Crypto Breaking

Developers behind the XRP Ledger (XRPL) say they had no choice but to deploy an emergency security patch without waiting for the network’s standard two-week validator voting process. The update, released Sept. 25, was designed to stop a flaw that could allow an attacker to create spendable XRP beyond the ledger’s fixed supply.
In public comments shared on Sunday, XRPL developers argued that the usual amendment workflow would have made the vulnerability effectively “public for weeks” before the fix took effect—giving would-be attackers time to adapt. The decision has since sparked debate over how decentralized XRPL truly is, particularly given the network’s long-standing public positioning as a fully decentralized blockchain.
Key takeaways
The Sept. 25 emergency patch was deployed immediately on servers that installed it, bypassing XRPL’s typical two-week validator vote on amendments.
XRPL developers said waiting for the normal process would have exposed the bug to attackers for weeks, increasing security risk.
The underlying issue was an integer overflow in XRPL’s payment engine that could theoretically mint effectively unlimited XRP through crafted transactions.
XRPL’s Foundation said the expedited decision was coordinated jointly by multiple groups and that validators and node operators still choose what software to run.
Independent validator XRP Kuwait disputed claims that coordinated upgrades prove centralized control, arguing coordination is not the same as control.
Why XRPL skipped the usual validator vote
XRPL developers defended the emergency approach in response to criticism that the patch bypassed the protocol’s governance routine. According to the XRPL Foundation and associated contributors, the network’s normal amendment process would have delayed the fix—while also giving attackers a longer window to study the problem and plan an exploit.
XRPL described this as an exceptional circumstance. In an X post on Sunday, the project said the emergency path was necessary because otherwise the fix would have been publicly visible well ahead of activation. The developers’ core argument was straightforward: longer exposure translates to higher risk.
That rationale, however, has collided with XRPL’s decentralization narrative. On its own channels, XRPL has emphasized that it operates as a fully decentralized public blockchain—an assertion that has been used in broader debates about whether XRP can be treated as a security.
Decentralization debate after the emergency release
The expedited release triggered scrutiny from market and crypto commentators. Cyber Capital founder Justin Bons said the way XRP is marketed to retail investors as decentralized amounts to “straight-up fraud,” arguing that the emergency patch was shipped as binaries only, with the source code temporarily withheld and operators pressured to update.
XRPL Foundation pushed back on the interpretation that the sequence of events indicates centralized control. In its response, the foundation stated that no single party could decide to skip the normal amendment vote alone. It said the decision was made jointly by the Foundation, RippleX, core developers, and validators after assessing the bug’s severity.
The foundation also underscored that protocol changes still proceed through the amendment mechanism. It pointed out that version 3.4.1 only became mandatory after a regular amendment vote met the required threshold—more than 80% validator support sustained for two weeks.
Independent validator operator XRP Kuwait also rejected the leap from “coordinated upgrades” to “centralized control.” In its own post, it argued that coordination among independent operators does not equal loss of independence. Operators, it said, can communicate, assess the same risk, and converge on a decision without any single entity taking control.
The bug: integer overflow in XRPL’s payment engine
At the center of the controversy is a technical defect described in XRPL’s vulnerability disclosure materials. The problem was an integer overflow in the ledger’s payment engine, reportedly present since 2015.
XRPL stores balances as 64-bit integers with a fixed maximum. When a calculation produced a sum that exceeded that maximum, the computation would wrap around to a smaller number rather than failing safely.
The disclosure explains how an attacker could exploit this behavior using specially constructed trading conditions. The attacker would place hundreds of offers with deliberately chosen prices, each requesting a very large amount of XRP. Then, by executing a single payment that consumed those offers, the system would credit each offer owner their full amount.
Meanwhile, the buyer would be charged only the wrapped—smaller—total caused by the overflow. The difference between what sellers received and what the buyer paid would effectively represent newly created, spendable XRP.
Notably, the report states that the attack required carefully crafted offers and was not something that could be triggered through ordinary trading activity. Developers also said they found no evidence that the issue had been exploited on any public network.
What investors and operators should watch next
The immediate question following an emergency governance bypass is whether XRPL will treat such actions as rare exceptions tied strictly to severe risk—or whether the precedent could influence future patch behavior. Investors and validators alike should watch for whether the project clarifies its criteria for emergency releases, how it communicates timeline and disclosure practices, and whether the broader decentralization debate affects confidence in XRPL’s governance model.
This article was originally published as XRP Ledger Releases Emergency Patch to Address Unlimited XRP Bug on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A tampered Ledger hardware wallet reportedly linked to earlier losses in Southeast Asia is said to have surfaced in Europe, raising fresh questions about how widely the compromised devices may have been distributed. The development follows an incident that—according to a cybersecurity estimate—already resulted in about $93.4 million in stolen funds from Asian customers.
Separately, the week also brought security-related updates across the wider crypto ecosystem, including a bug bounty paid for an XRP Ledger overflow issue dating back to 2015, and fresh “bunker mode” warnings from Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin about AI-accelerated breakthroughs in cryptography.
Key takeaways
A new report claims a modified Ledger device was purchased in Europe from MediaMarkt, though no stolen funds have been reported from that unit so far.
Ledger previously asked customers who bought from the Southeast Asian reseller CryptoBilis within 90 days to consider moving their assets; Ledger has not confirmed the European device is part of the same scheme.
Veria Labs says it was paid a $250,000 bug bounty for an overflow bug in XRP code that was patched quickly and is not believed to have been exploited.
Vitalik Buterin endorsed researcher Justin Drake’s call for industry preparation as AI systems could accelerate mathematical discoveries relevant to blockchain security.
Other ecosystem security incidents mentioned this week include a phishing link appearing on Coldcard’s X account and allegations that Tether temporarily froze funds tied to THORChain vaults.
Ledger tampering appears beyond Asia, but Ledger has not confirmed scope
The Ledger story centers on devices modified with an apparent “implant” designed to compromise recovery seed access. Earlier coverage linked the tampering to specific hardware sold through an Asian authorized reseller—CryptoBilis—after those devices were found modified in a way that could allow attackers to read seed phrases even while the device appeared to pass authenticity checks.
According to a European X user identified as Johannes, he presented photographs of a tampered Ledger he said he bought about two weeks ago from MediaMarkt, a consumer electronics retailer in Europe. Johannes claimed the implant appears to be an earlier version of the one previously associated with compromised Ledger shipments in Asia.
Johannes suggested the device he purchased may not have been active or may have been held back for later broader use, noting that either the compromised device failed or the attackers were waiting for a wider rollout. He also emphasized that, in his reported case, no funds had been taken.
Former Mt. Gox CEO Mark Karpeles added further context by pointing to what he said was visible on the device’s antenna, describing it as an “Eurasian version.” The implication is that separate implant variants may exist for different regions due to differences in mobile network frequencies. However, Ledger has not confirmed that the European unit is part of the same broader attack chain.
Ledger’s response to the Southeast Asia incident included asking CryptoBilis to pause sales and shipments as a precaution. Ledger also advised customers who purchased from CryptoBilis within the previous 90 days to consider transferring assets to a new Ledger device. Ledger stated that the volume of impacted devices is limited, while acknowledging the incident through an update posted on its official channels.
While a cybersecurity outlet, Yfarmx, estimated total losses at $93.4 million across 471 addresses, that figure has not been independently confirmed by Ledger. The appearance of a separate report from Europe—without confirmed linkage—means investors and users should treat the incident as an evolving risk rather than a concluded regional event.
What to watch: authenticity checks weren’t enough
One of the most consequential aspects of the Ledger compromise described in earlier reporting is that the tampered devices reportedly appeared to pass authenticity checks while still enabling theft. That detail matters because it changes how users might think about “safe” purchasing channels and the reliability of device verification alone.
Ledger’s guidance after the CryptoBilis-linked issue—moving assets for buyers within a defined window—was designed to reduce exposure even when devices may not show obvious signs. If the European report ultimately proves to be linked to the same implant family or distribution method, it could expand the practical impact of the earlier guidance beyond Southeast Asia.
At this stage, however, readers should distinguish between what is claimed (a tampered device purchased in Europe) and what is confirmed (Ledger has not validated that the European unit is tied to the earlier Asia-linked campaign). Until Ledger provides confirmation, the safest interpretation is that the risk profile may extend geographically, but the exact scope remains uncertain.
XRP Ledger bug bounty: overflow issue patched, no evidence of exploitation
Security firm Veria Labs announced it was awarded a $250,000 bug bounty after identifying an overflow bug hidden in XRP’s code since 2015. Veria Labs claimed that—if left unpatched—an attacker could have crafted a transaction that printed an extreme number of XRP “out of thin air.”
According to Veria Labs, the vulnerability has been patched and there is “no evidence” it was ever exploited. The company’s co-founder, Cayden Liao, wrote on X that its AI agent reviewed rippled (the software that runs the XRP Ledger) and found two low-severity bugs. Liao said the two issues could be chained together to create a much larger exploit than either bug would allow on its own.
In the description provided by Liao, a single crafted exploit transaction could have produced more than 18 trillion XRP, which would be far above the asset’s total supply. He framed the severity as a function of how bugs interact rather than how any single issue behaves in isolation. Veria Labs also stated that the bugs were reported on September 22, with RippleX patching them three days later.
For XRP holders, the practical takeaway is that rapid remediation and the reported absence of exploitation are meaningful safeguards. For the broader market, the incident reinforces that “low severity” bugs can still become critical when they combine in unexpected ways—especially under conditions where adversaries test edge-case behavior.
AI “bunker mode” gets backing from Vitalik Buterin
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin weighed in on a warning from researcher Justin Drake about the pace at which AI could accelerate mathematical progress relevant to blockchain cryptography. Buterin said he does not recommend moving funds immediately, but that the industry should “take the risks to cryptography from AI-accelerated math seriously.”
Drake had urged the ecosystem to prepare for “bunker mode” as OpenAI reportedly released hundreds of new mathematical findings that humans struggled to solve. Drake’s concern was not that cryptography was already broken, but that AI systems might help uncover structural weaknesses in elliptic curve cryptography or lattice-based cryptography over time.
Other projects and analysts have criticized the warnings as fear mongering, arguing there is currently no evidence AI agents are close to breaking cryptography. Still, Buterin’s response suggests Ethereum’s leadership sees enough plausibility in the scenario to encourage more proactive research and planning.
Even without imminent threats, this stance matters to long-term users and developers because cryptographic migration tends to be slow, complex, and expensive—making early preparation valuable even when timelines remain speculative.
Other security signals mentioned this week
Coldcard, a Bitcoin-only hardware wallet, said it was investigating an unauthorized phishing link that appeared on its official X account despite using offline two-factor authentication. The post was deleted, and the company said its only official website is coldcard.com.
Separately, THORChain technical co-founder Chad Barraford accused Tether of temporarily freezing USDt (USDT) vaults tied to THORChain. Barraford claimed Tether blacklisted specific vault addresses, then unfroze them hours later as trading resumed.
Finally, New York permanently barred former Celsius CEO Alex Mashinsky from the crypto industry, securities and commodities sectors as part of a settlement with New York Attorney General Letitia James, which included up to $35 million in conditional payments. The case stemmed from allegations that Mashinsky misled hundreds of thousands of investors about Celsius before its collapse.
As these stories develop, readers should watch for primary confirmation from Ledger regarding the suspected European device, and for additional security advisories that clarify whether the XRP Ledger bug has broader implications beyond the patched issue; meanwhile, “bunker mode” planning remains an open question for the industry as AI-driven research continues to advance.
This article was originally published as Ledger Breach Fallout Reaches EU as “Trillion XRP” Exploit Surfaces on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

MicroStrategy’s corporate Bitcoin strategy is back in focus after Strategy’s chair, Michael Saylor, posted a tease to investors about a possible near-term signal tied to the company’s latest BTC purchases. Writing on X, Saylor added the line “There’s always room for more orange,” a reference that has become shorthand for the firm’s continued willingness to add Bitcoin.
Still, for readers expecting a fresh, formal update through U.S. SEC filings, timing may be tight. An official disclosure related to the most recent activity is not expected to arrive before Tuesday because federal offices are closed on Monday for the Columbus Day holiday.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it has pushed its most recent weekly Bitcoin buying far past its typical budget window through early October repurchases.
