Crypto Breaking
19.1k 投稿
Crypto Breaking
厳選トピック確認済＋報告
ユーザーをブロック
Get real-time cryptocurrency news, blockchain updates, market analysis, and expert insights. Explore the latest trends in Bitcoin, Ethereum, DeFi, and Web3.
5 フォロー
32.8K+ フォロワー
31.5K+ いいね
投稿
すべて
引用
記事
翻訳参照
Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to EnactmentUS Senate Majority Leader John Thune has moved the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act toward a potential September floor vote by filing for cloture just before the chamber left for a month-long recess, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting. The bill is widely seen as a key attempt to formalize crypto market rules, but advocates say the path to enactment remains narrow as senators return with limited calendar time before multiple breaks tied to the November election.
The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.
A rushed legislative runway after a long wait
Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”
Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.
Uncertainty grows around the November election
Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.
For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.
Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely
As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.
The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.
In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.
Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.
What still needs to be solved in the bill
While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.
For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.
As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.
This article was originally published as Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to Enactment on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to Enactment
US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has moved the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act toward a potential September floor vote by filing for cloture just before the chamber left for a month-long recess, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier reporting. The bill is widely seen as a key attempt to formalize crypto market rules, but advocates say the path to enactment remains narrow as senators return with limited calendar time before multiple breaks tied to the November election.
The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.
A rushed legislative runway after a long wait
Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”
Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.
Uncertainty grows around the November election
Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.
For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.
Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely
As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.
The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.
In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.
Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.
What still needs to be solved in the bill
While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.
For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.
As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.
This article was originally published as Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to Enactment on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The Senate is scheduled to come back from recess on Sept. 14. Even if lawmakers manage to schedule a cloture vote in September, they would have only about two weeks in session before another pre-election recess—and then a further stretch of time ending near the end of the year. In that compressed window, lawmakers would still need to resolve several disputed provisions rather than simply advancing the bill as-is.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed for cloture to advance the CLARITY Act after the Senate broke for a month-long recess, setting up a possible September procedural vote.
The Senate’s return on Sept. 14 leaves a short session window—about 14 days—before additional election-related recesses.
Major sticking points reportedly include ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships and added restrictions around stablecoin rewards offered by crypto firms.
If CLARITY stalls, regulators such as the SEC and CFTC have signaled they may proceed with rulemaking rather than waiting for Congress.
A rushed legislative runway after a long wait
Congress took more than a year to reach this point. Cointelegraph notes that the Senate had 13 months to consider the CLARITY Act after it was passed by the House last year. During that period, lawmakers faced political and procedural disruptions, including more than one government shutdown, while industry groups pushed for clearer market rules and some Democratic lawmakers raised concerns that earlier versions could enable what they described as “crypto corruption.”
Thune’s cloture filing is intended to keep momentum going, but it doesn’t eliminate the practical challenge: even under the best-case timeline, senators would still need to settle outstanding issues quickly. According to Cointelegraph, those issues include ethics-related provisions affecting the US president’s ties to digital assets and additional restrictions on crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
That matters because procedural progress does not guarantee final passage. Should the Senate attempt a September cloture vote, the bill would still face the reality of remaining only a matter of days to address unresolved language before the chamber breaks again for the pre-election period.
Uncertainty grows around the November election
Even if the Senate clears procedural hurdles in September, election politics could complicate negotiations afterward. Cointelegraph’s reporting highlights that after November—when 33 Senate seats and all 435 House seats would be up for election—members of Congress could shift priorities or face turnover, potentially pushing resolution into the next legislative cycle.
For crypto market participants, that uncertainty is not just about timelines. Regulatory certainty can affect everything from compliance planning to product rollouts and institutional participation. When legislation is left in limbo, firms often continue to operate under existing frameworks—or in some cases under enforcement risk—until Congress or regulators provide clearer boundaries.
Regulators signal they won’t wait indefinitely
As the CLARITY Act remains in limbo for at least another month, attention is turning to regulators that can act without waiting for Congress to pass the bill. Cointelegraph notes that financial agencies such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have been publicly signaling their readiness to move.
The legislation is expected to expand the CFTC’s authority to oversee and enforce rules affecting digital assets. But with the bill still under consideration, both agencies have suggested they can proceed with their own regulatory approaches if Congress does not act.
In a July interview reported by CNBC, SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the agency was “ready, willing, and able to come out with rules” to address crypto if Congress fails to pass CLARITY. Earlier, in April, CFTC Chair Michael Selig told Cointelegraph that the commission was “ready to take responsibility” for overseeing crypto markets, referencing lawmakers passing the market structure bill.
Cointelegraph also points to coordination efforts between the agencies. The SEC and CFTC have reportedly taken steps to align oversight across financial markets, a sign that regulators are attempting to reduce duplication and inconsistent enforcement even when the legislative endgame remains uncertain.
What still needs to be solved in the bill
While supporters view CLARITY as a path to clearer rules for market structure, the bill’s most contentious elements appear to remain unresolved. Cointelegraph highlights two areas of debate: ethics language tied to President Donald Trump’s digital asset relationships, and additional restrictions for crypto companies offering stablecoin rewards.
