Crypto Breaking

ESMA, the EU’s market regulator, is starting a dedicated supervisory process aimed at how crypto custody providers manage operational risks. The move is designed to feed into the wider rollout of the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, which has been entering its enforcement phase as regulators move beyond initial transition deadlines.
According to an ESMA announcement on Wednesday, the regulator is launching a Common Supervisory Action (CSA) that will specifically examine the digital operational resilience frameworks of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), with custody services at the center of the review.
Key takeaways
ESMA’s Common Supervisory Action will focus on operational resilience for custody activities, including how firms manage keys and stored crypto-asset custody.
National competent authorities will run risk-based reviews of authorized CASPs across the EU from now through the first half of 2027.
Supervisors are expected to assess governance, transaction controls, incident detection and response, and reliance on external service providers.
ESMA plans to compile the national findings into a final report for its Board of Supervisors after the exercise ends in the second half of 2027.
Why ESMA is targeting custody resilience now
The timing matters. ESMA’s announcement comes shortly after the end of MiCA’s transition phase on July 1, which has shifted attention toward how firms will demonstrate compliance under the new EU rulebook. As regulators move from transitional arrangements to ongoing supervision, custody has become a particularly important area due to its direct role in safeguarding assets and the high operational and technological risks involved.
In its statement, ESMA said the CSA will assess the maturity of CASPs’ digital operational resilience frameworks as they relate specifically to custody activities. The regulator highlighted that reviews will include key and storage management—core components of most custody operations—along with other operational risk domains.
For market participants, this type of supervisory focus can be more than a compliance formality. Custody providers often sit between trading platforms, wallets, and end-users, meaning operational failures can propagate quickly across connected services. By evaluating resilience frameworks rather than only looking at formal authorization status, ESMA is signaling that the quality of operational controls will be a central supervisory concern.
How the Common Supervisory Action will work
ESMA said the supervisory action will be implemented by national competent authorities across the EU. Rather than performing a uniform check of all relevant firms, supervisors will conduct reviews using a risk-based sample of authorized CASPs.
The exercise is scheduled to run from now until the first half of 2027. During that window, regulators will examine how companies handle custody-related operational risks in practice. ESMA indicated that the reviews are expected to cover areas including:
Key and storage management arrangements tied to custody operations
Governance structures supporting resilience and operational control
Transaction controls used to manage and safeguard custody processes
Incident detection and response capabilities
Dependencies on external service providers
This scope suggests a focus on both preventative controls and recovery readiness. In digital operational resilience frameworks, incident detection, escalation, and response planning are especially important because many custody threats are operational in nature—ranging from system outages and misconfigurations to disruptions affecting critical dependencies.
From national findings to an ESMA-level report
After national authorities complete their assessments, ESMA will consolidate results into a final report. The filing is intended for submission to ESMA’s Board of Supervisors after the exercise concludes in the second half of 2027.
While the CSA is being delivered through national regulators, the consolidation into an ESMA-level output matters for the industry. It helps create a more coordinated EU-wide view of whether operational resilience expectations are being met consistently across member states, and it may influence how supervisors follow up where weaknesses are identified.
Custody providers adapting to MiCA’s new phase
ESMA’s custody review also arrives as parts of the market continue to adjust to MiCA’s requirements. The source noted that some custody providers have begun supporting crypto platforms adapting to the evolving EU regulatory environment.
Earlier coverage cited in the material points to activity from BitGo: last month, the company launched a Europe-focused crypto-as-a-service platform intended to help platforms maintain access to the market while working through MiCA-related compliance requirements. While ESMA’s CSA is not framed as a response to any single firm or incident, it reflects the broader supervisory direction—ensuring that custody services meet operational resilience expectations under the MiCA framework.
For operators and users, the underlying message is straightforward: as MiCA transitions into full supervision, regulators will increasingly look at the operational substance of compliance, especially in areas that directly manage private keys, storage infrastructure, and the systems used to detect and respond to incidents.
As the CSA progresses, firms should expect follow-up scrutiny around governance, controls, and resilience testing—particularly where custody depends on external vendors or complex operational workflows. The key open question for the market is how consistently national authorities will apply the same supervisory expectations, and what themes will emerge once ESMA consolidates the findings later in 2027.
This article was originally published as ESMA Flags Crypto Custody Risks Following MiCA Transition on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coinbase-backed Layer-2 network Base is preparing to launch its new B20 token standard on mainnet, aiming to give developers a native way to issue stablecoins and other fungible assets such as tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). Base says the standard will be activated at 6 pm UTC, with developers able to start creating tokens under B20 once it goes live.
The rollout is positioned as a shift away from building and auditing custom token contracts. Instead, B20 provides an on-chain framework that supports issuer-side controls—features Base says are designed to simplify creation of both stablecoin- and asset-style tokens without developers having to implement their own token logic from scratch.
Key takeaways
Base will enable the B20 token standard on mainnet at 6 pm UTC, according to Base documentation.
B20 includes two variants—an asset format with configurable decimals and a stablecoin format with fixed six-decimal precision.
The standard is intended to reduce developer workload by avoiding the need to build and audit custom ERC-20 contracts for common token functions.
Base says B20 tokens remain compatible with ERC-20 while adding issuer controls such as supply limits and minting/burning permissions.
The launch comes after recent Base outages tied to sequencer infrastructure issues, including incidents on June 25 and June 26.
What B20 changes for token issuance on Base
Base’s B20 standard introduces a built-in token framework meant to standardize how fungible assets are created and governed on the network. In Base’s documentation for the “launch B20 token” process, the network describes B20 as a native mechanism that developers can use to issue tokens for use cases such as stablecoins, RWAs, and tokenized equities.