According to an Oct. 5 SEC 8-K, Strategy ended the Sept. 28–Oct. 4 period holding exactly 848,000 BTC.
Over the same dates, the company also repurchased about 1.77 million shares of its STRC preferred stock for $176.3 million.
Analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera highlights that capital raised in the third quarter does not automatically translate into immediate BTC purchases, due to other uses such as cash reserves and preferred-share buybacks.
What Strategy disclosed in its latest SEC filing
At the center of this update is a filing that lays out Strategy’s activity across a defined one-week span. In an Oct. 5 8-K form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the company reported that it bought 334 Bitcoin between Sept. 28 and Oct. 4, paying $28.7 million for the purchases. The buy adds to Strategy’s cumulative holdings, taking the company to exactly 848,000 BTC.
That same 8-K window also included a substantial preferred equity repurchase. Strategy said it repurchased roughly 1.77 million shares of its STRC preferred stock for $176.3 million during the same period.
For investors, the practical takeaway is that Strategy’s BTC program is not operating in isolation. The company is simultaneously managing its capital structure, including actions that reduce preferred-share exposure. That matters because it can affect how much cash remains available for later Bitcoin buys and how capital providers view near-term risk versus balance-sheet strengthening.
Saylor’s “orange” message and what investors may read into it
Saylor’s X post frames the next step as something investors should watch for on Sunday—suggesting there may be another sign of BTC accumulation. The phrasing, however, appears more like a broad encouragement than a specific update tied to a particular filing.
With Monday’s federal holiday likely to delay administrative timing, the market’s ability to confirm details through SEC channels may not improve until Tuesday. In other words, traders who rely on filings for verification may have to bridge the gap between public commentary and formal documentation.
In previous cycles, this kind of messaging can still move sentiment around whether additional buying is coming. But as Strategy’s disclosures show, the company’s real confirmation typically arrives through SEC paperwork, not social posts.
Why “cash now, buy later” remains a live question
Beyond the immediate Bitcoin figure, analysts are weighing how Strategy financed its recent actions and what that implies for future pace. Independent analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera pointed to third-quarter funding and how it translated into BTC holdings over time.
According to Perera, Strategy raised $5.41 billion from new common shares in the third quarter and ended that quarter with 1,666 more BTC than it held at the end of June. He also notes that Strategy’s SEC disclosures allocate 9.5% of the raised capital directly to bitcoin purchases. Other disclosed uses, Perera wrote, include a dollar reserve, cash, dividends, and preferred-share buybacks.
Perera’s central argument is that the relationship between raising capital and buying Bitcoin may not be one-to-one on a day-to-day or even quarter-to-quarter basis. In an interview carried by Cointelegraph on Sunday, he explained that “raising capital does not necessarily mean buying bitcoin,” emphasizing that investors should consider what the financing left behind—particularly cash and existing claims such as debt and preferred shares, which sit ahead of common stock.
At the same time, he clarified that the company’s retained cash can still fund later purchases. From a balance-sheet perspective, strengthening liquidity can also be supportive for shareholders, especially if it reduces pressure to sell assets or rely on external borrowing to sustain Bitcoin accumulation.
Bitcoin buy intensity versus capital structure management
The recent window highlighted in Strategy’s SEC filing suggests an active BTC posture, but it also illustrates how tightly the Bitcoin narrative is interwoven with other corporate moves. The company “ended September by spending more than six times its weekly Bitcoin buying budget,” according to the coverage context leading into the SEC disclosure. In that period, the firm bought 334 BTC for $28.7 million—bringing total holdings to 848,000 BTC.
Meanwhile, Strategy repurchased a large quantity of preferred stock for $176.3 million during the same week. That dual activity complicates simplistic interpretations. Instead of viewing Bitcoin buys as the only variable, investors also have to watch how Management allocates cash across different priorities: accumulating Bitcoin, building reserves, and addressing preferred equity.
This dynamic creates a useful lens for readers tracking Strategy. If BTC buying appears to slow while preferred repurchases or cash retention rises, it may reflect not a change in conviction, but a timing shift in how capital is deployed. Conversely, if BTC buys accelerate without corresponding reductions in liquidity, that may indicate the company is comfortable drawing down reserves or drawing from ongoing capital needs.
Perera’s remarks underscore this tension: even when disclosures show a portion of raised capital earmarked for Bitcoin, the rest may support other uses that don’t immediately show up as BTC purchases. That is why investors may want to focus not only on headlines about “more room for orange,” but on how each SEC filing breaks down timing and allocation.
Looking ahead, readers should watch for the next SEC update that confirms what Strategy actually executed in the days following Saylor’s message. The uncertainty is not whether the company remains committed to Bitcoin—recent filings and ongoing commentary point the other way—but rather the pace and sequencing of purchases relative to preferred buybacks and the remaining cash balance. With Tuesday’s filing timing likely to be the first clear checkpoint after the Columbus Day closure, the market may get fresh data soon enough to separate speculation from documented activity.
This article was originally published as Saylor Signals Next Bitcoin Buying Plan After September STRC Buybacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

MicroStrategy’s strategy arm has signaled it may be ready to continue buying Bitcoin while investors wait for updated regulatory paperwork. On Sunday, company leader Michael Saylor posted on X that “There’s always room for more orange,” a reference many market participants associate with additional BTC purchases.
Still, an official update via a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission may not arrive until Tuesday. Monday is expected to slow federal operations due to the Columbus Day holiday, meaning filings that would normally be posted sooner could be delayed.
Key takeaways
Saylor’s Sunday post hints at continued Bitcoin accumulation, but timing of any formal disclosure depends on SEC filing schedules around Monday’s holiday.
Strategy reported an Oct. 5 SEC 8-K detailing purchases of 334 BTC for $28.7 million between Sept. 28 and Oct. 4.
Over the same window, Strategy repurchased about 1.77 million shares of its STRC preferred stock for $176.3 million—far larger than the BTC spend in dollar terms.
Analyst notes that capital raised earlier in the year does not automatically translate into immediate BTC buying, since the use of proceeds can include reserves and buybacks.
Tease on X, but the filing may wait
Saylor’s comment on X adds to the expectation that Strategy will keep pursuing Bitcoin as a core treasury asset. While the message is not a formal disclosure, it functions as a familiar signal to investors tracking the cadence of Strategy’s BTC purchases.
For market watchers, the practical question is when the next official record will appear. Any SEC filing that documents new activity is expected to post after Monday’s holiday closure rather than on the day immediately following the social media signal.
What Strategy disclosed for late September through early October
Strategy’s latest quantified BTC purchases were detailed in an Oct. 5 8-K form filed with the SEC. According to the filing, the company bought 334 Bitcoin for $28.7 million between Sept. 28 and Oct. 4. That activity brought Strategy’s BTC holdings to exactly 848,000 BTC, as stated in the SEC report.
Bitcoin purchases in that period were accompanied by significant equity buybacks. The same 8-K notes that Strategy repurchased approximately 1.77 million shares of its STRC preferred stock for $176.3 million over the same Sept. 28 to Oct. 4 window.
In dollar terms, the preferred-share buybacks were multiple times larger than the BTC spend, reinforcing that management is balancing different parts of its capital allocation plan rather than directing all available liquidity toward Bitcoin at once.
Why the capital-raise narrative matters for investors
One way to interpret the recent sequence of actions—BTC purchases paired with large preferred-share repurchases—is that Strategy can finance broader balance-sheet moves while still accumulating Bitcoin over time.
Independent analyst Shanaka Anslem Perera highlighted that Strategy raised $5.41 billion from new common shares in the third quarter and ended that period with 1,666 more BTC than it held at the end of June. Those changes suggest that Bitcoin acquisition continued alongside broader financing.
Perera further pointed to how SEC disclosures describe the intended uses of proceeds. In a monthly newsletter on Bitcoin and crypto, he wrote that Strategy’s filings “allocate 9.5% of the raise directly to bitcoin purchases.” He also cited other disclosed uses, including a dollar reserve, cash, dividends, and preferred-share buybacks.
From an investor’s perspective, the key implication is that “raised money” and “spent on Bitcoin” are not the same measure in the short term. As Perera put it, the question is what remains after financing: for common shareholders, Bitcoin exposure matters, but cash and obligations do too—debt and preferred claims can rank ahead of common equity in economic outcomes.
What could be next: watch the pace and the mix
Strategy’s record of BTC accumulation continues to draw attention, particularly when social posts appear aligned with purchase activity. But the recent disclosures show that BTC buying is only one component of a wider capital allocation pattern that can include substantial preferred-share repurchases and cash retention.
Going forward, investors may want to monitor two things closely: when the next SEC filing lands after Monday’s holiday, and how future disclosures allocate proceeds between direct Bitcoin purchases and other uses such as reserves and preferred buybacks. The pace of buying is important—but so is the balance between liquidity building and treasury conversion.
This article was originally published as Saylor Signals Ongoing Bitcoin Accumulation After STRC Buybacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Mumbai, India, 11 October 2026 — Unchained Summit India will bring together leaders from financial markets, digital assets, law, technology and the Web3 ecosystem on 5–6 November 2026 at Courtyard by Marriott, Mumbai, with its third edition focused on the regulatory, financial and technological forces shaping India’s onchain economy.
The summit features more than 50 speakers from across the digital asset and financial ecosystem, including S B Seker, Head of APAC at Binance; Sumit Gupta, Founder of CoinDCX; Ashish Singhal, Co-Founder of CoinSwitch; Dilip Chenoy, Chairperson of Bharat Web3 Association; Kunaal Patel, Head of Institutional – Asia & MENA at Ondo Finance; Ashish Singhal, CEO of IBDIC; Rajagopal Menon, Vice President at WazirX; Praneeth Srikanti, Partner at Ethereal Ventures; and leaders from Base, Polygon Labs, NEAR and Alchemy.
Following editions in Dubai and Vietnam, the India edition will bring together founders, investors, financial market participants, wealth managers, family offices, policymakers, legal professionals, global blockchain companies, technology leaders and builders for two days of discussion and networking.
Participation from IBDIC and Finternet will bring financial infrastructure perspectives into discussions on tokenisation, banking and settlement. Together with perspectives from Ondo Finance and other digital asset companies, these discussions will examine how onchain infrastructure can integrate with the wider financial system.
The regulatory conversation will feature senior legal voices, including Rohan Bagai, Senior Partner at AZB & Partners, Anirud Sudarsan, Partner at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, and Jaideep Reddy, Partner at Trilegal. Discussions will examine India’s evolving digital asset framework, the need for greater legal clarity and how policy can support innovation while addressing risks for businesses and consumers. Bagai said:
“India’s regulatory framework was built for a world of banks, remitters, and clearly defined transactions in traditional currency. It was never designed with crypto or the Web3 ecosystem in mind. Today, when someone in India buys tokens or uses stablecoins to move value across borders, they can find themselves operating in areas where the regulatory position is not yet fully defined, creating uncertainty for both businesses and customers. The key question for India is therefore no longer whether crypto should be regulated. It already is. The real question is whether India can continue regulating an asset class that its laws have never fully defined.”
From tokenisation to institutional finance
Day One will focus on India’s digital asset markets, examining the future of crypto investing and trading, the macroeconomic trends shaping capital flows and investor sentiment, and the evolving regulatory landscape. Discussions will also cover tokenisation, stablecoins, payments and settlement, alongside the compliance, custody and liquidity requirements for institutional participation.
The programme will explore how digital asset investment products are evolving, what investors expect from Web3 businesses and what is needed for tokenised securities and real-world assets to achieve wider adoption. It will also consider the practical challenges of connecting onchain infrastructure with established banking and capital market systems.
The wider lineup includes Roshan Prabhakar, Head of Product – India at Coinbase; Sanat Rao, Chief Investment Officer at Monarq Asset Management; Amit Mehra, General Partner at Borderless Capital; and Prasanth Kalangi, Founder and CEO of Zoniqx, adding perspectives across digital asset products, investment and tokenisation.
From infrastructure to the builder economy
Day Two will focus on the infrastructure and applications supporting the next phase of Web3, bringing founders, builders, investors and technology leaders together to discuss scalability, interoperability, AI, decentralised physical infrastructure and digital trust.
