regulated firms may be more cautious about offering crypto exposure to clients—or they may rely on arrangements that are harder to defend under existing guidance.
The SEC’s stated intent—to clear up uncertainty—suggests that regulators view the current framework as insufficiently clear for modern portfolio practices that increasingly include crypto. However, the proposal is still preliminary, and the fact that it is under review means the agency could adjust its approach after OIRA feedback.
Rulemaking momentum under SEC leadership
Multiple developments point to a broader strategic shift at the SEC. Since Paul Atkins became chair in 2025, the agency has increasingly emphasized formal rulemaking over what it previously treated as “regulation through enforcement.” Atkins pledged to change course by using established rulemaking channels to set industry expectations rather than relying primarily on enforcement actions to define the regulatory boundary.
That strategic shift is also reflected in past enforcement posture. Earlier coverage noted that the SEC dismissed several cases against major crypto companies in 2025, including its lawsuit against Coinbase, as it moved to reshape its approach to digital assets.
While the custody-rule proposal is not itself an enforcement action, it aligns with the same direction: creating clearer standards that regulated firms can plan around. If the SEC ultimately issues the draft for public comment and it advances to final rulemaking, the result could materially affect institutional compliance planning for advisers and investment funds that want to include crypto in client portfolios.
Congressional bill delays keep regulatory uncertainty in focus
The SEC’s custody initiative is unfolding while at least one other major policy effort remains stalled. As Bloomberg reported, the proposed rule is part of the agency’s broader push to advance the Trump administration’s digital asset agenda as the CLARITY market structure bill remains blocked in the Senate.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that the CLARITY bill was expected to face a cloture vote after lawmakers return from the August recess in September. With that legislative path uncertain, regulatory clarity on custody and compliance could take on added importance for market participants—even if it comes through the SEC’s rulemaking process rather than Congress.
In other words, while the legislative debate over market structure continues, the SEC is also working on narrower but highly practical rules that govern how investment firms hold assets. For institutions, that distinction can matter: the ability to custody crypto within a clear regulatory framework may be a nearer-term determinant of product development and client offering viability.
What to watch next
Readers should focus on whether the OIRA review prompts changes to the draft and, crucially, whether the SEC eventually releases the custody proposal for public comment. The most important unknown is what specific custody standards the SEC will propose for crypto holdings, since that will determine how institutions adjust compliance processes and custodial arrangements.
This article was originally published as SEC Drafts Crypto Custody Rule Overhaul, Submits to White House on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Chainalysis estimates that potentially taxable crypto activity on major public blockchains reached at least $457 billion worldwide in 2025. But the firm argues that current international tax reporting rules will likely capture only a minority of that activity—leaving most onchain activity outside the data flows tax authorities can use.
In Chainalysis’ figures, the United States accounted for an estimated $112.6 billion, while North America led all regions with $134.6 billion. The European Union followed with $125.1 billion. The analysis focuses on realized gains, income from activities such as mining, staking and lending, and crypto-denominated payments across six major blockchains—while excluding activity conducted within centralized exchanges.
Key takeaways
Chainalysis pegs potentially taxable onchain activity in 2025 at $457 billion globally, but most of it falls outside OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).
CARF-covered transactions account for an estimated 14% of the taxable onchain activity Chainalysis identified, with 86% occurring beyond the reporting perimeter.
The $457 billion estimate includes realized gains and onchain income streams (e.g., staking, lending) and payments, but intentionally leaves out centralized exchange trading activity.
CARF requires covered providers to collect customer transaction and tax residency information and share it with tax authorities for cross-border exchange.
Decentralized finance activity may remain largely uncovered because CARF is built around identifiable intermediaries and reporting obligations tied to centralized service providers.
A global onchain tax problem dwarfs what CARF can cover
Chainalysis’ report frames a central mismatch: taxable crypto behavior is heavily onchain and fragmented, while reporting obligations under CARF are structured around intermediaries that can be required to collect and report data.
According to Chainalysis, transactions that fall under CARF account for just 14% of the potentially taxable onchain activity it identified. The remaining 86% includes activity on decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers, onchain income streams, and crypto-denominated payments—types of activity that may not be routed through centralized, in-scope reporting entities.