Base also outlines how B20 supports two variants:
Asset variant: allows decimals to be configured from six to 18.
Stablecoin variant: requires a fixed six-decimal format and asks issuers to specify a fiat currency denomination (for example, US dollar or euro).
Base says developers can begin creating B20 tokens once the standard is activated. The goal is not just convenience, but operational consistency: rather than each project writing its own token contract and testing it, B20 is designed to bundle common token behavior into a standardized structure.
Built-in controls designed to replace custom ERC-20 logic
Beyond simple compatibility, Base says B20 tokens are designed with issuer controls that typically require custom contract logic in many token deployments. According to Base, B20 tokens are compatible with standard ERC-20 tokens, but they include additional mechanisms that issuers can configure and manage.
Base lists features under its issuer controls framework, including:
Supply limits
Transfer rules
Minting and burning
Pausing
Transaction notes
For builders, the practical implication is that B20 could streamline token deployments for use cases where permissions and operational safeguards matter—especially for stablecoin-style issuances and regulated or semi-regulated asset tokenization models. For users, standardized issuer control behavior can also make it easier to reason about how tokens are administered, though the exact implementation details will still depend on each issuer’s chosen parameters.
B20 ties back to the Beryl upgrade
B20 was introduced as part of Base’s Beryl upgrade, which Base says went live on June 26. Base’s documentation attributes B20’s introduction to this upgrade cycle and frames it as part of broader network changes.
In addition to enabling B20 functionality, the Beryl upgrade also reportedly shortened withdrawal waiting periods from seven days to five days. Base also pointed to technical changes intended to improve network performance as part of the same upgrade.
That context matters because B20 is not an isolated feature drop—it arrives alongside changes designed to affect both user experience (withdrawals) and developer/building conditions (network behavior and token standard availability). In other words, the B20 launch is tied to a larger upgrade narrative rather than a standalone deployment.
Launch sequence after Base sequencer incidents
The timing of B20’s mainnet activation follows a period of operational disruption for Base, including outages linked to sequencer infrastructure.
On June 25, Base reported an outage caused by a consensus issue. At the time, the network said an invalid block had been sequenced, which prevented new blocks from being created. Base resumed block production on the same day after a nearly two-hour halt, as previously covered by Cointelegraph (Coinbase’s blockchain Base back online after 2-hour outage).
In a post-mortem, Base attributed back-to-back outages on June 25 and June 26 to a sequencer bug that triggered the first outage and then a second interruption following a reset-related race condition. The first incident reportedly lasted about 116 minutes, while the second lasted about 20 minutes after sequencers were unable to catch up following the reset.
Cointelegraph also reported on the post-mortem findings (Base post-mortem reveals sequencer bug behind back-to-back outages).
These incidents also intersected with upgrade timing. Base said the first outage occurred hours before the scheduled Beryl upgrade. The Beryl upgrade was later delayed by one day due to a B20 activation registry timing issue, showing that B20-related coordination was already present during this rollout window.
For participants monitoring Base’s ecosystem, the key question is how token-standard activation and network reliability interplay during upgrade periods. The B20 launch signals a push to expand functionality, but recent outages highlight that the underlying sequencer infrastructure—and the operational processes around upgrades—remains a critical factor for stability.
With B20 now set to activate at 6 pm UTC, developers and token issuers will be watching to see how quickly real stablecoin and RWA-related products adopt the standard, and whether Base’s recent sequencer incidents remain isolated as more activity moves onto the new framework.
This article was originally published as Base Plans to Activate B20 Standard for Stablecoins and RWAs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bursa kripto Australia Swyftx mengatakan telah menerima Izin Layanan Keuangan Australia (AFSL), yang memberinya izin regulasi untuk menawarkan produk kripto terkait tertentu kepada pelanggan ritel serta menyediakan layanan pembayaran non-tunai bagi bisnis dan individu. Langkah ini juga terkait dengan pernyataan Swyftx tentang pergeseran dari model “hanya spot”, dengan manajemen menunjuk pada perubahan yang akan datang dalam aturan biaya tambahan pembayaran kartu di Australia.
Menurut Swyftx, lisensi tersebut memungkinkannya mendukung penawaran derivatif—seperti opsi kripto dan futures—untuk pengguna ritel, bersama dengan otorisasi untuk fasilitas pembayaran non-tunai. Namun, AFSL ini tidak mencakup perdagangan kripto spot.

StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson has reignited a long-running Bitcoin debate by arguing that the network’s fixed 21 million coin cap “doesn’t make sense” and should be replaced with a steady 4% annual issuance model. His position challenges a foundational pillar of Bitcoin’s monetary narrative: that a hard supply limit protects the asset from monetary debasement and preserves purchasing power over time.
In a post on X Tuesday, Ben-Sasson said the cap becomes less meaningful as time passes because private keys are lost, eventually leaving holders unable to access their coins. He linked that concern to the idea that, as the timeline approaches infinity, the usable supply trends toward zero—an argument that directly contrasts with the traditional “digital gold” framing of Bitcoin’s capped issuance. Source: Eli Ben-Sasson on X
Key takeaways
Ben-Sasson argues Bitcoin’s 21 million cap is undermined over long time horizons by lost private keys.
He suggested replacing the fixed cap with an issuance rate of about 4% per year, while still maintaining a form of long-term scarcity.
Ledger has previously estimated that millions of Bitcoin may already be permanently lost, feeding into the “lost keys” argument.
Critics on X say Bitcoin’s divisibility and fixed supply mechanics still address “not enough to go around,” and that changing the cap would make Bitcoin more like other cryptocurrencies.