Prabal Banerjee, Co-Founder of Avail, will contribute perspectives on blockchain infrastructure, including how data availability and interoperability can support scalable onchain systems. Participants from SingularityNET, Startale Group and NEAR Foundation will explore the intersection of AI and Web3, including the development of open networks and applications that give users greater control over their data and digital assets.
The programme will also examine how onchain products can reach consumers beyond established crypto communities, with discussions on usability, community building and the practical value of digital ownership.
Dharamveer Singh Chauhan, Co-Founder of Zostel and Zo World and Group CEO of Zo World, said:
“The future belongs to individuals who have greater ownership over their digital identity, assets, and data. Unchained is an important platform for advancing that conversation, and I’m excited to contribute my thoughts while engaging with pioneers driving the next chapter of decentralization.”
Dharamveer Singh Chauhan and Saumya Saxena, India Lead at Base, will discuss the role of communities and consumer applications in expanding onchain adoption.
Unchained Summit India is supported by companies spanning key areas of the digital asset ecosystem. CoinSwitch joins as the Gold Sponsor, with Liquid Loans, WazirX, NEAR and Avail as Silver Sponsors. EQ joins as the Bronze Sponsor, while Securosys is participating as an Exhibitor, Trilegal as the Legal Partner and Coin Edition as the Official Media Partner.
Sharath Kumar, Founder and CEO of Aeternum, organiser of Unchained Summit, said:
“India’s digital asset market raises questions that span investing, regulation, financial infrastructure and technology. We have built Unchained Summit India to bring those perspectives into the same room, from exchanges and investors discussing the future of crypto markets to institutions exploring tokenisation and developers building onchain applications. The aim is to give participants a clearer understanding of where the opportunities lie and connect them with the people who can help turn those opportunities into practical outcomes.”
Across the two days, the programme and networking opportunities are designed to connect investors with founders, financial market participants with infrastructure providers, and Indian builders with global protocols and technology companies. The aim is to support relationships that can lead to investment, commercial partnerships and product development.
Unchained Summit India will take place on 5–6 November 2026 at Courtyard by Marriott Mumbai International Airport. More information is available on the event’s official website: (https://unchainedsummit.com/india)
About Aeternum Consulting Ltd
Aeternum organizes business-to-business events in the emerging tech space, provides strategic consulting, and tailored services to a diverse range of clients, from corporations to governments and startups to individuals. Aeternum specializes in crafting impactful B2B platforms that foster meaningful connections, drive business growth, and facilitate knowledge sharing through conferences, exhibitions, and bespoke networking opportunities.
For more information visit: (https://aeternuminc.com)
For further details about the announcement, please contact:
Maya K V
media@aeternuminc.com | +91 95383 91838
Partnerships Associate, Aeternum
This article was originally published as Unchained Summit India to Convene Leaders Shaping India’s Digital Asset Future on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands, October 8, 2026 — Bitcoin Amsterdam, Europe’s most influential annual Bitcoin conference, returns to the Sugar Factory on November 5 and 6, 2026, bringing together the banks and funds moving bitcoin onto their balance sheets, the policymakers shaping the rules around it, and the builders and community voices driving its global adoption. Now in its fifth year, the conference has become the meeting point where Bitcoin’s institutional, regulatory, and grassroots worlds converge on the same stage.
The 2026 edition opens with the BFC Symposium on November 4, a closed-door Institutional Track for the people allocating capital and building corporate Bitcoin treasuries, ahead of two days of public programming.
Confirmed speakers Bitcoin Amsterdam 2026 include:
Bitcoin community and builders
Sjors Provoost, Developer, Bitcoin Core
René Pickhardt, Lightning Network Open Source Researcher
Bert de Groot, Owner, Bitcoin Brabant B.V
Institutions and finance
Jack Mallers, Founder and CEO, Strike
David Bailey, CEO and Chairman, Nakamoto Inc.
Khing Oei, Founder and CEO, Treasury
Maarten van der Noordaa, Transition Manager, Digital Assets, Rabobank
Milko Hensel, Team Head, Tech Banking, Maerki Baumann
Denis van Beetz, Director, Private Banking, Van Lanschot Kempen
Keith Grose, UK CEO and Regional Managing Director, EU and UK, Coinbase
Willem Middelkoop, CEO and Founder, Commodity Discovery Fund
“Bitcoin doesn’t get adopted in a vacuum. It takes the institutions willing to hold it, the regulators willing to understand it, and the community that’s been building it for over a decade. Amsterdam is where all three sit down together,” said Brandon Green, CEO, BTC Inc.
For tickets, media accreditation, and the latest program updates, visit bitcoin.amsterdam.
About BTC Inc.
BTC Inc. is the world’s leading Bitcoin media enterprise, operating Bitcoin Magazine, the Bitcoin Conference, and Bitcoin for Corporations. Through its media, events, and educational platforms, BTC Inc. delivers trusted news, research, and experiences that advance Bitcoin adoption among individuals, institutions, and enterprises worldwide.
BTC Inc. is a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), a publicly held Bitcoin company that owns and operates a global portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements, as defined under U.S. federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “plan,” “will,” “seek,” “target,” or the negative of such terms or other variations thereof. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding BTC Inc.’s business plans and strategies, including plans for future events, expected attendance and programming, and the anticipated growth of the Bitcoin community in Europe.
These forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and involve numerous assumptions and risks. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected include, but are not limited to: (i) the volatility of Bitcoin prices and its effect on attendee, sponsor, and advertiser demand; (ii) the risk that future events may not occur as planned or may not achieve projected attendance or revenue; (iii) changes in the regulatory environment in the Netherlands, the European Union, or other jurisdictions that could affect the Company’s ability to hold or promote its events; (iv) dependence on venue availability and third-party vendors; (v) competition from other Bitcoin and digital asset conferences; (vi) risks associated with the integration of BTC Inc. into Nakamoto Inc.’s operations following the February 2026 acquisition; (vii) general economic conditions and their impact on events revenue; and (viii) other important factors detailed in Nakamoto Inc.’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other documents that are filed, or will be filed, with the SEC and that are or will be available on Nakamoto’s website at www.nakamoto.com and on the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov.
Because Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) is the parent company of BTC Inc., investors in Nakamoto Inc. common stock should be aware that the performance and risks of BTC Inc.’s media, events, and educational operations may affect the consolidated financial results,
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Amsterdam 2026 to Convene Institutions, Regulators, and the Global Bitcoin Community at Europe’s Premier Bitcoin Conference on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

September, 2026 – NexaPay.one has been named the top choice for merchants who accept card payments and receive settlement in cryptocurrency, in a comprehensive 2026 industry guide by independent technology journalist Oliver Smith. The guide, which designated NexaPay.one its Editor’s Pick and top-ranked platform, evaluated seven gateways — NexaPay.one, NOWPayments, CoinGate, BitPay, MoonPay, Paymento and BTCPay Server — across nine criteria including onboarding speed, KYC requirements, payment methods, settlement currencies, fees, integration options, global coverage, checkout quality and support. NexaPay.one was the only platform to score favorably across every category, leading the guide’s author to describe it as “the most significant development in merchant payment infrastructure since Stripe simplified online card acceptance.” The complete guide is published at https://nexapay.one.
NexaPay.one has solved a problem the payment industry has struggled with for over a decade: enabling merchants to receive cryptocurrency settlement while accepting the standard card payments that 97% of online shoppers use. The platform presents a professional card payment form — indistinguishable from mainstream processors — performs fiat-to-crypto conversion on the back end, and routes funds directly to the merchant’s own wallet within minutes. Setup requires only a wallet address and takes under 60 seconds, with no business registration, government identification, or bank account needed. Settlement is available in USDT, USDC, Bitcoin and additional cryptocurrencies at 1–3% — roughly half the cost of Stripe (2.9% + $0.30) and less than a third of PayPal’s effective rate on small orders. The platform integrates with WooCommerce and Shopify, offers a custom API and shareable payment links, and routes transactions through 13+ premium payment providers for optimized global approval rates. Full integration documentation is available at https://nexapay.one.
The guide traced surging demand for NexaPay’s model to well-documented failures across both traditional processors and first-generation crypto gateways. Stripe requires extensive legal documentation and operates in only 47 countries, excluding the majority of the world’s merchants. PayPal’s fund freezes — holds of $10,000–$100,000+ lasting 90–180 days — have generated class action lawsuits and thousands of merchant complaints. Both charge rolling reserves of 5–15% for high-risk industries and settle in 2–7 business days. Meanwhile, crypto-native gateways like BitPay, NOWPayments and Coinbase Commerce addressed settlement speed but introduced their own barriers: mandatory merchant KYC, crypto-only checkout that excludes 95% of customers, and unfamiliar payment interfaces that cause 60–85% conversion drops compared to standard card forms. The guide described NexaPay as the only platform that has closed this gap — delivering card acceptance, crypto settlement, zero KYC, instant payouts, zero rolling reserves, and zero fund freeze risk in a single product.
The competitive analysis was particularly decisive. Among alternatives reviewed: NOWPayments supports 300+ cryptocurrencies at 0.5% but requires KYC/KYB verification and cannot accept card payments from customers — limiting merchant revenue to the 3–5% of shoppers who hold crypto. CoinGate mandates full merchant verification and operates primarily in Europe. BitPay, despite operating since 2011, requires full KYC with a one-to-seven-day review period and charges per-transaction flat fees that inflate costs on small orders. MoonPay charges up to 4.5% and functions as a consumer onramp, not a merchant gateway. Paymento and BTCPay Server both skip KYC but accept only cryptocurrency — excluding mainstream card-paying customers entirely. The guide calculated that a merchant with 10,000 monthly visitors generates approximately 24x more revenue through NexaPay than through any crypto-to-crypto gateway, because 100% of visitors can pay with their card versus 3–5% who hold cryptocurrency.
NexaPay.one has attracted coverage from Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo Finance, Business Insider, Benzinga and TechBullion, with articles syndicated to MEXC News. The platform currently holds #1 Google rankings for multiple competitive payment gateway keywords and serves enterprise clients across e-commerce, supplements, CBD, adult content, gaming, freelancing and cross-border B2B — all at the same 1–3% rate with zero industry restrictions. A white-label program enables partners to launch their own branded payment gateways powered by NexaPay’s 13+ provider infrastructure.
The guide identified e-commerce merchants in underbanked regions, freelancers, high-risk industry operators, digital product sellers, and businesses preferring cryptocurrency treasury as the groups experiencing the most transformative impact from NexaPay’s model.
About NexaPay.one
NexaPay.one is the leading fiat-to-crypto payment gateway, enabling merchants worldwide to accept Visa, Mastercard, Apple Pay and Google Pay payments and receive instant settlement in USDT, USDC, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies directly to their own wallets — with zero KYC, zero rolling reserves, and zero fund freeze risk. The platform supports WooCommerce, Shopify, API and payment link integrations, routes through 15+ premium providers for global coverage, and accepts all industries at 1–3%. A registered Estonian OÜ with Forbes and WSJ coverage, NexaPay.one serves thousands of merchants daily across every continent.
Media Contact
NexaPay.one
Email: support@nexapay.one
Website: https://nexapay.one
This article was originally published as The Best High Risk Merchant Account in 2026/2027 – Independent Platform Research on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hardware wallet manufacturer Ledger says it has found evidence that at least one affected device purchased through Southeast Asian reseller CryptoBilis contained an unauthorized hardware implant. The discovery comes as Ledger continues its investigation into reported crypto losses tied to specific devices distributed via the reseller.
In a Sunday post on X, Ledger confirmed it is contacting impacted users and urged anyone with relevant information to participate in its bounty program. The company also provided interim guidance for customers who bought Ledger hardware through the reseller.
Key takeaways
Ledger confirmed that one compromised device contained an unauthorized hardware implant.
Ledger says its infrastructure and services were not compromised, and the investigation is ongoing.
CryptoBilis has paused sales of all Ledger hardware inventory until the investigation concludes.
Ledger recommends users avoid initializing devices they haven’t set up, and—if already set up—move funds to a new device and seed.
Ledger has not publicly confirmed how many customers were affected or the total value of losses.
Ledger reports an unauthorized implant on an affected device
Ledger’s confirmation centers on reports of funds being lost on devices purchased from CryptoBilis. According to Ledger’s post on X (via its support account), the company is reaching out to users as part of its continuing investigation.