This distinction matters for investors and market participants because tax outcomes depend on record availability. Even where taxable events occur on public blockchains, the ability for tax authorities to receive consistent third-party transaction information is limited when reporting requirements don’t extend to the underlying counterparties or decentralized infrastructure.
How CARF is meant to work—and when it starts
CARF was developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and announced as a framework for reporting crypto-related customer transaction data to tax authorities. Under CARF, covered crypto service providers collect customer and tax residency information and report transaction data to their domestic authorities, which can then share information across borders.
In practical terms, Chainalysis points to a coverage design that focuses on intermediaries. CARF collection is set to begin on Jan. 1, 2026, in 48 jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom and European Union. For covered platforms, the framework also requires collecting additional customer and tax residency information from that date.
Investors should note that the start date is tied to reporting obligations placed on “covered” providers. The existence of a reporting framework does not automatically mean all onchain activity becomes reportable—coverage depends on whether transactions are processed through entities that fall within CARF’s defined perimeter.
Why DeFi may stay largely outside the reporting perimeter
A key reason for CARF’s limited coverage, Chainalysis suggests, is that CARF is oriented toward crypto intermediaries that facilitate transactions as a business. Colby Mangels, a former OECD adviser who worked on CARF, told Cointelegraph in January that the framework was designed around intermediaries that can be regulated and required to report.
That structure creates friction for decentralized finance. Much DeFi activity may involve no centralized operator in the traditional sense, and potentially no custodial relationship that triggers reporting obligations in the way CARF expects. As a result, decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers, and various onchain income mechanisms can remain outside direct reporting.
Still, the regulatory landscape is not static. Mangels said tax authorities are watching how anti-money laundering rules evolve, including efforts to determine when DeFi platforms—or their operators—could be treated as regulated crypto service providers. If and when that happens, the boundary between “covered” intermediaries and “uncovered” decentralized activity may shift.
What to watch next as reporting expands
Chainalysis’ estimates highlight an uncomfortable reality: even with CARF rolling out across dozens of jurisdictions, a large portion of taxable onchain activity may remain invisible to tax authorities unless reporting requirements extend to additional kinds of entities or data-generating processes. What matters next is how regulators decide whether and when decentralized platforms—or people operating them—become subject to the same reporting duties as centralized intermediaries.
Readers should watch the implementation details in CARF jurisdictions after the Jan. 1, 2026 rollout begins, as well as any regulatory movement that clarifies how DeFi participants fit into the “crypto service provider” concept. Those determinations will largely determine whether the 14% coverage figure can rise—or whether the reporting gap persists.
This article was originally published as Chainalysis: $457B Taxable Crypto Activity, CARF Policy Gaps Claimed on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Better Mortgage and Coinbase have expanded their Bitcoin-backed mortgage option, moving it into general availability for eligible US homebuyers. The product is designed to let borrowers use Bitcoin as collateral for a down payment while keeping the primary home loan tied to a Fannie Mae-backed mortgage.
Announced Wednesday, the offering combines two linked loans: a Fannie Mae-backed home loan from Better and a separate down payment loan secured by Bitcoin. According to Coinbase’s Help Center, borrowers must pledge BTC worth at least 250% of the down payment loan amount, with the pledged Bitcoin transferred to Better’s custodial account on Coinbase Prime.
Key takeaways
Better and Coinbase’s token-backed mortgage is now generally available to qualifying US borrowers.
Borrowers pledge Bitcoin to secure the down payment loan, without having to sell BTC.
Coinbase states Bitcoin price declines alone do not automatically trigger margin calls or mortgage term changes.
Better may liquidate pledged BTC if a borrower is 60 days delinquent on payments.
Eligible Coinbase One members can receive a Better rebate, subject to a $10,000 cap.
How the Bitcoin-collateral mortgage works
The structure is built around two synchronized components with shared repayment timing. Coinbase said both loans use the same interest rate and amortization term, and repayment occurs through a single monthly payment.
Once the mortgage is fully repaid or refinanced, the pledged BTC is returned, provided the loan terms are satisfied. Coinbase emphasized that the mortgage is not designed to reprice automatically based purely on Bitcoin volatility.