A potential workaround discussed in the Zcash ecosystem—burning with periodic reissuance—highlights how miner economics could be addressed without removing a hard cap, but it would still require broad Bitcoin consensus.
Why Ben-Sasson thinks the cap will fail over time
Ben-Sasson’s core claim is not simply that Bitcoin supply will be inadequate, but that the economic effect of a cap is eroded if a growing share of coins become inaccessible. He pointed to the long-run reality that private keys can be lost, making coins effectively unrecoverable.
To anchor that idea in publicly available estimates, the proposal also echoes figures cited by Ledger. In November, Ledger estimated that up to 4 million Bitcoin have been burned or permanently lost. Ledger estimate (via Ledger Academy)
Ben-Sasson said he still supports a hard upper bound on supply. But rather than relying on a one-time fixed limit, he argued that a consistent 4% annual issuance rate better matches real-world population growth—an analogy meant to address whether Bitcoin’s supply schedule remains economically aligned as adoption expands.
Bitcoin maximalists push back: scarcity, divisibility, and “lost keys”
Ben-Sasson’s proposal met quick and pointed criticism from the Bitcoin community on X. One user challenged the premise that Bitcoin would run out “to go around,” citing Bitcoin’s divisibility into 2.1 quadrillion satoshis (the smallest base unit). Source: X user response
Ben-Sasson replied that satoshis are not a permanent solution if private keys continue to be lost. In his view, even though Bitcoin is divisible, the accessible balance still trends toward zero over time as keys go missing. Source: Ben-Sasson follow-up on X
Other opponents framed the debate around identity: lifting the fixed cap, they argued, would move Bitcoin toward the behavior of other cryptocurrencies that issue supply through inflation. Ben-Sasson countered that Bitcoin would retain scarcity as long as the inflation rate stayed fixed. Source: X user response
The clash reflects a deeper asymmetry in how people interpret Bitcoin’s supply mechanics. For many Bitcoiners, lost keys can be viewed as a feature rather than a flaw: if coins are permanently inaccessible, they effectively reduce circulating supply and reinforce supply-demand dynamics. A prominent example is Michael Saylor, who has said he plans to burn his Bitcoin private keys after his death as a “pro-rata contribution” to other holders—an act intended to make other coins scarcer by reducing the amount of reachable supply.
Looking for a middle path: Zcash’s approach to cap sustainability
As the debate intensified, Zcash founder Bryce “Zooko” Wilcox suggested Bitcoin developers look at a proposal being discussed in the Zcash ecosystem. Zcash also has a fixed supply cap set at 21 million ZEC, and Wilcox argued that Bitcoin could study how Zcash addresses miner incentives without removing its hard limit. Source: Zooko on X
The proposal Wilcox referenced is the “Network Sustainability Mechanism.” Its design aims to keep ZEC’s 21 million cap intact by allowing users to burn tokens, which are then reissued gradually as block rewards over a four-year period. The intent is to relieve pressure on miner incentives without changing the hard supply cap.
While the concept is attractive in theory—seeking to balance network security incentives with a capped supply—Bitcoin would face a different practical environment. Implementing a protocol-level mechanism would require agreement across Bitcoin’s decentralized ecosystem, including developers, miners, and node operators. That coordination challenge is a major reason Bitcoin’s core monetary rules have historically been difficult to change even when a proposal is technically feasible.
What this debate means for Bitcoin’s future trajectory
Ben-Sasson’s argument is likely to keep circulating precisely because it targets a common point of tension: the difference between theoretical supply and economically usable supply over very long time horizons. The discussion also highlights that “hard cap” supporters and critics may not be speaking about the same problem. One side focuses on monetary predictability and the protection against debasement; the other side emphasizes that lost keys reduce the practical share of supply and may eventually distort the cap’s economic assumptions.
For investors and builders, the more immediate takeaway may not be whether a cap change happens, but what kinds of proposals gain traction around the margins of Bitcoin’s monetary design. A cap-preserving mechanism inspired by other networks would still require broad consent, yet it signals a potential direction for future debate: adjusting incentives and usability while trying to preserve the properties Bitcoin is known for.
As this topic continues to trend, watch for whether any proposal gains concrete supporters beyond social commentary—especially ideas that address miner and security incentives without directly abandoning the cap narrative that underpins Bitcoin’s cultural and market identity.
This article was originally published as StarkWare CEO: Replace 21M Bitcoin cap with 4% annual inflation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has filed a federal lawsuit against Trevor Vernon, a North Carolina man, and his company, Argent Capital Management, alleging they operated a crypto-involved commodity pool that defrauded investors of more than $14 million.
In its complaint filed Tuesday, the CFTC alleges Vernon solicited $14.8 million from at least 60 investors between March 2022 and February 2026 by presenting himself as a successful trader, while investors’ funds were allegedly used to generate “consistent and catastrophic losses.” The CFTC described the alleged misconduct as “akin to a Ponzi scheme,” and said it included trading in Bitcoin and Ether alongside equity index futures and related options.
Key takeaways
The CFTC lawsuit alleges an investor-raising scheme tied to a commodity pool featuring both crypto and equity index derivatives.
The agency claims investors were solicited with false performance messaging while losses were allegedly hidden, including through alleged misappropriation of funds.
The complaint asserts Vernon violated federal commodities laws by failing to register the pool as required.
The CFTC is seeking permanent restrictions on Vernon, along with potential disgorgement, penalties, and restitution.
A rare CFTC action in crypto underscores regulator focus
Crypto enforcement by the CFTC is comparatively infrequent, and the agency has faced ongoing scrutiny from some lawmakers about whether it has adequate resources to oversee a sector that has grown quickly and operates across multiple regulatory frameworks. This case stands out because it blends traditional commodities derivatives—such as equity index futures and options—together with cryptocurrency trading.