Investigator Specter, referenced in Ledger’s update, has estimated losses across Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Tron could be greater than $86 million. Ledger, however, did not confirm the scope of losses or how many individuals were affected.
To help advance the inquiry, Ledger said it is inviting individuals with information related to the investigation to contact its bounty program at bounty@ledger.fr.
Precautionary steps for CryptoBilis buyers
Ledger’s immediate customer guidance focuses on reducing the risk of further compromise.
For users who purchased a Ledger device from CryptoBilis but have not yet begun setup, Ledger recommends not initiating the device’s setup process if it hasn’t already been completed.
For users who already set up their Ledger device, Ledger advised moving assets to a new Ledger signer generated with a new seed phrase. The intent is to ensure any exposure linked to the affected device cannot continue to endanger funds.
Reseller pauses sales while Ledger investigates
In the same X update, CryptoBilis confirmed that it has stopped selling all hardware wallet inventory associated with the implicated period or stock, pending the outcome of the investigation. Ledger said it is in active communication with CryptoBilis regarding next steps.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph indicated that CryptoBilis appeared on Ledger’s list of authorized resellers in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Ledger has not stated in the update how the compromise occurred or whether it was connected to any specific supply chain step beyond the reseller stock.
Ledger says its systems were not breached
While Ledger is dealing with reports involving compromised devices, it stresses that the broader ecosystem was not targeted.
In a statement provided to Cointelegraph, Ledger said the incident appeared isolated to the single reseller and its market, adding that “Ledger’s infrastructure, systems and services were not compromised.” The company reiterated that its investigation remains ongoing.
For customers seeking help, Ledger directed users to contact customer support via official channels at http://support.ledger.com.
Readers should monitor further updates from Ledger and CryptoBilis for conclusions about which devices were affected and what remediation steps will be offered. The key open questions remain how widespread the issue is and exactly how the unauthorized hardware implant entered the devices sold through the reseller.
This article was originally published as Ledger Says Unauthorized Hardware Implant Found, Losses Could Top $86M on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tron founder Justin Sun says the network’s post-quantum cryptography work is already running on testnet, positioning TRON to move toward “quantum resistance” ahead of a looming industry milestone commonly referred to as “Q-Day.” Sun made the remarks in a Saturday post on X, adding that the team is monitoring progress in quantum computing and AI and is prepared to bring the technology to mainnet when ready.
The announcement arrives as other parts of the crypto ecosystem explore how to protect wallets and key material against a future where today’s encryption—particularly elliptic-curve cryptography used across major blockchains—could be undermined by sufficiently powerful quantum computers. In parallel, a security-focused proposal from AmericanFortress aims to strengthen wallet security against quantum threats without forcing users to move funds or change wallet addresses.
Key takeaways
Justin Sun says TRON’s post-quantum cryptography is live on testnet, with mainnet deployment described as imminent “at any time” depending on readiness.
Sun links TRON’s plan to being quantum-resistant before “Q-Day,” a term for when quantum capability may challenge current security standards.
AmericanFortress’ approach, as reported on July 28, focuses on quantum-safe wallet protection while keeping existing wallet addresses unchanged.
The AmericanFortress proposal is published as a technical paper on the Cryptography ePrint Archive, though it has not been peer-reviewed.
Multiple ecosystem efforts—from Bitcoin-focused research funding to Ethereum and Algorand roadmaps—are converging on the need to upgrade cryptographic foundations.
TRON’s post-quantum cryptography enters testnet
Sun’s update frames TRON’s post-quantum cryptography effort as more than research: he said it is “now live on testnet.” In the same X post, he emphasized that the company is “closely tracking progress in quantum computing and AI” and that it is ready to deploy quantum resistance to mainnet when the conditions for security and engineering readiness are met.
For users, the main significance is the practical focus on protecting assets. Sun said TRON is committed to keeping user assets secure and suggested the chain could become one of the few major networks that is quantum-resistant before “Q-Day.” While “Q-Day” is not a precise event date in Sun’s message, the concept is widely used in crypto to describe a point where quantum systems may become capable of breaking the cryptographic assumptions underlying current public-key schemes.
The testnet step matters because it implies implementation work is underway beyond theoretical design. However, readers should still watch for details on what exactly is being tested (for example, how key operations are handled, how migration is planned, and what compatibility guarantees will look like for wallets and exchanges) as TRON moves from testnet to mainnet.
AmericanFortress proposes quantum-safe wallet protection without moving funds
Alongside Tron’s timeline, AmericanFortress—an organization focused on blockchain security—has outlined a cryptographic plan aimed at defending crypto wallets against future quantum attacks without requiring users to move funds, rotate keys, or change wallet addresses.
According to reporting by Cointelegraph on July 28, AmericanFortress’ method differs from many proposed post-quantum strategies by maintaining the use of existing wallet addresses while adding quantum-safe protection. The practical benefit of such an approach is obvious for everyday wallet holders and infrastructure providers: address stability could reduce operational overhead and avoid forced migration cycles that can complicate custody, accounting, and user support.
Still, the real-world feasibility of any “no address change” design depends on technical constraints—how protection is applied, what assumptions are made, and how it interacts with existing signing and verification processes. The proposal being published provides a path for developers to scrutinize those assumptions.
A technical paper on ePrint, not peer-reviewed
AmericanFortress published its proposal in a technical paper on the Cryptography ePrint Archive. The ePrint listing is available on the IACR archive, but the article notes that it had not yet been peer-reviewed at the time of publication.
For the crypto community, peer review is often treated as a quality checkpoint—especially for cryptographic proposals that could influence wallet security designs. Even without peer review, releasing a detailed draft gives researchers and engineers something concrete to test, analyze, and potentially build upon. As TRON and other networks progress, such proposals may help shape what “quantum resistance” looks like at the wallet level, not just at the chain level.
Why post-quantum efforts are accelerating across crypto
The push toward post-quantum cryptography has intensified because sufficiently powerful quantum computers may eventually threaten elliptic-curve cryptography. Many blockchain systems—Bitcoin, Ethereum, and numerous others—rely on elliptic-curve schemes to secure transactions and public-key identities. If quantum capabilities reach a threshold that enables effective decryption or key recovery attacks against these schemes, security assumptions would need to be updated.
The urgency has been reflected in multiple parallel initiatives mentioned in earlier reporting. Earlier this year, a Strategy-led consortium pledged $15 million to fund Bitcoin quantum security research. Separately, the Ethereum Foundation published a proposal outlining how accounts could be migrated to quantum-resistant cryptography. Algorand has also outlined plans to introduce quantum-resistant accounts by 2027.
Together, these efforts indicate that the industry is not simply studying quantum risk in the abstract; it’s trying to work out upgrade paths that can be deployed in production systems. The challenge is that migration in blockchain ecosystems is rarely straightforward: cryptographic changes must preserve usability, prevent fund loss, and remain compatible with existing wallets, exchanges, and contract ecosystems.
TRON’s announcement of a testnet implementation and AmericanFortress’ wallet-focused proposal highlight different angles of the same problem. Network-level resilience and user-level wallet protection may ultimately need to align, and investors and builders should pay attention to whether solutions emphasize migration-free user experience, compatibility with existing address formats, or robust replacement of cryptographic primitives.
Looking ahead, the most important signals to monitor are how quickly post-quantum features move from testnet drafts to mainnet-compatible releases, and what practical guarantees are offered for wallet behavior, custody operations, and signing verification—especially for approaches that promise to keep addresses unchanged. With quantum timelines still uncertain, the pace and clarity of implementation details will likely matter as much as the headline goal of being ready before “Q-Day.”
This article was originally published as Justin Sun: TRON Post-Quantum Crypto Goes Live on Testnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

TRON founder Justin Sun says the network’s post-quantum cryptography upgrade is now running on testnet, framing it as an early hedge against future “Q-Day” — the point at which quantum computing becomes powerful enough to threaten today’s public-key cryptography.
Separately, U.S. blockchain security firm AmericanFortress has proposed a way to make wallets quantum-resistant without forcing users to migrate to new addresses, rotate keys, or move funds. The proposal was published as a technical paper but has not yet undergone peer review, highlighting both the momentum and the uncertainty around quantum-readiness in crypto.
Key takeaways
Justin Sun said TRON’s post-quantum cryptography is live on testnet, with an asserted readiness to move to mainnet “at any time.”
Sun ties the upgrade timeline to “Q-Day,” when quantum computers could break widely used cryptographic schemes such as elliptic-curve cryptography.
AmericanFortress’ approach aims to preserve existing wallet addresses while adding post-quantum protection, avoiding user fund migrations in its design.
The AmericanFortress plan appears in a technical paper hosted on Cryptography ePrint Archive and is described as not yet peer-reviewed.
TRON brings post-quantum cryptography to testnet
Sun announced on X that TRON’s post-quantum cryptography is now operational on testnet. In his post, he said the team is closely monitoring advances in quantum computing and AI and is prepared to deploy quantum resistance to TRON mainnet when needed.
Sun also emphasized a user-security focus, arguing that TRON is positioned to be among the first major blockchain networks that becomes quantum-resistant before “Q-Day.” While the term is commonly used across the industry to describe a turning point for cryptographic vulnerability, Sun’s message makes the practical objective clear: reducing the time between technical testing and wider deployment.
AmericanFortress proposes quantum-safe wallet protection without migration
In earlier reporting, Cointelegraph reported on July 28 that AmericanFortress released a cryptographic plan intended to protect wallets from future quantum attacks without requiring users to move funds, rotate keys, or change wallet addresses.
The company’s core differentiator, according to that report, is that its method is designed to let existing wallet addresses remain the same while still adding post-quantum protection—an approach that could matter significantly for usability. Many post-quantum proposals in crypto implicitly assume some kind of account migration, which can be operationally difficult and operationally disruptive for everyday users.
The technical paper is public, but peer review is pending
AmericanFortress published its proposal as a technical paper on the Cryptography ePrint Archive. The paper was made available to the research community, but it had not yet been peer-reviewed at the time the article referenced it.
That distinction is important for readers trying to separate “promising engineering ideas” from “proven, independently validated cryptography.” In the post-quantum space, where security assumptions can be subtle and parameters can carry long-term implications, peer review and independent analysis tend to be key checkpoints before a design is treated as robust.
Why quantum readiness is accelerating across crypto
Post-quantum cryptography has become a frequent focus in crypto because sufficiently powerful quantum computers may eventually break the elliptic-curve cryptography used by many networks to secure transactions. Bitcoin, Ethereum, and numerous other blockchain systems rely on these primitives, meaning the risk is not theoretical—if quantum capabilities advance as expected, the security model would need replacement or migration.
This broader push for quantum resilience has shown up in multiple industry efforts. Earlier this year, a Strategy-led consortium pledged $15 million to fund Bitcoin quantum security research. In parallel, the Ethereum Foundation published a proposal for migrating accounts to quantum-resistant cryptography, while Algorand outlined plans to introduce quantum-resistant accounts by 2027, according to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
Taken together, TRON’s testnet milestone and AmericanFortress’ wallet-focused design fit a common pattern: projects are moving from high-level discussions toward deployable cryptographic mechanisms, while competing over the most user-friendly migration path. Some approaches emphasize infrastructure-level changes, while others prioritize minimizing disruption at the wallet layer—an engineering trade-off that could strongly influence adoption.
Next, readers should watch two things closely: whether TRON progresses from testnet to mainnet with clear security and interoperability details, and whether AmericanFortress’ ePrint proposal undergoes peer review or further independent scrutiny that validates its claims—especially around the feasibility of protecting existing addresses without compromising long-term security.
This article was originally published as Justin Sun Says TRON Post-Quantum Crypto Goes Live on Testnet on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Meanwhile, a Bermuda-based life insurer focused entirely on Bitcoin, has secured $37.5 million in new funding from existing investors, bringing its total raised to more than $180 million. The round is led by Bain Capital Crypto, with participation from Haun Ventures, Framework Ventures, Pantera Capital, Apollo, Northwestern Mutual Future Ventures, and Morgan Creek Digital, according to a company statement.