Specifically, Coinbase notes that declines in the BTC price by themselves do not trigger margin calls or change mortgage terms. The key exception is delinquency: if a borrower becomes 60 days past due on payments, Better has the ability to liquidate the pledged Bitcoin, according to Coinbase.
Eligibility and incentives for borrowers
Participation is limited to US residents with a verified Coinbase account, and borrowers remain subject to Better’s standard credit, income, and underwriting requirements. Coinbase also said the product is delivered through Better’s mortgage process, with BTC held in Better’s custody via Coinbase Prime.
Coinbase One members are eligible for a 1% rebate from Better, subject to a $10,000 cap. The rebate can be applied toward closing costs and fees, which may reduce upfront transaction expenses for qualifying borrowers.
Regulatory momentum behind crypto in mortgage underwriting
The rollout arrives during a period of increasing institutional attention to how digital assets could be treated within US mortgage risk models. In June 2025, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to develop proposals to consider cryptocurrency held on US-regulated centralized exchanges as an asset in single-family mortgage risk assessments—without requiring that the crypto be converted to US dollars.
The FHFA directive also asked the enterprises to consider risk-mitigation measures tied to crypto’s volatility and to submit proposed changes to their boards for approval before the FHFA review process.
That direction is part of a broader shift in how lenders and regulators approach collateral quality and volatility. Rather than forcing borrowers to exit exposure to digital assets at origination, the emerging framework aims to evaluate crypto holdings directly, provided that volatility controls and governance are in place.
Other lenders moving—and what comes next for borrowers
Coinbase and Better are not the only players testing this approach. Mortgage lender and servicer Newrez announced in January that it would recognize certain cryptocurrency holdings in its mortgage application evaluations beginning in February, covering both home purchases and refinancing. The movement suggests that, while the specifics vary by lender, the market is increasingly experimenting with practical pathways for incorporating regulated crypto holdings into underwriting.
Housing affordability remains constrained even as crypto-linked collateral options expand. US housing price levels have stayed elevated by historical standards, even after some pullbacks: data compiled by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis indicates the median sales price of a new US home was about $400,000 in 2026, using figures from the US Census Bureau and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
For investors and borrowers alike, the Better-Coinbase expansion is likely to be watched as an early test case for whether “hold-to-borrow” models can scale in mainstream mortgage workflows. Key uncertainties remain around how different volatility scenarios are handled across lenders, how regulators will evaluate risk-mitigation proposals, and whether more mortgage originators will follow Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s evolving guidance.
This article was originally published as Better Launches Bitcoin-Backed Mortgages Using Coinbase Technology on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin slipped below $78,000 shortly after the Wall Street open as US inflation data landed higher than expected, pushing risk assets lower and weighing on crypto sentiment. The move followed a stronger-than-forecast July Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) print—an inflation measure the Federal Reserve closely tracks—setting up a busy stretch for traders with additional catalysts later in the week.
With markets now parsing what the latest inflation signal could mean for the policy outlook, attention is also turning to Nvidia’s upcoming earnings release, widely viewed as a near-term driver of broader market volatility. Meanwhile, technical analysts are warning that recent strength may still fall short of a durable trend change.
Key takeaways
July US PCE inflation came in above expectations, with the year-on-year rate at 3.7% versus 3.6% expected.
BTC’s decline accelerated after the Wall Street open, aligning with weaker moves in US equities and gold breaking below $4,600 per ounce.
Analysts are watching the August monthly close for confirmation or rejection of ongoing technical resistance themes.
Traders are also looking ahead to Nvidia’s Q2 earnings as a potential volatility catalyst for risk assets.
July PCE surprises higher and pressures risk appetite
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ official release, the July PCE price index increased 0.2% from the previous month, and the same 0.2% gain was reported for the core measure excluding food and energy. On the year, the headline PCE rate rose to 3.7%, edging above the 3.6% forecast.
TradingView data tracked intraday weakness of up to roughly 1% for BTC on the day as US markets opened lower. The same risk-off dynamic also showed up beyond crypto: the article notes US stocks were down at the open and gold dipped through $4,600 per ounce.