According to the CFTC’s lawsuit, the pool used a mix of instruments that the agency alleges were central to both returns claims and investor solicitation. The regulator’s emphasis on the commodity-pool structure is important: it signals that, where crypto is combined with derivatives and investor pooling, the CFTC may pursue conduct that fits within its commodities jurisdiction.
The allegations: hidden losses and misappropriated funds
Central to the CFTC’s claims is what it describes as Vernon’s pattern of misleading investors and obscuring the pool’s performance. The complaint alleges Vernon made false statements to both existing and prospective investors, including through quarterly account updates and monthly performance emails.
The CFTC alleges that trading across the pool—including crypto holdings such as Bitcoin and Ether, which the agency asserted were commodities—along with equity index futures and options resulted in losses exceeding $8.6 million. The regulator says Vernon did not disclose these losses to investors.
In addition, the CFTC claims Vernon misappropriated investor funds in a way it characterizes as similar to a Ponzi scheme—using money from investors, according to the agency, to pay earlier participants in order to conceal the underlying losses. The complaint states that at least $3 million was misappropriated for investor payments in that alleged manner.
The lawsuit also alleges personal misuse of funds: it claims Vernon misappropriated $136,000 for private air travel. The CFTC’s framing suggests it views the alleged conduct as not only misrepresentation but also improper diversion of pooled investor capital.
Registration failures and purported regulator misstatements
Beyond fraud-related allegations, the CFTC says Argent Capital Management failed to register with the agency as required under federal commodities law. Registration obligations are frequently a focal point in CFTC enforcement because they determine whether an operator is meeting baseline regulatory requirements for offering and running commodity-related investment products.
The complaint further alleges Vernon made false statements to the CFTC in January concerning issues the agency later raised in its lawsuit. The CFTC says Vernon’s conduct violated multiple legal requirements, not just investor communications and trading results.
Overall, the CFTC charged Vernon with seven counts relating to fraud, failure to register, and making false statements. Those counts reflect a broader enforcement approach that targets both how investors were recruited and how the pool was managed, including compliance steps that the regulator says were not followed.
What the CFTC is asking the court to do
In addition to seeking monetary remedies, the CFTC asked the court for injunctive relief aimed at preventing future misconduct. The regulator is requesting a permanent ban on Vernon from registration and trading, as well as disgorgement, penalties, and restitution.
These requests matter for investors and market participants because they signal the CFTC’s view that the alleged conduct warrants more than an order limited to the specific pool. A permanent prohibition and restitution-focused relief are typically designed to reduce the risk of repeat behavior and to address, to the extent possible, the financial harm described in the complaint.
More broadly, the case may also influence how firms and individuals structure “commodity pool” offerings that involve crypto trading or claim crypto-related performance. If the allegations reflect actual conduct proven in court, it would highlight how the CFTC may treat certain crypto activities as part of a broader commodities-and-derivatives framework—especially when an operator solicits outside capital and markets results while allegedly failing to disclose losses.
What to watch next
Readers should watch how the court responds to the CFTC’s requested remedies and whether the case proceeds on the specific theories of jurisdiction and alleged misappropriation outlined in the complaint. Until factual issues are resolved, the key uncertainty remains the extent to which Vernon and Argent Capital Management can rebut the CFTC’s claims regarding hidden losses, alleged investor misrepresentations, and compliance failures.
CFTC press release
This article was originally published as CFTC Charges Crypto Pool Operator Over Alleged $14M Fraud on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Secret Network, a privacy-focused layer-1 blockchain known for running encrypted smart contracts, has proposed relocating from its long-time Cosmos environment to Ethereum’s Arbitrum layer-2. The move, announced Tuesday by the project team, is framed as a response to what it calls increasing security and liquidity risks on the current stack—risks the team says have been intensified by rapid progress in AI-assisted code analysis.
The proposal is expected to require a governance vote. If approved, Secret Network plans a one-time snapshot of SCRT balances on Sept. 1 to enable the issuance of a new ERC-20 SCRT token contract on Arbitrum.
Key takeaways
Secret Network says “old code” on Cosmos is becoming harder to keep safe, arguing AI is reducing the cost of finding and exploiting vulnerabilities.
Arbitrum is positioned as the destination due to deeper liquidity and stronger developer and infrastructure support.
A June bridge exploit that resulted in $4.7 million lost in bridged assets did not affect Secret’s native SCRT token, but the team cites it as evidence of growing cross-chain risk.
Secret’s Cosmos TVL is reported at about $1.3 million, while Arbitrum’s total value secured is cited at $17.4 billion (L2Beat).
SCRT holders reacted negatively to the announcement, with CoinGecko data showing a 24% drop over 24 hours to $0.041.
Why Secret Network wants out of Cosmos
In a forum post, the Secret team said the “environment has changed” since the project launched privacy-preserving smart contracts on Cosmos in 2020. The team’s central rationale is security: it argues that vulnerabilities in older, “stale” code are becoming easier and cheaper to analyze, and that AI tools lower the barrier for attackers.
“The security risk is the part we take most seriously,” the team wrote, adding that with AI, the cost of attacking outdated code is falling “across the board.”
The team tied this concern to recent incidents, pointing to an Axelar-Secret IBC bridge exploit that it says spotlighted the danger of aging or under-maintained code. According to the forum post, the release of increasingly capable AI models—such as Anthropic’s “Claude Mythos 5,” referenced in earlier reporting by Cointelegraph—raises the likelihood that attackers can more quickly discover weaknesses and turn edge cases into working exploits.
“Attacks that used to take deep manual effort are getting cheaper as models get better at reading contracts, tracing assumptions, and turning a forgotten edge case into a working exploit.”