The company said the financing comes as demand for its Bitcoin life insurance policies has risen internationally—particularly across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East—amid wider macro uncertainty. While Bitcoin holdings have grown among high-net-worth investors, Meanwhile argues many families still lack a regulated mechanism for passing that wealth to heirs.
Key takeaways
Meanwhile raised $37.5 million in a new round from existing investors, taking total funding above $180 million.
The investment is led by Bain Capital Crypto, joined by Haun Ventures, Framework Ventures, Pantera Capital, Apollo, and others.
The insurer cites expanding international demand for regulated Bitcoin life insurance, especially in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
Meanwhile launched BTC Life 1-Pay in early 2026 as a non-U.S. whole-life product for high-net-worth clients.
Policies may be structured to support succession planning via ownership by individuals, trusts, or companies.
Why a Bitcoin-only insurer is drawing capital
Unlike most crypto-adjacent financial products, Whilewill’s pitch is built around underwriting and insurance wrappers rather than token trading or custody services. In its announcement, the company emphasized that families who already hold Bitcoin need a “regulated way to pass it on,” suggesting the product is designed to address a practical gap in estate planning.
Chief executive and co-founder Zac Townsend said brokers have been increasingly approaching the firm because clients continue to request solutions that integrate Bitcoin into succession and inheritance planning. The new capital, the company added, is intended to help it keep pace with that demand.
From BTC 10-Pay to BTC Life 1-Pay
Product expansion is central to Meanwhile’s strategy. In early 2026, the firm launched BTC Life 1-Pay, a single-premium whole life policy aimed at high-net-worth clients outside the United States. Meanwhile described it as its second product line following BTC 10-Pay, which it says is tailored to U.S. taxpayers.
Both offerings are positioned around the same core idea—using Bitcoin within a life insurance structure—but the company’s new launch specifically targets international clients. By engineering a policy for markets outside the U.S., Meanwhile is effectively narrowing the geographic lens of its compliance and distribution approach while still serving a cohort that increasingly views Bitcoin as part of long-term wealth.
Ownership flexibility is also a stated feature: policies can be held by individuals, trusts, or companies. That matters for estate planning because it can allow holders to align their Bitcoin-related arrangements with how they manage legacy assets, beneficiary structures, and administrative control.
Signals of underwriting momentum
Beyond the fundraising, the statement included a performance-related update. The insurer said that net long-term underwriting income has already surpassed the total reported for last year and is on track to more than double in 2026. While the company did not provide precise figures, the directional change is notable because it implies that policy growth and/or underwriting economics are improving as it scales internationally.
Investors and potential policyholders will likely watch whether that trajectory continues into the second half of 2026—particularly given the volatility and regulatory complexity that often accompany Bitcoin-linked financial products.
Broader trend: crypto insurance and protection services
Meanwhile’s funding also lands in a broader context where insurance and protection layers for digital assets are being actively developed. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph in June highlighted that WTW, a global insurance broker and risk advisory company, acquired crypto insurance platform Redefind. The reporting described a digital asset protection service covering costs tied to forensic investigations, asset tracing, and legal recovery efforts after theft or loss.
Cointelegraph noted that Redefind’s approach allows individuals and institutions to purchase coverage for digital assets across different custody arrangements, using cryptographic proof of ownership to help verify insured assets.
While Meanwhile focuses on life insurance and succession planning, the parallel with Redefind/Winter’s move underscores a growing recognition in traditional insurance circles: crypto risks are not limited to price moves. They include custody challenges, loss events, and legal recovery costs—areas where insurers and brokers are increasingly building specialized products.
For readers tracking this sector, the next signals to watch are whether Meanwhile can sustain its reported underwriting progress through 2026 and how its international policy distribution evolves—especially as regulators and insurers continue to refine how they handle Bitcoin within mainstream financial frameworks.
This article was originally published as Sam Altman-Backed Bitcoin Insurer Raises Additional Funding on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Self-custody has become an increasingly important consideration for cryptocurrency holders, especially following repeated security incidents involving centralized platforms, online wallets and third-party infrastructure.
For anyone considering moving digital assets to a hardware wallet, a new limited-time Tangem promotion could make the switch considerably more affordable. By combining the discount associated with the code CRYPTO with the additional promotion available through SEEDLESS, eligible purchases may receive a total discount of up to 30%.
The offer applies through the official Tangem store and can be used on eligible wallet products, subject to the conditions displayed during checkout.
How the Tangem discount works
Two promotional codes are currently associated with the offer:
CRYPTO: provides a 10% discount.
SEEDLESS: provides an additional discount of up to 20% as part of the current promotion.
When both benefits are available for the selected product, the total advertised saving can reach up to 30%.
To access the promotion, visit the Tangem store through the dedicated link below, choose the preferred wallet set and check that the available discounts have been applied before completing the purchase.
Check the Tangem offer and current price
If a code is not applied automatically, enter CRYPTO and SEEDLESS in the promotional section of the checkout process, following the instructions shown on the store.
As promotional conditions can change, customers should always verify the final price displayed before confirming the order. Depending on how the discounts are calculated and combined, the effective reduction from the original price may differ slightly from the headline percentage.
What makes Tangem different from traditional hardware wallets?
Tangem takes a different approach from hardware wallets built around screens, cables, batteries and manually installed firmware updates. Its wallet comes in the form of an NFC-enabled card that communicates with the official mobile application when tapped against a compatible smartphone.
The private key is generated and stored inside the card’s certified Secure Element. Cryptographic signing also takes place inside the chip, meaning the private key is not exposed to the smartphone or transmitted outside the wallet during normal use.
Users can configure multiple cards as backups. Each card provides access to the same wallet, allowing one card to be used regularly while the others are stored separately in secure locations.
Tangem also supports two different approaches to recovery:
A seedless setup, in which the private key is generated inside the card and backed up directly to the other cards in the set.
An optional traditional seed phrase for users who prefer a conventional recovery method or want to import an existing wallet.
The seedless option removes the need to write down and protect a recovery phrase that could be photographed, copied, lost or discovered by another person. However, users remain responsible for protecting their backup cards and access code.
How Tangem reduces firmware supply-chain risk
One of the most interesting elements of Tangem’s security architecture is its use of immutable card firmware. The firmware installed during manufacturing cannot be replaced or updated after the card has been produced.
This design removes a specific attack surface found in devices that depend on downloadable firmware updates. If a device has no post-production firmware update mechanism, an attacker cannot compromise that mechanism later to distribute malicious firmware to existing cards.
The Tangem application also performs a cryptographic authenticity check when communicating with a card. This helps verify that the wallet is genuine and that it is running authentic firmware before it is used.
This architecture is relevant when discussing supply-chain security. In December 2023, for example, malicious code was published through Ledger Connect Kit, a JavaScript library used by third-party decentralized applications. Ledger clarified that the incident did not compromise the integrity of its hardware devices or Ledger Live, but it demonstrated how software dependencies and distribution channels can become attractive targets.
Tangem’s immutable firmware makes an equivalent attack through a card firmware update channel extremely difficult because that update channel simply does not exist. It also reduces the level of continuing trust users must place in a manufacturer’s ability to protect firmware-signing keys and update infrastructure.
This does not mean that every possible supply-chain attack becomes impossible. Mobile applications, external libraries, online interfaces, logistics and user behaviour can still create risks. Users should therefore buy from an official or authorized source, install only the official application and carefully review every transaction before signing it.
Independent security audits
Tangem’s hardware, firmware and mobile software have undergone reviews from independent security companies, including Kudelski Security, Riscure and Cure53.
According to Tangem’s published security documentation, these assessments covered areas such as Secure Element usage, firmware integrity, smartcard code, mobile wallet behaviour and cryptographic key management. The company reports that no critical vulnerabilities were identified in the published audits.
The wallet’s architecture is designed so that transaction preparation happens in the application, while the sensitive cryptographic signature is produced inside the hardware card. Separating these functions helps limit the exposure of the private key, even if the phone is used for viewing balances and preparing transactions.
Who may find Tangem useful?
Tangem may be particularly suitable for users who want the protection of an offline hardware wallet without managing a device with buttons, cables or a battery.
Its card-based format can be practical for:
Long-term cryptocurrency holders moving assets away from exchanges.
Users looking for a portable wallet that works through NFC.
People who prefer physical backup cards instead of relying exclusively on a written seed phrase.
Beginners who want a relatively simple introduction to self-custody.
Experienced users who want an additional cold wallet for separating long-term holdings from daily activity.
As with every self-custody solution, buyers should evaluate the recovery model carefully. Losing every backup card and any configured recovery information may result in permanent loss of access to the wallet.
How to claim the discount
Open the official store through the dedicated Tangem link.
Select the wallet, card set or other eligible product.
Check whether the CRYPTO discount has been applied.
Apply the promotional code SEEDLESS where requested.
Confirm the final discount and total price before paying.
Visit the Tangem store and check the available discount
The promotion is expected to be available for a limited period and may vary depending on the selected product, delivery country and other active offers. Availability should therefore be confirmed directly in the checkout.
Disclosure: Crypto Breaking may receive a commission when a purchase is completed through links in this article, at no additional cost to the buyer.
This article was originally published as Tangem Wallet Discount: Save Up to 30% With CRYPTO and SEEDLESS on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen says the bloc’s AI rules are designed to handle serious safety and security risks, including concerns that highly capable “rogue” AI agents could operate beyond human control. Speaking to Reuters on Friday, Virkkunen argued that Europe’s framework is built to address problems not just at deployment, but across the entire lifecycle of advanced models.
The comments come amid heightened global attention following major AI incidents at companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic. Concerns have also intensified around the possibility that autonomous systems could take actions that are difficult for people to monitor or correct in real time.
Key takeaways
Henna Virkkunen said the EU’s AI Act is equipped to address safety and security risks tied to very capable models, including “rogue” agent scenarios.
The AI Act regulates according to risk levels and, according to Virkkunen, covers the full lifecycle of models rather than only end-stage use.
Virkkunen said regulators are offering guidance to companies on model evaluation and risk assessment, incorporating recommendations from 60 AI experts.
The European Commission has already requested safety and security information from more than 30 unnamed AI companies in late August, and Virkkunen is reviewing the responses.
Europe’s AI Act: safety rules across the model lifecycle
Virkkunen’s central point was that the EU does not rely on a narrow, “single moment” approach to AI oversight. In her Reuters interview, she emphasized that the AI Act is designed to cover the whole lifecycle of advanced models, giving regulators a basis to evaluate safety and security considerations from development through use.
Under the AI Act, obligations are tied to the level of risk posed by a system. Virkkunen described the regulation as among the world’s strictest, noting it was adopted two years ago. Her response also targeted critics who argue the framework has become outdated given how rapidly frontier AI is evolving.
“We see that the safety and security of very capable models is a very hot topic internationally and we in Europe are well equipped for that,” Virkkunen told Reuters.
Regulators’ guidance and expert input
Beyond the law itself, Virkkunen pointed to the operational support regulators are providing to help companies meet compliance expectations. She said that the European approach includes guidance on how developers should evaluate their models, including how safety and security factors should be accounted for.
Crucially, she said this guidance incorporates recommendations from 60 AI experts. That detail matters because it suggests the EU is trying to translate broad legal principles into concrete evaluation practices—an area that often becomes a sticking point when rules are new or when risk definitions are hard to apply to cutting-edge systems.
Virkkunen’s remarks also imply that enforcement and assessment will hinge on whether companies can demonstrate that they have considered safety throughout model development and deployment, rather than treating compliance as a box-check at launch.
Commission information requests and what happens next
Virkkunen said the European Commission asked for information in late August from more than 30 unidentified AI companies. The request sought details of the companies’ safety and security measures.
She added that she is now assessing the responses. While the remarks did not specify what the Commission will do with the information—such as whether it will move toward specific enforcement actions, additional guidance, or policy adjustments—the process itself signals an active supervisory posture. For developers and investors, that matters because it can affect near-term compliance timelines and the credibility of safety reporting frameworks.
Readers should watch for whether the Commission’s review leads to clearer expectations for model evaluation, particularly around how to document safeguards relevant to autonomous or semi-autonomous behavior.