For investors, the key point is not only whether inflation is moving, but whether it is moderating quickly enough to influence expectations around monetary policy. The report highlights that markets had been reacting to June’s PCE slowdown—described as the first month-on-month decline in six years—so the July print reduced confidence that progress was continuing at the desired pace.
Commenting on the broader implication, trading resource The Kobeissi Letter said on X that US inflation remains “nearly double” the Federal Reserve’s 2.0% target, reinforcing the idea that the latest data did not offer immediate reassurance for rate-cut hopes.
Fed week ahead: inflation data before major policy messaging
The PCE release landed with the Federal Reserve’s annual Jackson Hole economic symposium approaching. The article notes that Fed chair Kevin Warsh is expected to deliver the keynote speech on Friday, which places a premium on how markets interpret the inflation trajectory into that event.
In practical terms, this means traders are likely to treat today’s data as an input into the policy narrative rather than a one-off market mover. If inflation readings stay stubborn, markets may scale back expectations for easing; if they ease further, pressure on risk assets could fade. Either way, the upcoming Fed communications increase the probability that volatility could rise again even if crypto’s move already reflects the immediate reaction.
Tech earnings on deck as Nvidia could set the tone
Beyond macro data, the article points to corporate earnings as the next plausible short-term driver for market behavior. It highlights Nvidia’s upcoming Q2 earnings release as a potential catalyst for risk-asset volatility.
While the piece does not claim new results, it cites expectations including quarterly revenue of $92.3 billion and notes that analysts at Raymond James forecast CPU revenue at Nvidia could grow from 3% to 5% of total by 2028, broadening its addressable market.
For crypto investors, Nvidia matters less for fundamentals inside the blockchain sector and more for how large-cap tech performance influences overall liquidity and risk appetite. If earnings are perceived as supportive, BTC could find follow-through buyers; if they disappoint, the broader de-risking impulse may continue to spill into digital assets.
BTC technical outlook: focus shifts to the August monthly close
After the pullback, market participants are increasingly turning to higher-timeframe technical levels rather than reacting to day-to-day candles. The article emphasizes an upcoming August monthly candle close as a key point for determining whether BTC can extend a rebound or whether it remains trapped within a broader downtrend structure.
Trader and analyst Rekt Capital warned that BTC/USD could continue forming “lower highs,” referencing a sequence that has been in place since October 2025. In an X post, he said that “a Monthly Close below the blue resistance” would not only confirm another “Macro Lower High,” but also build “confluent resistance” tied to a broader macro downtrend.
Rekt Capital also directed attention to the 50-week exponential moving average (EMA) near $77,251. The article notes that Bitcoin’s last monthly close above this level occurred in October 2025. In his view, maintaining a reclaim and hold around that trend metric would be necessary for the rebound to stop being categorized as merely a temporary “relief rally” within a larger bear market.
Notably, this framing sets up a clear debate for traders: whether recent upside is transitioning into a durable reversal, or whether the market is still only bouncing within a corrective regime. Because monthly closes carry more weight than intraday price action, this creates a well-defined checkpoint for bulls and bears alike.
The near-term downside pressure from macro data may not automatically invalidate technical bullish cases, but it increases the odds that resistance levels will be tested more aggressively before the month ends. In other words, the market is now balancing two competing forces—macro-driven risk sentiment and chart-driven trend confirmation.
Heading into the next sessions, traders should watch how BTC responds once the immediate PCE-driven reaction cools, whether Nvidia’s earnings shift broader risk appetite, and—most importantly—where Bitcoin’s price settles relative to the resistance and the 50-week EMA ahead of the August monthly close.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Slides Under $78K as US PCE Inflation Lifts Risk-Off Trade on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto activity that could be taxable on-chain reached at least $457 billion worldwide in 2025, but the share likely captured by international tax reporting rules appears relatively small, according to a Chainalysis report on the OECD’s Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework (CARF).
Chainalysis estimates the United States accounted for $112.6 billion of that total, while North America led regions with $134.6 billion, followed by the European Union at $125.1 billion. The report also highlights a structural mismatch: CARF may cover only a limited portion of activity that taxpayers could potentially report.
Key takeaways
$457 billion of potentially taxable on-chain crypto activity was identified globally in 2025, but CARF reportedly covers only 14% of it.