Cross-chain stress: the $4.7M bridge incident and what it implies
Secret Network’s proposal follows a bridge exploit reported earlier this year. In June, an exploit involving Secret’s bridge resulted in the loss of $4.7 million in bridged assets, though the team said it did not impact the native SCRT token.
While the exploit did not directly compromise SCRT itself, the team’s broader message is that cross-chain plumbing—often built on components that may not receive rapid upgrades—can become an outsized risk as the threat landscape changes. The proposal effectively treats that bridge incident as part of a pattern: if the cost to find and exploit weaknesses continues to fall, the practical burden of keeping all components secure becomes harder over time.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described the “infinite mint” bug behind the $4.7 million loss, emphasizing how bridge logic can be fragile when assumptions fail. Secret’s latest move suggests the project believes switching to a different execution and ecosystem environment could help reduce some of those risks.
Arbitrum as a liquidity and tooling upgrade
Beyond security, Secret also argued that Cosmos has weakened as a growth hub. In its Arbitrum pitch, the team described Arbitrum as offering “deep liquidity, tooling, wallet and exchange support, and thousands of builders composing with one another.” It also stated that “liquidity has thinned” on Cosmos while developers have “drifted to other ecosystems.”
The team warned that Cosmos tooling stability is “shakier than it used to be,” and said several projects that previously anchored the Cosmos ecosystem have migrated elsewhere.
In practical terms, this shift matters for Secret Network because privacy-focused applications often rely on consistent liquidity, reliable developer tooling, and accessible integrations. A thinner ecosystem can translate into weaker DeFi participation, fewer composability pathways, and more friction for users—especially when projects depend on bridging, exchanges, wallets, and dApp integrations to reach liquidity.
What the numbers say—and how the market reacted
Secret’s proposal arrives amid a wider migration trend from Cosmos to Ethereum-based execution environments. The forum post cited declining Cosmos DeFi depth alongside rising Ethereum layer-2 scale.
According to the figures referenced in the announcement, the total value locked across the Cosmos ecosystem is around $2 billion, down 88% from its peak during the 2021 bull market. By comparison, Arbitrum is cited as the leading layer-2 by total value secured at $17.4 billion, based on L2Beat data. DefiLlama figures also placed Secret’s Cosmos TVL at about $1.3 million.
Market reaction has been sharply negative for SCRT. CoinGecko data referenced in the update shows the token down roughly 24% over the past 24 hours to around $0.041, representing a drop of more than 99% from its 2021 peak.
The broader context is that Secret is not alone in leaving Cosmos. In February, NilChain—a privacy-focused chain built with the Cosmos SDK—announced its move to Ethereum. Sei Network completed a full transition away from Cosmos in June by closing its native Cosmos transaction layer and operating on Ethereum. Noble, a stablecoin blockchain, was also reported earlier as having announced its migration from Cosmos to Ethereum in January.
For observers, this matters because it suggests a structural reallocation of development effort and liquidity toward EVM and large layer-2 environments—even when projects originally benefited from Cosmos’s modular design.
How the migration would work if governance approves
Secret Network’s plan includes a governance step and a technical token migration path. The team said it will conduct a one-time snapshot of SCRT balances on Sept. 1. The snapshot will then be used to issue a new ERC-20 SCRT contract on Arbitrum.
This design choice is notable because it signals the project intends to maintain a continuity mechanism for existing holders rather than treating the transition as a completely separate token. Still, the details of the migration—such as timing relative to the governance vote, how bridging or redemption would be handled during the transition window, and how ecosystem integrations will migrate—remain contingent on the governance outcome.
With that in mind, the next items to watch are the governance vote itself and any follow-on proposals that spell out the operational timeline, liquidity migration plans, and security controls for the Arbitrum deployment. The team’s argument centers on AI-driven risk and aging code assumptions—readers will want to see how the new architecture and maintenance practices address those concerns in practice.
This article was originally published as Secret Network Warns of AI Exploit Risks in Proposed Arbitrum Plan on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Suku bunga, layanan keuangan Bitcoin yang dipimpin oleh Jack Mallers, telah memperkenalkan pinjaman berbasis Bitcoin baru yang “tahan volatilitas” untuk mengurangi risiko margin call dan likuidasi paksa selama penurunan pasar yang tajam. Konsekuensinya adalah biaya dan disiplin penjadwalan: program ini memiliki tingkat bunga yang lebih tinggi, tenor pinjaman yang lebih singkat, serta ekspektasi bahwa peminjam melakukan pembayaran tepat waktu.
Dalam pengumuman pada Selasa, Mallers mengatakan produk tersebut dibangun sebagai respons terhadap masukan pelanggan atas penawaran pinjaman Bitcoin Strike sebelumnya yang diluncurkan pada Mei 2025—peluncuran awal yang bertepatan dengan penurunan tajam. Pada periode itu, Bitcoin turun 54% dari puncak ke titik terendah, dan banyak peminjam mengalami likuidasi.

Konvensi Bitcoin terus dieksplorasi melalui perubahan bertahap yang dapat dideploy ke protokol—bukan melalui fungsi baru yang menyapu. Dalam seri teknis Cointelegraph Research, fokus beralih ke SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT, sebuah peningkatan soft-fork yang diusulkan dan mengubah cara tanda tangan Bitcoin mengikat transaksi yang mereka otorisasi.