Global pushback: calls to slow development
Virkkunen’s confidence in EU oversight stands in contrast to wider international debates about whether the pace of frontier AI development is moving faster than society’s ability to understand and control it.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei argued in a blog post that AI development may be progressing too quickly. Amodei said the speed of progress could “outrun our ability to understand and control these systems,” and he pointed to AI’s increasing ability to build the next generation of AI—a process described as recursive self-improvement.
That broader argument—often framed as a call for pausing or slowing certain stages of development—directly intersects with Virkkunen’s theme. The EU’s stance, as she presented it, is that safety and security can be addressed through regulatory structure and lifecycle-based requirements rather than through slowing the overall trajectory of research and deployment.
At the same time, the existence of competing perspectives highlights the tension at the heart of current AI governance: whether the key risk can be managed primarily through regulation and evaluation, or whether it also demands a more cautious pace until control mechanisms catch up.
What to monitor
As Virkkunen reviews the late-August submissions from more than 30 AI companies, the next critical signal will be whether the EU offers tighter, more testable guidance on safety and security evaluations for very capable models—especially those that could behave in ways that are difficult to predict or contain. For the market and for builders, clarity on what counts as sufficient evidence will likely matter as much as the law itself.
This article was originally published as EU’s Tech Chief Says It Can Manage ‘Rogue AI’ Risks, Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The European Union’s approach to AI safety is designed to manage risks from advanced systems, including concerns that “rogue” AI agents could operate beyond human control, according to EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen.
In an interview with Reuters on Friday, Virkkunen argued that Europe is already equipped to handle the security and safety challenges posed by highly capable AI models, pointing to the bloc’s AI Act as a risk-based framework that spans the full lifecycle of such technologies.
Key takeaways
Henna Virkkunen says the EU is “well equipped” to address safety and security issues around highly capable AI models.
The AI Act is risk-based and, according to Virkkunen, covers the full lifecycle of AI systems.
Virkkunen said regulators are providing guidance to companies on model evaluation, drawing on input from 60 AI experts.
The European Commission requested safety and security information in late August from more than 30 AI companies, and Virkkunen is currently reviewing responses.
EU insists its AI rules cover “rogue agent” scenarios
Virkkunen’s comments come as international concern grows after high-profile AI incidents involving companies such as OpenAI and Anthropic. The broader worry is that autonomous or semi-autonomous systems—sometimes described as “rogue agents”—could act outside intended boundaries.
Rather than treating these concerns as a new, ad-hoc problem, Virkkunen said Europe’s regulatory structure is built specifically to address safety and security as capabilities increase. She emphasized that “very capable” models are already a central focus internationally—and that EU policy is structured to meet that moment.
The EU AI Act: risk-based rules with lifecycle coverage
The EU AI Act, adopted two years ago, regulates AI according to the level of risk posed by different applications. Virkkunen argued that this framework is not limited to a narrow stage of deployment.
“We have our AI Act in place and the AI Act covers the whole life cycle of these models,” she told Reuters. That lifecycle framing matters for investors and operators because safety and security obligations are not confined to pre-launch testing; they are intended to carry through ongoing operation and changes over time.
Virkkunen also pushed back on critics who say Europe’s AI rules have become outdated. Instead of suggesting the framework is behind the curve, she pointed to active regulatory work that supports implementation—particularly around evaluation methods.
Regulators gathering safety and security information from AI firms
In late August, the European Commission asked for information from more than 30 unidentified AI companies, requesting details about their safety and security measures. Virkkunen said she is now assessing the responses.
The process signals a pragmatic oversight approach: rather than relying solely on abstract compliance, the Commission is seeking concrete documentation of how companies manage risks. For market participants, this type of information-gathering can shape expectations about which safeguards become standard—especially for advanced systems where failures or unintended behavior could have broad consequences.
Virkkunen also described how EU regulators are supporting implementation through guidance for evaluating models. She said the guidance factors in recommendations from 60 AI experts, underscoring that compliance expectations are being formed with specialized technical input.
Pressure to slow AI development—and what the EU view implies
The EU’s stance lands amid continued debate over whether AI development is moving too quickly relative to society’s ability to understand and control it. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph noted comments from Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who said in a blog post that the speed of AI progress may “outrun our ability to understand and control these systems.” He also argued that AI’s rapid advance is partly driven by its increasing ability to build the next generation of AI—sometimes described as recursive self-improvement.
While calls for a slowdown focus on pacing, the EU’s regulatory messaging emphasizes governance and guardrails rather than halting progress. That difference matters: a slowdown would try to reduce risk by limiting capability growth, whereas lifecycle-focused regulation aims to keep deploying AI while requiring evidence-based safeguards at each stage.
For builders and users, the immediate practical question is how compliance guidance will translate into concrete evaluation requirements—especially for systems that can take actions across environments or tools. For traders and investors, the longer-term issue is whether regulatory oversight will become a differentiator between companies that can document safety practices and those that can’t.
As the EU reviews the companies’ late-August submissions, the key thing to watch is how the Commission’s assessment feeds into clearer evaluation expectations under the AI Act—particularly regarding security controls for advanced models and the conditions under which autonomous behavior is allowed.
This article was originally published as EU Could Mitigate “Rogue AI” Risks, Says Tech Chief: Report on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Meanwhile, a Bermuda-based insurer operating exclusively with Bitcoin, has secured $37.5 million in fresh funding from existing backers, bringing its total raised capital to more than $180 million. The new round was led by Bain Capital Crypto and included Haun Ventures, Framework Ventures, Pantera Capital, Apollo, Northwestern Mutual Future Ventures, and Morgan Creek Digital, according to a company statement published by Business Wire.
The company said the raise reflects rising international interest in its Bitcoin life insurance offering, with demand growing in regions including Asia, Europe, and the Middle East amid broader macroeconomic uncertainty.
Key takeaways
Meanwhile announced a $37.5 million funding round from existing investors, lifting total funding to over $180 million.
The insurer says demand for its Bitcoin life policies is increasing outside the United States, particularly across Asia, Europe, and the Middle East.
The funding is coming through a new round led by Bain Capital Crypto alongside several major crypto- and finance-focused investors.
Meanwhile’s product mix includes BTC Life 1-Pay for high-net-worth clients outside the U.S. and BTC 10-Pay for U.S. taxpayers.
Management claims underwriting momentum has already surpassed last year’s totals, with expectations for further acceleration in 2026.
Bitcoin-first insurance expands beyond the U.S.
Meanwhile positions itself as a regulated life insurer designed to handle Bitcoin within insurance structures. In its announcement, the company linked the latest capital raise to increased cross-border demand for ways to transfer Bitcoin to beneficiaries through regulated life insurance products, rather than through informal custody arrangements.
“Wealthy families around the world already hold Bitcoin. What they haven’t had is a regulated way to pass it on,” Zac Townsend, Meanwhile’s co-founder and CEO, said in the statement. He added that brokers began approaching the firm because clients continued to ask for regulated transfer options, and that the new round will help the company keep pace.
For investors and intermediaries, the practical appeal of this pitch is straightforward: Bitcoin wealth is increasingly global, but estate planning and succession tooling is still often optimized for traditional assets. A Bitcoin-focused policy format aims to give wealth managers and brokers a framework that they can offer clients who want a structured, insurance-based transfer path.
BTC Life 1-Pay and BTC 10-Pay: two lanes, different jurisdictions
Meanwhile’s product line includes BTC Life 1-Pay, launched in early 2026. The company described it as a single-premium whole life policy built for high-net-worth clients outside the United States.
That offering sits alongside BTC 10-Pay, which Meanwhile says is designed for U.S. taxpayers. The company also stated that policies may be owned by individuals, trusts, or companies, which it argues makes the products well suited to succession and estate planning use cases.
While the statement did not provide pricing details or eligibility thresholds, the distinction between a non-U.S. policy format and a U.S.-oriented product highlights how insurers must tailor regulatory and tax considerations to different markets. For readers tracking this niche, the key question is whether product differentiation translates into measurable scale across geographies—something the company appears to be banking on with its latest fundraising.
Underwriting progress and what remains unclear
In the funding announcement, Meanwhile claimed that net long-term underwriting income has already exceeded last year’s total and is on track to more than double in 2026. The company did not disclose exact figures, but the statement suggests momentum strong enough to justify additional capital.
From a market perspective, that matters because early-stage crypto-adjacent insurance providers often face a classic adoption bottleneck: demand may rise faster than underwriting capacity, and capacity constraints can slow growth. A larger balance sheet can help support operations as policy issuance scales—though whether that translates into sustained profitability will depend on underwriting results over time, including claim experience and asset-liability dynamics.
For now, readers should treat the “on track” language as directional rather than definitive, especially since the company did not provide the underlying metrics needed to independently verify performance trends.
Broader shift toward crypto protection and asset recovery
Meanwhile’s expansion comes as other parts of the crypto risk and insurance ecosystem are also evolving. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph reported in June that WTW—an international insurance broker and risk advisory firm—acquired crypto insurance platform Redefind. WTW later launched a digital asset protection service covering expenses tied to forensic investigations, asset tracing, and legal recovery efforts after theft or loss.
Cointelegraph noted that Redefind allows individuals and institutions to purchase coverage for digital assets held across different custody arrangements, and that the platform uses cryptographic proof of ownership to verify insured assets.
Taken together, these developments point to a wider trend: rather than limiting insurance to traditional property and liability, firms are increasingly building products around the specific failure modes of digital assets—custody, provenance, and recovery. Meanwhile’s emphasis on Bitcoin life insurance adds a distinct angle by focusing on wealth transfer through regulated life insurance structures, rather than purely on post-incident recovery.
What to watch next is whether demand growth converts into stable policy issuance across more markets and whether disclosures around underwriting performance become more transparent over time—especially as capital inflows accelerate and competition for crypto-native insurance and protection services intensifies.
This article was originally published as Sam Altman-Backed Bitcoin Life Insurer Raises Additional Funding on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

France’s National Assembly Finance Committee has advanced new crypto tax measures that would tighten how capital gains are triggered for certain digital-asset transactions. The committee approved proposals aimed at taxing conversions of cryptocurrencies into fiat-pegged stablecoins and expanding exit-tax rules for high-net-worth taxpayers moving residency abroad.
The changes were adopted through multiple amendments during the committee’s review process. If they make it into law, investors could face capital gains tax liabilities even in cases where they do not cash out into fiat—raising practical questions for anyone using stablecoins as a way to park value or manage liquidity.
Key takeaways
France’s committee approved an amendment that would treat conversions into fiat-pegged stablecoins as taxable events from Jan. 1, 2027.
The committee’s text frames current treatment of such conversions as a legislative “loophole.”
Another approved measure would permit taxpayers to carry forward realized crypto losses for up to 10 years.
An exit-tax amendment targets unrealized gains when taxpayers with household crypto holdings above €800,000 ($895,000) transfer their residence abroad.
France moves stablecoin conversions into the tax net
One of the core measures is Amendment I-CF1826, submitted by French MP Nicolas Sansu and adopted Wednesday. The proposal would make crypto conversions into fiat-pegged stablecoins taxable starting Jan. 1, 2027.
In the explanatory material attached to the amendment, the current framework is described as a “loophole in the legislation” (as indicated by a machine translation in the source material). The practical effect is straightforward: under the proposed rule, swapping into a fiat-pegged stablecoin would no longer be treated as a non-taxable step, as it can be under some interpretations of existing rules.
For determining tax owed, the amendment states that taxable gains would be calculated using the acquisition cost of the assets disposed of. For holdings of the same token bought at different prices, it specifies a weighted average approach to compute acquisition costs.
The broader legislative timeline matters for investors. The full French Assembly is scheduled to begin examining the 2027 Finance Bill on Tuesday, Oct. 13. If enacted, taxpayers could be hit with capital gains tax obligations triggered by stablecoin conversions even if their holdings remain within the crypto ecosystem.
Taxable events without “cash-out”
The committee’s stablecoin conversion rule is notable because it targets the moment value is moved into a specific category of crypto asset rather than a traditional fiat withdrawal. As the amendment is written, a conversion to a fiat-pegged stablecoin could be treated similarly to other disposals for tax purposes.
This distinction matters for users who rely on stablecoins for exchange operations, payment flows, collateral management, or temporary portfolio positioning. Under the proposed framework, the tax trigger could occur even when no euros are withdrawn to a bank account, potentially creating a mismatch between tax due and available liquid fiat to pay it.