CARF coverage begins in 2026, with reporting phased in across 48 jurisdictions.
Chainalysis’ estimates include realized gains, crypto income (such as mining, staking, and lending), and crypto-denominated payments, but exclude trading on centralized exchanges.
The gaps largely stem from CARF’s focus on centralized intermediaries—meaning much of DeFi may remain outside the reporting perimeter.
How much crypto activity could be taxable—and where it happens
Chainalysis’ analysis frames “potentially taxable” activity as on-chain events that can fall into common tax categories, including realized gains and income derived from blockchain activity. It also includes crypto-denominated payments—transactions where users may need to consider tax consequences even without traditional “trading” behavior.
Importantly, the report’s scope is not all crypto activity. Chainalysis states that its estimates cover activity across six major blockchains, but exclude trading and other activity performed within centralized exchanges. That means the $457 billion figure reflects an on-chain picture rather than a complete accounting of crypto taxation exposure.
Regionally, the data points to uneven concentration of taxable activity. The US estimate of $112.6 billion sits within North America’s higher total of $134.6 billion, and the European Union’s estimate of $125.1 billion underscores that the issue is cross-border rather than confined to a single market.
Why CARF may miss most of the taxable picture
Chainalysis says that transactions covered by CARF account for just 14% of the potentially taxable on-chain activity it identified, leaving an 86% gap. The report describes the uncovered portion as including activity on decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transfers, on-chain income streams, and crypto payments.
CARF itself was developed by the OECD and designed to reduce cross-border tax evasion by standardizing reporting obligations. Under the framework, covered crypto service providers gather customer-related information and report relevant transaction data to domestic tax authorities, which can then exchange that information internationally.
For investors, traders, and builders, the takeaway is not that taxes won’t apply outside CARF. Rather, it’s that the administrative mechanism to identify taxable activity—at least as implemented in CARF—likely won’t reach most on-chain behavior by default.
CARF coverage kicks in during 2026—48 jurisdictions included
Chainalysis reports that CARF data collection began on Jan. 1, 2026 across 48 jurisdictions, including major markets such as the United Kingdom and the European Union. As part of its onboarding requirements, covered platforms must collect additional information, including details about customers and their tax residency.
In practical terms, the framework is built around regulated intermediaries: crypto providers that operate within a compliance framework for customer due diligence and reporting. Tax authorities can then use those reports to identify potential liabilities and share relevant information across borders.
Still, Chainalysis’ estimates suggest that even with expanding CARF adoption, much of what users do on public blockchains—especially outside traditional custody and brokerage models—may not be captured.
DeFi’s structural problem: intermediaries are often absent
One reason CARF’s coverage is limited, according to Chainalysis, is that it focuses on crypto intermediaries. A key explanation came earlier from Colby Mangels, a former OECD adviser who worked on CARF. In January, Mangels told Cointelegraph that CARF was designed around the types of intermediaries that facilitate crypto transactions “as a business.”
Decentralized finance often lacks the centralized operator, custodial relationship, or clear business entity through which reporting requirements typically attach. In the absence of a responsible intermediary that regulators can compel to submit transaction reports, much DeFi activity may fall outside CARF’s reporting perimeter.
Mangels also pointed to a possible path forward: regulators may increasingly look to how DeFi platforms interact with anti-money laundering regimes and when DeFi operators could be treated as regulated crypto service providers. If that happens, the reporting boundary could expand over time—though it remains uncertain exactly when and how such rules will be applied in different jurisdictions.
For market participants, this evolving regulatory question matters because the current gap suggests that taxation compliance will remain uneven. Users interacting heavily through decentralized routes may face more reliance on self-reporting, while activity routed through covered centralized providers is more likely to be documented through standardized reporting channels.
Readers should watch how enforcement and rulemaking develop after CARF’s 2026 rollout: the biggest uncertainty is whether regulators will extend reporting obligations further into DeFi ecosystems, and whether AML-linked approaches will effectively bring more on-chain activity under a comparable reporting umbrella.
This article was originally published as Chainalysis: $457B taxable crypto activity estimated; CARF shortfall flagged on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has begun moving toward a major update to custody rules that govern how investment advisers and investment companies hold client assets, a change that could directly affect institutional crypto custody.