Seperti yang dijelaskan dalam BIP 118, SIGHASH_ANYPREVOUT tidak akan memperkenalkan opcode baru. Sebagai gantinya, ia mengusulkan nilai baru untuk flag SIGHASH agar tanda tangan dapat menghilangkan komitmen terhadap outpoint persis yang sedang dibelanjakan. Gagasan utamanya: pertahankan bagian-bagian penting dari output sebelumnya agar tetap dikomitkan, sambil melonggarkan satu pengikatan yang biasanya mencegah penggunaan ulang tanda tangan yang aman di seluruh UTXO yang kompatibel.

Operator bursa kripto yang berfokus pada institusi, EDX Markets, telah menghimpun $76 juta dalam putaran pendanaan Seri C yang dipimpin oleh SBI Holdings asal Jepang, demikian diumumkan perusahaan pada Senin. Penggalangan dana ini menegaskan permintaan institusional yang berkelanjutan terhadap infrastruktur pasar teregulasi, meskipun aktivitas ventura yang lebih luas di aset digital masih lebih lesu dibandingkan masa kejayaan pada 2021.
EDX mengatakan pihaknya berencana menggunakan hasil pendanaan untuk memperluas penawaran perdagangan spot, kliring, dan penyelesaian, meluncurkan produk baru, serta meningkatkan kehadiran internasionalnya. Bursa ini menjalankan venue spot institusional berbasis AS dan platform futures perpetual berbasis Singapura yang dirancang untuk klien institusional non-AS yang memenuhi syarat.

New Hampshire bergerak lebih dekat untuk menerbitkan apa yang akan menjadi salah satu produk obligasi munisipal yang dijalankan negara bagian pertama di AS, yang didukung oleh Bitcoin. Otoritas Pembiayaan Bisnis (BFA) negara bagian tersebut telah menjadwalkan sidang publik untuk hari Rabu untuk membahas penawaran yang diusulkan senilai $100 juta, menyusul persetujuan sebelumnya yang membuka jalan agar rencana itu dapat diajukan kepada Gubernur dan dewan eksekutif.
Menurut pembaruan agenda Kantor Sekretaris Negara bagian New Hampshire, BFA sebelumnya telah menyetujui skema obligasi berbasis BTC pada November 2025, dengan penerbitan terkait otorisasi dari Gubernur Kelly Ayotte dan dewan eksekutif negara bagian yang beranggotakan lima orang. Jika disetujui, struktur tersebut akan menjadi upaya untuk mengintegrasikan kelas aset yang sangat volatil ke dalam jalur pembiayaan publik tradisional tanpa menempatkan dana negara atau wajib pajak secara langsung dalam risiko—setidaknya menurut cara rencana itu dipaparkan oleh para pendukungnya.

Ether telah memantul dengan tajam, naik sekitar 15% dalam lima hari terakhir dan menjauh dari area $1.500 yang menjadi titik terendah pada 26 Juni. Pemulihan ini mencerminkan perpaduan antara meningkatnya kembali kepercayaan pada peta jalan Ethereum dan akumulasi ETH yang berkelanjutan oleh BitMine Immersion Technologies.
Di luar harga, narasi Ethereum juga bergeser ke arah kasus penggunaan yang lebih praktis: peningkatan Glamsterdam masih terus berjalan melalui tahap pengujian menuju akhir 2026, sementara peluncuran Robinhood Chain pada 2 Juli telah menarik perhatian tambahan pada keuangan teregulasi yang tokenisasinya dibangun di atas ekosistem Ethereum.

Komisi Sekuritas dan Bursa AS (SEC) telah mengajukan perubahan aturan yang diusulkan untuk memperketat cara aset kripto ditangani berdasarkan aturan sekuritas dan struktur pasar yang sudah ada, dengan Ketua SEC Paul Atkins mengatakan bahwa upaya tersebut dimaksudkan untuk mengurangi ketidakpastian bagi industri.
Dalam pemberitahuan hari Selasa yang mengumumkan agenda peraturan 2026 lembaga tersebut, Atkins menggambarkan usulan-usulan itu sebagai selaras dengan prioritas kebijakan kripto yang dinyatakan oleh pemerintahan Trump—terutama terkait sekuritas tokenisasi dan penggalangan dana melalui aset digital.

Vanguard telah memposting peran baru yang secara spesifik ditujukan pada strategi aset digital, dengan menunjuk seorang “kepala aset digital” untuk membentuk cara manajer aset tersebut mendekati tokenisasi, stablecoin, infrastruktur blockchain, dan produk kripto yang berorientasi pada klien. Sinyal rekrutmen menunjukkan adanya pergeseran dari sikap Vanguard yang selama ini cenderung sangat berhati-hati terhadap penawaran investasi kripto secara langsung.
Dalam deskripsi pekerjaan, Vanguard menyatakan bahwa orang dalam peran tersebut akan bertanggung jawab untuk menentukan bagaimana perusahaan berpartisipasi dalam aset digital—mencakup segalanya mulai dari evaluasi produk dan inisiatif tokenisasi hingga model kustodi, pertimbangan penyelesaian di blockchain, serta “infrastruktur operasional aset digital” yang diperlukan untuk mendukung upaya tersebut. Peran ini juga diharapkan untuk mewakili Vanguard dalam diskusi dengan regulator, klien, dan kelompok industri.

Perusahaan induk Kraken, Payward, mengatakan telah memperoleh putusan arbitrase sebesar $22 juta terhadap mantan auditornya, Mazars USA, dan telah mengajukan agar putusan tersebut dimasukkan sebagai putusan pengadilan di Court of Chancery Delaware. Pembaruan ini datang melalui surat yang diterbitkan pada Selasa oleh co-CEO Payward Arjun Sethi.
Berkas Payward menggambarkan sengketa tersebut sebagai kompensasi atas kerugian finansial yang terkait dengan apa yang Sethi sebut sebagai kampanye tekanan yang ditujukan pada perusahaan kripto yang sah—isu yang terus menjadi pusat perdebatan yang lebih luas mengenai akses perbankan bagi industri aset digital.