While the measure does not automatically mean every stablecoin strategy will be unworkable, it does increase the importance of careful record-keeping and cost basis tracking—particularly for investors who repeatedly rotate between tokens or execute multi-leg trades that end in stablecoins.
Loss carryforwards and expanded exit taxation
France’s committee also adopted a measure that could reduce the impact of volatility for some investors. Amendment I-CCF798, introduced by MP Daniel Labaronne and adopted Wednesday, would allow taxpayers to carry forward realized crypto losses for 10 years.
Separately, the committee approved an exit-tax amendment adopted Thursday that would extend taxation of unrealized gains when certain taxpayers move their residence abroad.
According to the description in the source material, the exit-tax expansion would apply to taxpayers whose household crypto holdings are worth more than €800,000 ($895,000) at the time of the residential transfer. For such households, the implication is that moving overseas could become more expensive from a tax perspective—even if gains have not been realized through a sale for fiat.
How this fits into wider EU crypto tax rules
France is not acting in isolation. Across Europe, proposals for taxing crypto activity are taking different shapes, and the French committee’s approach is especially consequential because of its focus on stablecoin conversions.
For example, the source material notes that Greece’s Ministry of National Economy and Finance published a draft bill proposing a 10% tax on individuals’ crypto capital gains, with an exemption for annual gains up to 500 euros ($560). Unlike France’s conversion approach, the Greek draft is described as leaving crypto-to-crypto exchanges untaxed.
At the same time, EU-level reporting rules are already reshaping how tax authorities can track crypto activity. France and other EU member states are required to apply tax reporting under the bloc’s eighth amendment to the Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC8).
Under DAC8, crypto service providers must collect users’ identities and transaction data and report it to national tax authorities, which then exchange information across member states. The reporting requirements began applying Jan. 1, 2026, and the first exchanges of information covering 2026 transactions are due by Sept. 2027.
That sequencing is important context: France’s proposed stablecoin conversion tax change targets how taxable events are defined, while DAC8 affects how accurately authorities can see what happened. For investors, the combination of clearer taxable triggers and expanding reporting capacity increases the likelihood that tax positions will be scrutinized.
What to watch next
With the committee’s proposals now moving toward broader parliamentary consideration, the main uncertainty is whether the stablecoin conversion rule and the exit-tax expansion survive the full legislative process. Investors in France should watch the 2027 Finance Bill discussions beginning Oct. 13 and track any amendments that clarify how “fiat-pegged stablecoins” are defined in tax practice and how taxpayers can plan for liabilities triggered without converting back into fiat.
This article was originally published as French Finance Panel Approves 2027 Stablecoin Swap Tax and Exit Tax on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Europe’s financial-market regulator is asking industry participants to prove that clearinghouses can access and liquidate tokenized collateral during periods of market stress. The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) published a call for evidence on the use of tokenized collateral in central clearing, focusing on whether the current rulebook and operational arrangements are robust enough when a clearing member defaults.
In the initiative, ESMA Chair Verena Ross said the goal is to ensure tokenized markets can function safely and at scale across borders, with legal certainty, interoperable infrastructure, and effective supervision. The request for evidence, released this week, is designed to gather practical inputs from market participants before ESMA reaches further conclusions on how tokenized assets should be supervised within EU clearing frameworks.
Key takeaways
ESMA is collecting evidence on whether clearinghouses can access tokenized collateral and convert it into cash quickly if a clearing member defaults.
The consultation covers tokenized representations of traditional assets as well as assets issued directly on distributed ledger technology.
ESMA highlights potential liquidity frictions caused by token-specific redemption procedures or transfer restrictions, even when underlying assets are typically liquid.
The regulator is examining legal and operational questions around ownership and enforceable rights when assets are transferred as tokens.
ESMA’s review connects to broader EU infrastructure developments, including Pontes, a system designed to enable settlement of tokenized transactions using central bank money.
Why ESMA wants proof, not just promises
Tokenized collateral is starting to move from pilots into live clearing operations, largely because banks and investors want faster and more flexible ways to meet margin requirements. ESMA’s call for evidence centers on the central clearinghouse’s practical challenge: when markets move sharply and a member fails, collateral must be available and liquidated in a predictable, legally sound manner.
ESMA’s review therefore targets the gap between “tokenized” operational capability and clearinghouse contingency requirements. Existing EU rules may not fully address the mechanics of token access, liquidation timing, and legal enforceability for collateral that lives in distributed ledger environments—or for tokens that represent assets held elsewhere.
According to ESMA, the evidence-gathering effort will help determine whether existing frameworks can ensure clearinghouses can access tokenized collateral and turn it into cash under stress conditions.
What models and risks ESMA is examining
The consultation looks beyond a single definition of tokenized collateral. It addresses tokenized representations of assets that are still held in traditional financial infrastructure, alongside assets issued directly on distributed ledgers. ESMA also signals that it will consider how these structures interact with stablecoins, central bank money, and tokenized deposits.
A central theme is liquidity. ESMA notes that assets that are liquid in their conventional form may face extra risks once they are tokenized. These include potential delays stemming from redemption procedures, or limitations on transferring tokenized instruments when they are needed urgently for margin calls or default management.
ESMA is also asking a legal question with direct operational consequences: when tokens are transferred, do those transfers actually confer ownership—or at least enforceable rights—over the underlying assets? For a clearinghouse operating under default procedures, the answer determines whether collateral can be relied on and acted upon quickly, rather than challenged or stalled.
Eurex’s DLT collateral service and the live-test environment
ESMA’s call comes as at least one EU clearing entity has already moved toward DLT-enabled collateral mobilization. In July 2025, Eurex Clearing introduced a collateral service built on distributed ledger technology, describing it as the first CCP-linked collateral mobilization service of its kind launched globally.
The same rollout included a live transaction executed for PGGM, a Dutch pension investor. In that transaction, securities were moved from another custody location—an example of how tokenized collateral arrangements may rely on cross-custody transfers and settlement pathways rather than purely on internal ledger balances.
For ESMA, these “real system” examples matter because they raise concrete questions about timing, legal effect, and access rights. Tokenization may streamline certain steps, but it also introduces new points where liquidity could be slowed or where rights over collateral could become less clear if the tokenized layer is not perfectly aligned with clearinghouse default processes.
Pontes and the broader push toward tokenized settlement
ESMA’s consultation also sits within a larger EU infrastructure context. Following the Eurosystem’s September launch of Pontes, which is designed to settle tokenized asset transactions using central bank money, ESMA said Pontes could support tokenized collateral arrangements by connecting blockchain-based infrastructure with existing settlement systems.
This link is important for market participants because central bank money settlement is often viewed as a benchmark for finality and settlement integrity. If blockchain-based tokenization layers can interoperate with established settlement rails for central bank money, it may reduce some settlement and access risks that regulators worry could undermine stress-time liquidation.
That said, ESMA’s emphasis on access and liquidity during member defaults indicates that even with improved settlement infrastructure, collateral arrangements still must demonstrate that clearinghouses can obtain control of the tokenized assets, convert them into cash promptly, and rely on enforceable rights without friction.
Readers should watch how ESMA translates these evidence-gathering themes into supervisory expectations. The key uncertainties are whether existing legal frameworks adequately cover ownership and enforceability when collateral is tokenized, and whether the operational workflows—redemption, transfer permissions, and liquidation mechanics—meet the time-critical demands of central clearing.
This article was originally published as ESMA Requests Proof That Tokenized Collateral Can Be Cashed in Crises on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum researcher Justin Drake has renewed urgency around the possibility that advances in AI—and, later, quantum computing—could undermine the cryptographic signatures used to secure crypto wallets. In comments posted this week, Drake suggested that the elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) could be broken on a timeframe measured in months rather than years, citing recent progress highlighted in an OpenAI report about AI in mathematics.
Dragonfly managing partner Haseeb Qureshi pushed back on a narrow “move to new addresses” approach, arguing that relocating funds to fresh public keys would not be sufficient protection if the wider network ecosystem remains vulnerable. Instead, Qureshi called for network-level safeguards, proposing a “Cryptographic Recovery Mode” designed to help validators recover funds even if signatures are compromised.
Key takeaways
Justin Drake warned ECDSA could fail “in the worst case” within months, not years, based on rapid AI progress in mathematics.
Dragonfly’s Haseeb Qureshi criticized “bunker mode” as an investor-focused fix that won’t stop mass compromise if others remain exposed.
Glassnode data cited by Qureshi’s discussion suggests 6.26 million BTC may be vulnerable, including 4.33 million linked to address reuse.
Qureshi proposed a “Cryptographic Recovery Mode” that would let validators force recovery through hash-based backup signatures.
A large share of exposed Bitcoin sits with exchanges, with Glassnode noting nearly 1.8 million BTC on exchange balances.
Drake’s “months, not years” warning on ECDSA
Drake’s latest comments focus on the ECDSA mechanism that underpins wallet authorization in many parts of the crypto ecosystem. In a post on X, he argued it is “reasonable to brace” for ECDSA breaking earlier than many in the industry may have assumed, with the “worst case” timeframe measured in months rather than years. Drake pointed to a Tuesday OpenAI report discussing AI’s progress in mathematics as part of the rationale for taking the risk seriously.
Drake also recommended a practical user action: gradually moving funds to fresh wallets so that the associated public key is not exposed. His framing reflects a risk model where signature security can degrade faster than longer-term migration plans would typically account for—particularly if AI accelerates the relevant computations.
Vitalik Buterin indicated he agrees that the industry should take AI-accelerated math seriously, but he did not endorse rushing users to immediately relocate funds to new wallets. That divergence highlights a key tension in the current debate: what to do now versus what to do at the protocol and infrastructure level.
Qureshi rejects “bunker mode” as a self-contained solution
While Drake advocated for moving funds to avoid exposed public keys, Qureshi argued that the protective value of fresh addresses is far more limited than “bunker mode” framing suggests. In a Thursday X post, he characterized Drake’s warning as “cryptographic doomerism” and argued that migrating to new addresses only helps investors if they never need to move those holdings after the switch.
Qureshi’s core concern is network-wide. He warned that if cryptographic failures spread beyond a small set of “fresh” holders—ultimately enabling mass theft and selling—then even coins protected behind newly generated addresses could end up functionally worthless in practice. In his view, protecting individual keys does not solve the broader systemic problem if the underlying signature scheme becomes unreliable across the board.
Glassnode: millions of BTC exposed through reuse and key exposure
The discussion is not just theoretical. Qureshi pointed to data from Glassnode suggesting more than 31% of the Bitcoin supply may face some form of exposure, specifically citing 6.26 million BTC in vulnerable addresses.
According to Glassnode co-founder Rafael Schultze-Kraft, of the 6.26 million BTC, about 4.33 million BTC are exposed due to address reuse. In that scenario, moving funds to a fresh address could eliminate the reuse-related exposure. Separately, roughly 1.94 million BTC are exposed through address format, a different vector that is not solved simply by generating a new address.
Schultze-Kraft also highlighted where the exposed supply sits. Of the total exposed holdings, nearly 1.8 million BTC are held on cryptocurrency exchanges, with Glassnode noting that 57% of all exchange balances are currently exposed. This matters because exchanges are central to liquidation and custody flows; if signature compromise becomes a live threat, infrastructure that handles high transaction volumes could become a focal point for operational and risk-management decisions.
From migration to protocol recovery: Qureshi’s proposed “Cryptographic Recovery Mode”
Rather than relying only on end-user migration, Qureshi argued for proactive, network-level defenses against a scenario in which cryptographic signatures can be broken—whether due to AI-driven computation or later quantum capabilities. His proposal centers on a “Cryptographic Recovery Mode,” described as a hash-based backup signature plan that users could map to their addresses.
The mechanism, as Qureshi outlined it, would enable validators to force recovery if cryptographic signatures were compromised. The underlying idea is to build a path to regain control even when normal signature verification can no longer be trusted, shifting part of the security burden away from timing-dependent user actions.
For investors and builders, the distinction is important. Address migration is a mitigation strategy that depends on how quickly users can respond and whether their keys remain safe after movement. A recovery mode, by contrast, aims to reduce the all-or-nothing nature of “fresh address” protection by introducing a contingency structure at the validation layer.