According to the SEC’s regulatory filings, the agency submitted “Amendments to the Custody Rules” to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) on Aug. 25 as part of the federal review process. The proposal would then return to the SEC for internal consideration before potentially being released for public comment.
Key takeaways
The SEC has sent proposed custody rule updates to OIRA for review under White House regulatory procedures.
The changes target how investment advisers and investment companies hold client assets, including crypto, under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
The stated goal is to reduce uncertainty for institutions trying to comply with existing federal securities rules while holding digital assets.
The draft is not yet public, and OIRA and the White House Office of Management and Budget can request modifications before it returns to the SEC.
What the SEC is trying to change
The SEC’s regulatory agenda indicates that the custody proposal could amend existing rules or introduce new requirements under the Investment Advisers Act and the Investment Company Act. Those frameworks apply to firms managing client money and other assets, including assets that may be held in custody arrangements—an area where market participants have long sought clearer guidance for digital-asset holdings.
In its description of the effort, the SEC said the intended purpose is to clarify how companies can hold crypto for clients while remaining consistent with the agency’s securities-law custody framework. The SEC emphasized that the proposal is designed to address uncertainty, but it has not yet published the rule text for public scrutiny.
Once OIRA completes its review, the draft would come back to the SEC. From there, the commission would decide whether to circulate the proposal for public comment.
How the OIRA process could shape timing and scope
The custody rule effort is currently in a pre-publication stage. As reported by Bloomberg, the SEC sent the proposal to OIRA, which sits within the White House Office of Management and Budget, on Aug. 25. That step matters because it is not merely administrative: the White House can ask for changes before the proposal returns to the SEC.
Only after that review cycle would the SEC determine whether to release the proposal for public comment—an important milestone for institutions because public comments can influence how custody obligations, compliance expectations, and operational constraints are ultimately written into regulation.
At present, the main practical takeaway for affected firms is that the proposal is moving, but the actionable details remain unavailable. Custody providers and asset managers will likely be watching for the published draft text and any adjustments that occur during OIRA’s review.
Why this fits the SEC’s broader digital-asset direction
Bloomberg linked the custody rule initiative to the SEC’s wider effort to support the Trump administration’s digital asset agenda, even as a separate piece of market-structure legislation remains stalled in Congress.
The article noted that the broader goal is occurring while the CLARITY market structure bill is still pending in the Senate. According to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting, the bill is expected to face a cloture vote after lawmakers return from the August recess in September, suggesting continued legislative uncertainty around digital-asset rules at the federal level.
In that environment, rulemaking inside the SEC becomes particularly consequential for institutional participants. Custody is not just a compliance checkbox; it affects how funds and advisers structure client asset handling, choose custody models, and document safeguards—core concerns for asset managers considering or already providing crypto exposure.
From enforcement to rulemaking: institutional impact
Crypto market participants have closely tracked the SEC’s shift in posture under Paul Atkins, who became chair in 2025. Multiple reports in the crypto industry described a move away from what critics called “regulation through enforcement” toward formal rulemaking.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph has said Atkins pledged to end the SEC’s prior approach and to pursue policy development through established rulemaking channels. That shift is reflected in reported enforcement decisions as well: Cointelegraph previously reported that the SEC dismissed several cases against prominent crypto companies in 2025, including its lawsuit against Coinbase, as it sought to reshape how it regulates digital assets.
The SEC’s custody-rule proposal fits into that broader pattern. Even though the SEC has been less aggressive in some enforcement areas, institutions still need regulatory clarity for the mechanics of custody and client asset protection—areas where existing uncertainty can slow adoption or increase compliance risk.
For investors and intermediaries, a clearer custody framework could translate into better-defined standards for eligibility, controls, and operational practices. It may also reduce the reliance on case-by-case enforcement logic when deciding how to hold and safeguard client assets that include crypto.
What to watch next
Readers should watch for the custody proposal to be published after the OIRA/OMB review and for the SEC’s decision on whether to open a public comment period. The key uncertainty remains the draft’s contents—especially how it will address crypto custody within established custody rules under the Investment Advisers Act and Investment Company Act.
This article was originally published as SEC Submits Crypto Custody Rule Overhaul to White House for Review on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.