Stablecoin competition is increasingly giving way to specialization. Data from Dune’s Digital Asset Brief suggests Tether’s USDt (USDT) and Circle’s USDC are fulfilling different jobs across the crypto economy—less “winner-takes-all,” more complementary roles feeding payments on one side and DeFi and trading infrastructure on the other.
In the first half of 2026, Dune estimates the biggest stablecoin by activity settled about $95 billion in identified commerce payments. The same dataset points to roughly $14 billion for USDC in those commerce payments and puts USDT at about 92% of the $48 billion business-to-business (B2B) payment volume. On Tron, Dune also reports that approximately 93% of USDT’s supply sits in ordinary wallets rather than exchanges, reinforcing its use as a payment and remittance asset.
Key takeaways
USDT is leading on real-world-style payments: Dune data shows about $95B in identified commerce payments in H1 2026 versus about $14B for USDC.
USDC is more central to on-chain finance: USDC transfer volume on Base reached roughly $2.6T in June, with about $1.6T on Ethereum.
Token distribution hints at use cases: On Tron, Dune estimates ~93% of USDT supply is held in non-exchange wallets, consistent with payments rather than trading.
Regulatory momentum may change how stablecoins scale: The US GENIUS Act created a federal framework for payment stablecoins, while the CLARITY Act could reshape broader market structure affecting issuers and platforms.
USDT’s payment dominance and what the wallet data implies
Dune’s analysis is particularly telling because it doesn’t just measure token transfers—it focuses on “identified commerce payments.” That framing matters: it aims to map stablecoin flows that resemble merchant and transactional activity rather than purely speculative movement.
According to Dune’s Digital Asset Brief, USDT’s share in B2B commerce is especially large. With roughly 92% of the approximately $48 billion B2B payment volume going to the leading stablecoin, USDT appears positioned as the default settlement rail for corporate and cross-party transfers—at least in the portion of commerce activity Dune can identify.
On Tron, Dune’s “where the supply lives” view adds another layer. With about 93% of USDT supply held in ordinary wallets rather than exchange custody, the stablecoin’s on-chain footprint looks less like an instrument primarily circulating between trading venues and more like an asset staying in the hands of payers, merchants, and intermediaries that use it to settle obligations.
USDC’s DeFi and transfer velocity on Base and Ethereum
While USDT’s dataset emphasizes payments, USDC’s role looks more tied to crypto market plumbing—especially decentralized finance and exchange-like activity. Dune reports that USDC on Base processed roughly $2.6 trillion in transfer volume in June, the highest transfer volume of any token-chain pair. On Ethereum, USDC handled another approximately $1.6 trillion.
Velocity also points to broader usage intensity. Dune notes that USDC on Base recorded daily velocity of about 20 times its circulating supply in June. In practical terms, velocity rising far above one suggests frequent movement of the same supply across trading, lending, or routing activities—patterns often associated with on-chain markets rather than simple payment holding.
Put together, these metrics shift the conversation. Instead of asking which stablecoin “wins,” the more useful question may be where each stablecoin fits in the on-chain stack: USDT appearing to concentrate around payments and remittances, while USDC is more deeply embedded in transfer-heavy trading and DeFi ecosystems.
Why the USDT-versus-USDC narrative is losing clarity
Dune’s findings effectively argue that the traditional framing—USDT competing directly with USDC as the default stablecoin—does not capture how stablecoins actually behave across chains and use cases.
One way to see this is through concentration patterns. Dune reports USDT’s supply is split almost evenly between Tron and Ethereum, whereas USDC remains heavily concentrated on Ethereum despite expanding to newer blockchains. That distribution aligns with the performance profile the dataset shows: USDC’s most prominent volume and velocity signals appear tied to Ethereum and Base activity, while USDT’s stronger commerce-payments footprint aligns with Tron’s large role in everyday transfers.
Meanwhile, the stablecoin market remains dominated by both issuers’ assets. Dune tracked more than 200 stablecoin tokens across multiple blockchains and estimates USDT and USDC together account for roughly 83% of the sector’s approximately $315 billion market capitalization. In other words, even if the “competition” is shifting toward specialization, the center of gravity is still concentrated in these two tokens.
US policy moves: GENIUS passed, CLARITY could broaden the ruleset
These data-driven role distinctions are emerging alongside renewed US regulatory momentum. Earlier this year, the US stablecoin sector gained traction following the passage of the GENIUS Act. Signed into law in 2025, GENIUS created the first federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, with the stated goal of enabling banks and other companies to issue US dollar-pegged digital assets. (For background, Cointelegraph previously covered the legislation here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/treasury-genius-act-rule-illicit-finance.)
Lawmakers are now debating the CLARITY Act, which would establish a broader market structure for digital assets by clarifying when crypto assets fall under either the US Securities and Exchange Commission or the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission. While the bill does not target stablecoins directly, it could still influence the operating environment for stablecoin issuers, exchanges, and DeFi platforms through how regulators classify and supervise related activity.
CLARITY cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May and may be brought to a full Senate vote before the August recess, although the odds have been changing as lawmakers face time constraints. Cointelegraph reported that Galaxy trimmed its odds of passage to 50% before the break: https://cointelegraph.com/news/galaxy-cuts-2026-clarity-act-odds-50.
Going forward, investors and builders may want to track more than headline stablecoin market share. Dune’s results suggest that chain distribution, wallet versus exchange custody, and transfer velocity are increasingly important signals of real utility. The next question is how regulation—starting with GENIUS and potentially shaped by CLARITY—will affect which stablecoin roles can scale most easily across payments, lending, and trading.