Still, several uncertainties remain implicit in the debate. Drake’s recommendation is framed around reducing exposed public keys, while Qureshi’s counterproposal depends on the design and adoption of a recovery process that validators can execute. The market impact of either approach will likely depend not just on theoretical cryptography timelines, but on whether compatible standards can be implemented across wallets, exchanges, and validation infrastructure.
What to watch next as the timeline debate evolves
Drake’s “months, not years” warning has reframed the urgency around cryptographic resilience, but the most actionable next step for the industry may be clearer specifications of how wallets and networks should handle exposure—especially for the large portion of Bitcoin held by exchanges. Readers should watch for follow-up work that translates the recovery concept into implementable protocol changes and, separately, for guidance on how quickly practical migrations can realistically reduce exposure without creating operational risk.
This article was originally published as Dragonfly Partner Rejects “Bunker Mode,” Urges Proactive Blockchain Security on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Wealthy investors in multiple developed markets are moving faster on crypto than many of their own financial advisers, according to new research from CoinShares. At the same time, macro conditions remain a key variable for Bitcoin—especially as Treasury yields stay elevated—while crypto-linked corporate activity continues across exchanges, tokenization efforts, and publicly traded crypto vehicles.
The latest developments include Bitcoin attempting to extend a strong quarter, CoinShares survey results showing broad ownership among affluent investors, OKX raising capital at a $25 billion valuation and progressing toward U.S. tokenized stock trading plans, and Strategy allocating far more to its preferred stock than to Bitcoin buybacks in a recent stretch of activity.
Key takeaways
CoinShares survey data shows a majority of affluent investors in seven economies already hold crypto and many plan to increase exposure in 2026.
Bitcoin’s rally follows its best third quarter since 2017, but risk appetite may be constrained by Treasury yields above 5%.
OKX extended a funding round at a $25 billion valuation and has moved toward U.S. tokenized stock trading via an SEC filing.
Strategy reported spending far more on STRC share buybacks than on Bitcoin purchases in the latest week, leaving its BTC holdings at 848,000.
Strategy also sought shareholder approval to shift certain preferred stock dividends from monthly/quarterly to daily, pending a vote on Oct. 28.
Bitcoin’s momentum faces a “5% Treasury” headwind
Bitcoin is attempting to build on its best third quarter since 2017, with data cited by Delphi Digital pointing to a 43% gain in Q3 and a third consecutive weekly advance. Yet the research cautioned that the latest climb is occurring “against real resistance,” reflecting competition from traditional fixed-income returns.
Delphi highlighted that investors are facing both a macro policy backdrop and an unusually attractive yield environment: the Federal Reserve’s September rate hike and Treasury yields at multi-decade highs. The implication for crypto is straightforward—when cash and bonds offer compelling returns, marginal capital can become harder to attract to high-volatility assets.
That said, at least one market participant argued that the “debasement trade”—the idea that scarce assets like Bitcoin and gold can act as hedges against fiat purchasing power erosion—doesn’t rely on low interest rates to work. Still, the near-term direction of rates appears to have shifted compared with earlier expectations. CME FedWatch data, referenced in the coverage, pointed to September payroll growth coming in well below forecasts (29,000 jobs added versus 80,000 expected), reducing the odds of an October rate hike. New York Fed President John Williams also said there was no urgency to raise rates again.
Even so, elevated yields continue to act as a hurdle. Bitcoin briefly climbed above $87,000 last week before slipping below $83,000 on Wednesday, underscoring that momentum may be vulnerable to shifting macro pricing.
CoinShares: affluent crypto adoption outpaces advisory caution
CoinShares’ survey suggests that crypto is already embedded in the portfolios of many higher-net-worth individuals—often more so than in discussions with professional advisers.
Across 2,230 investors holding at least $500,000 in investable assets in the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Switzerland, the survey found that a majority of affluent respondents already hold digital assets. Crypto represents about 10% of their portfolios on average, and country-level adoption varies: Sweden was cited as the lowest among the group at 54%, while the U.S., UK, Germany, and Switzerland were around 70%. Looking ahead, in five of the seven countries, at least 85% of existing crypto investors said they planned to increase exposure in 2026.
Notably, the research also points to a mismatch between investor sentiment and adviser behavior. In Switzerland, France, the U.S., and Germany, roughly four in 10 respondents who work with an adviser described those advisers as overly cautious about digital assets.
Industry commentary accompanied the findings. Ric Edelman—founder of the Digital Assets Council of Financial Professionals—questioned the survey’s “10% of portfolio” average, saying his own research suggests allocations of 2% to 5% are more typical. Even so, Edelman said advisers should consider larger allocations—ranging from 10% to 40%—depending on investor risk tolerance.
For the market, the practical takeaway is that demand from well-capitalized investors may not be waiting for traditional advice channels to catch up. If advisers remain conservative while client interest grows, education and product access could become a competitive differentiator for financial firms over the next year.
OKX raises at $25B valuation and advances U.S. tokenized trading plans
Crypto exchange operator OKX has extended a funding round at a reported $25 billion valuation, according to coverage of the announcement. The exchange did not disclose the amount raised in the extension.
The raise builds on earlier financing in the same round, including $200 million from Intercontinental Exchange in March. In the extension, existing partners and investors participated, including SC Ventures, Qube Research & Technologies, Ripple, and Circle.
Beyond the fundraising headline, OKX is also taking steps aimed at expanding into regulated financial market infrastructure. The coverage notes that an OKX–ICE joint venture filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to launch a tokenized stock trading platform under the SEC’s “innovation exemption.” The filing—and therefore the timeline for any launch—remains subject to the exemption and related regulatory review.
For investors and builders, this matters because tokenized securities and on-chain trading are often framed as the bridge between crypto-native rails and legacy market participants. Even without confirmed timing, the regulatory engagement signals where major liquidity providers and exchanges see the next expansion opportunities.
Strategy shifts more capital to STRC buybacks than Bitcoin
Strategy’s latest reported capital allocation highlights an ongoing emphasis on its preferred stock structure—even as it remains one of the best-known corporate Bitcoin buyers.
Earlier coverage cited that Strategy spent $176.3 million repurchasing 1.77 million STRC shares last week. That figure was more than six times the $28.7 million the company spent buying 334 Bitcoin during the same period. The purchase activity brought Strategy’s holdings to exactly 848,000 BTC, according to an SEC 8-K filing referenced in the coverage.
While Strategy continues to accumulate Bitcoin, the company’s pace appears to have slowed. The holdings rose just 0.2% in the third quarter after purchases of 7,218 BTC were partly offset by the sale of 5,553 BTC.
Meanwhile, STRC itself is described as having recovered toward its $100 par value, trading around $99.53 after falling to roughly $75 in late June.
Strategy also filed a proxy seeking shareholder approval to pay dividends daily on STRC, along with STRF, STRK, and STRD. As described in the coverage, STRC currently pays dividends twice monthly while the other three pay quarterly. Shareholders are scheduled to vote on the proposal on Oct. 28.
If approved, daily STRC dividends would begin in November, followed by the remaining series in January. Strategy said the change would not alter dividend rates or overall payment obligations, though it could affect reinvestment timing, liquidity, and price stability.
That combination—more buybacks of STRC relative to Bitcoin purchases, plus a proposed dividend schedule shift—could be an important signal for how Strategy balances corporate capital structure considerations with its Bitcoin strategy. For holders and observers, the key uncertainty is how these changes will influence market perception of the firm’s risk and cash-flow profile.
Going forward, traders should watch two fronts: whether macro-driven yield levels continue to restrain risk appetite for Bitcoin after its strong third-quarter performance, and how regulatory developments around tokenized securities progress alongside corporate capital allocation decisions from major crypto-linked public firms.
This article was originally published as Wealthy investors add crypto as advisers lag; Strategy ramps buybacks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Blockchain.com has reportedly taken steps with the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to expand into prediction-market products and crypto derivatives—an effort that would bring the company deeper into a regulatory track often dominated by traditional market structures.
According to CNBC, the platform has filed for two CFTC licenses: one to operate as a designated contract market (DCM) for event contracts, and another to function as a futures commission merchant (FCM) for certain derivatives. If approved, Blockchain.com would be able to run a regulated U.S. venue not only for event-based offerings, but also as a broker for crypto derivatives contracts for both retail and institutional participants.
Key takeaways
Blockchain.com reportedly filed with the CFTC for both a DCM license (event contracts) and an FCM license (derivatives brokerage).
The filings, if granted, could allow Blockchain.com to offer its own prediction market-style marketplace for event contracts in the U.S.
The move comes as U.S. legal scrutiny of prediction markets—especially platforms tied to sports and election wagers—continues in court.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig is pushing for crypto rulemaking centered on investor protection, citing the collapse of FTX.
Why Blockchain.com’s CFTC filings matter
The core of the reported application is regulatory access to two different roles under CFTC oversight. A DCM license would position Blockchain.com to operate a futures exchange-like venue for “event contracts,” while an FCM license would allow it to broker derivatives contracts—typically within the CFTC’s framework for regulated derivatives markets.
For market participants, this matters because prediction-market products and crypto derivatives have not had a uniform, settled regulatory lane across the U.S. Instead, projects have often navigated a patchwork of enforcement decisions and legal arguments about whether certain offerings should be treated as commodities, contracts of sale, or otherwise regulated instruments.
Blockchain.com has previously signaled interest in the prediction market space via integration plans. In July, it announced it would partner with Polymarket for prediction markets integration on its app. The reported CFTC filings suggest a potentially different—more self-directed—path: building a regulated, on-platform marketplace for event contracts, rather than relying only on third-party prediction market infrastructure.
Prediction markets face an enforcement and jurisdiction test
Blockchain.com’s push lands in the middle of an ongoing U.S. debate over who regulates prediction market platforms and how. Oversight and enforcement questions are being tested in court, including cases where state-level authorities have argued that prediction markets violate state laws related to betting on sports and elections.
Earlier this year, New Jersey officials filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court regarding their dispute involving Kalshi. Coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the petition asks the high court to weigh in on the case, which could help resolve tensions between federal and state regulatory authority over certain event contracts. That case is significant for the broader sector because the outcome could influence how other platforms structure or offer event-based products in the U.S.
In that context, the CFTC license application reflects a strategic bet: that federal derivatives and commodities regulation may provide a more predictable route for prediction-market offerings, particularly if the CFTC’s view of its jurisdiction holds.
CFTC Chair Selig ties the agency’s crypto rule push to FTX
While Blockchain.com seeks permission to operate under CFTC licensing, the regulator’s broader approach is still actively evolving. This week, CFTC Chair Michael Selig publicly defended the agency’s emphasis on rulemaking rather than waiting for new legislation passed by Congress.
As reported in connection with a Wednesday Fox Business interview, Selig cited the FTX collapse when explaining why the CFTC is pursuing safeguards for the crypto spot market ecosystem. He argued that proposed rules for firms seeking to register as licensed crypto businesses would provide “safeguards,” linking that stance to the failures that led to major customer harm during FTX’s downfall.
On Friday, Selig also posted that the agency’s rules would prevent “theft of customer funds as we saw with FTX,” continuing a theme of investor protection at the center of the CFTC’s crypto agenda.
Selig remains the CFTC’s sole chair and commissioner, with four agency seats still empty as of Friday, according to the reporting in the source. He has previously said he intends to implement President Donald Trump’s crypto policy direction and has claimed that the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over prediction markets—an assertion that becomes especially relevant when firms like Blockchain.com seek authorization to run event-contract products.
What to watch next for Blockchain.com
If Blockchain.com’s applications are approved, the company would be positioned to compete in a space where regulation, platform permissions, and legal risk have often been decisive factors for survival. Traders and users would likely focus on whether the company’s eventual event-contract offerings are launched with clear product boundaries under CFTC oversight, and how they handle compliance requirements that differ from unregulated prediction market experiences.
For the broader market, the next steps are twofold: regulators will need to decide on the specific licenses, and courts may further clarify how prediction markets can operate when state law challenges overlap with federal regulatory claims. Until those answers arrive, prediction-market participants should treat licensing as a meaningful development but not a final resolution to the sector’s legal uncertainty.
This article was originally published as Blockchain.com Seeks CFTC Licenses for Prediction Markets, CNBC Reports on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.