This article was originally published as Dune Data Shows USDT Dominates Payments, USDC Leads DeFi Track on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Pemimpin Partai Reformasi Inggris, Nigel Farage, telah mengumumkan bahwa ia akan mengundurkan diri sebagai Anggota Parlemen untuk Clacton dan maju dalam pemilihan sela yang bisa menentukan apakah ia tetap menjabat. Farage mengatakan keputusannya mengikuti apa yang ia sebut sebagai “cara-cara kotor” yang digunakan oleh politisi mapan, setelah pemberitaan bahwa ia menerima hadiah dan donasi yang terkait dengan tokoh-tokoh kripto serta seorang penipu yang telah divonis.
Langkahnya muncul di tengah sorotan standar parlemen terkait keadaan di balik transfer-transfer yang dilaporkan tersebut. Farage berulang kali menegaskan bahwa ia tidak melakukan apa pun yang salah dan mengatakan kontes yang akan datang seharusnya memberi para pemilih pilihan langsung atas tindakannya.

Tether telah mengambil saham senilai $20 juta di Mercado Bitcoin Brasil saat perusahaan mendorong lebih jauh ke produk keuangan berbasis token dan pembayaran yang didukung stablecoin di seluruh Amerika Latin. Investasi ini dimaksudkan untuk mendukung ekspansi perusahaan ke aset-aset berbasis token, layanan pinjam-meminjam, dan layanan berbasis blockchain lainnya di seluruh wilayah tersebut.
Mercado Bitcoin, yang awalnya diluncurkan pada 2013 sebagai tempat perdagangan kripto, kini telah berkembang menjadi penawaran keuangan yang teregulasi. Platform ini mengatakan saat ini melayani lebih dari 4,5 juta pengguna dan telah menerbitkan lebih dari 2 miliar real Brasil (sekitar $370 juta) dalam bentuk aset berbasis token, sambil beroperasi di bawah hampir sepuluh lisensi di Brasil dan Eropa, termasuk otorisasi lembaga pembayaran dari bank sentral Brasil.

Bitcoin bergerak di sekitar level terendah sekitar $63.000 pada Selasa setelah sempat menyentuh $64.660—level tertingginya dalam sekitar dua minggu—sementara indeks saham AS tergelincir pada perdagangan awal. Kelemahan ekuitas dipimpin oleh saham-saham semikonduktor, dan pergerakan yang lebih luas itu lagi-lagi menyoroti betapa eratnya trader kripto mengikuti pasar tradisional selama sesi risk-off.
Meski terjadi penurunan, koreksi BTC tetap berjalan teratur karena US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETF) terus mencatat arus masuk bersih untuk hari kedua, menurut data yang dikompilasi oleh Farside Investors. Latar belakang arus masuk tersebut membantu mencegah penurunan yang jelas benar-benar terwujud sepenuhnya, sementara para trader memperdebatkan apakah aksi harga belakangan ini hanya koreksi atau awal pergeseran yang lebih tahan lama.

Rasio “underwater” Bitcoin—bagian dari pasokan yang beredar yang ditahan pada kerugian—telah naik melewati ambang 50%, batas yang menurut K33 sering berkaitan dengan kondisi pasar bearish tahap akhir. Dalam catatan riset terbarunya yang dirilis pada Selasa sebagai bagian dari rangkuman paruh pertama 2026 (H1 2026), perusahaan pialang aset digital itu memperkirakan bahwa lebih dari separuh dari seluruh Bitcoin saat ini berada dalam kondisi underwater.
K33 juga memperingatkan bahwa siklus ini mungkin tidak sepenuhnya mencerminkan siklus-siklus sebelumnya. Karena reli bull terbaru terlihat kurang ekstrem dibanding siklus penurunan-dan-pemulihan sebelumnya, perusahaan tersebut menyarankan bahwa penurunan (drawdown) yang terjadi setelahnya bisa jadi relatif lebih ringan. Bagi investor, pertanyaan utamanya adalah apa yang terjadi setelah tekanan bergaya kepanikan (capitulation) seperti ini—apakah tekanan jual benar-benar mereda dan seberapa cepat dinamika “late bear” (fase bearish akhir) berubah menjadi peningkatan kembali selera risiko.

Bitcoin diperdagangkan dekat $64.000 dan masih turun tajam dibanding puncak siklus terbarunya di atas $126.000 yang dicapai pada Oktober 2025. Penurunan nilainya kurang dramatis dibanding siklus-siklus sebelumnya, tetapi reli yang muncul setelah momentum pascapengurangan pasokan (post-halving) 2025 dan arus masuk dana exchange-traded fund (ETF) jelas mulai mending—membuat para analis berdebat tidak hanya tentang ke mana pasar akan bergerak selanjutnya, tetapi juga tentang apa yang sebenarnya dimaksud dengan “bawah siklus” dalam pasar yang kian dibentuk oleh keuangan tradisional.
Saat kubu bearish dan bullish saling bertabrakan, benang merahnya adalah pergerakan Bitcoin saat ini lebih sulit diinterpretasikan dengan buku panduan lama. Sejumlah analis berpendapat bahwa likuiditas dan kondisi makro masih menjadi pendorong hasil, sementara yang lain mengatakan bahwa permintaan institusional yang terkait ETF telah mengubah dinamika hingga sinyal siklus standar mungkin tidak sepenuhnya mengatur ulang. Sementara itu, satu pandangan yang kian sering dikemas sebagai pertanyaan tentang alokasi modal global—apakah kripto bisa lagi menarik tambahan modal berisiko dibanding AI dan saham.