These issues are consequential in different ways. Ethics provisions can determine how lawmakers structure guardrails around public officials’ exposure to digital asset activities, while stablecoin-reward restrictions could affect product design and customer incentives for certain crypto platforms. Both types of provisions can influence whether companies believe a bill would improve predictability—or instead impose new constraints.
For investors and builders, the practical takeaway is that even a “September vote” scenario may not be sufficient by itself. What will matter is whether senators can agree on the remaining language quickly enough to complete the legislative path before recesses and election-related disruptions narrow the window further.
As Sept. 14 approaches, market watchers should focus less on the idea of a vote being scheduled and more on whether negotiators can close the gaps on the ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions—because if CLARITY slips, the SEC and CFTC have already signaled that rulemaking may not wait for congressional resolution.
This article was originally published as Senate Delay Leaves Crypto Bill a Tight Path to Enactment on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
30
記事
翻訳参照
Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssetsItaú, Latin America’s largest private-sector bank, is joining an industry pilot focused on tokenizing Brazil’s fixed-income securities and investment funds, partnering with OpenAssets to test how these assets could work on a distributed ledger technology (DLT) network.
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA) and is designed to evaluate not only the technical feasibility of issuance and trading, but also the practical requirements that institutions face around operations, compliance, and overall system design.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets will develop technical proofs of concept for tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot is organized by ANBIMA and examines issuance, trading, and settlement using DLT in a controlled, simulated setting.
Debentures and investment funds are among the primary tokenization use cases being explored.
ANBIMA’s pilot originally began testing after selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 organizations.
ANBIMA-led pilot expands tokenization testing beyond concept
Tuesday’s announcement places Itaú and OpenAssets inside ANBIMA’s broader effort to test capital markets activities—specifically issuance, trading, and settlement—using distributed ledger technology.
ANBIMA frames the work as an industry-led evaluation rather than a live rollout, with participating groups producing proofs of concept and mapping out how tokenized capital market instruments could fit into existing institutional processes.
That structure matters for markets because the barriers to tokenized assets are often as much operational and regulatory as they are technological. In a bank-led pilot, issues like controls, reconciliation, and compliance workflows can be as consequential as the smart contract design itself.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to test
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will provide the tokenization infrastructure used for the pilot’s technical work. Itaú, meanwhile, is expected to contribute capital markets expertise as the teams explore how tokenized assets could operate within institutional frameworks.
According to the announcement, the companies’ work will focus on developing technical proofs of concept and assessing the operational, compliance, and technology requirements for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are explicitly included among the use cases being examined.
Because the pilot is conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated environment, the activity is intended to test system behavior and requirements without deploying real financial transactions. That approach is often used early on to reduce risk while still exposing the process to realistic constraints.
From 39 proposals to 20 use cases—and why the simulated network matters
ANBIMA previously moved the pilot into its testing phase in April, selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies.
While the announcement does not provide details on how Itaú’s participation changes the existing scope, it does show how quickly the project is attracting large institutional players. The selection step indicates there was already substantial interest across different segments of Brazil’s financial industry, with many groups competing to define what should be tested first.
Running trials on a permissioned network and in a simulated environment is a significant design choice. It allows participants to model how tokenized instruments might be issued, transferred, and settled while keeping the pilot insulated from the risk and complexity of live markets. For investors and market participants watching tokenization efforts, that distinction helps clarify what is being validated: process design and feasibility, not yet market migration or production-grade infrastructure.
RWA momentum continues to rise on public blockchains
Although Itaú’s work is focused on Brazil’s capital markets pilot within a permissioned DLT setting, it lands amid broader momentum for real-world asset tokenization globally.
RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the value of tokenized real-world assets distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year. It rose from around $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of the report, with US Treasury debt the largest category, accounting for more than $16 billion.
That growth highlights a key tension the industry is working through: public blockchain tokenization has seen expanding adoption, while institutional fixed-income and fund tokenization often requires additional layers—legal, operational, and settlement-related—before it can be integrated at scale. Pilots like ANBIMA’s aim to bridge that gap by testing capital markets workflows in a way that aligns with institutional expectations.
What to watch next in Brazil’s tokenization roadmap
Participants will likely focus on whether tokenized debentures and investment funds can be handled with acceptable operational rigor and compliance alignment in the pilot’s proof-of-concept environment. The next signal investors and market observers should look for is how ANBIMA and participating institutions translate those simulated results into clearer requirements for real-world issuance, trading, and settlement.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets
Itaú, Latin America’s largest private-sector bank, is joining an industry pilot focused on tokenizing Brazil’s fixed-income securities and investment funds, partnering with OpenAssets to test how these assets could work on a distributed ledger technology (DLT) network.
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA) and is designed to evaluate not only the technical feasibility of issuance and trading, but also the practical requirements that institutions face around operations, compliance, and overall system design.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets will develop technical proofs of concept for tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot is organized by ANBIMA and examines issuance, trading, and settlement using DLT in a controlled, simulated setting.
Debentures and investment funds are among the primary tokenization use cases being explored.
ANBIMA’s pilot originally began testing after selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 organizations.
ANBIMA-led pilot expands tokenization testing beyond concept
Tuesday’s announcement places Itaú and OpenAssets inside ANBIMA’s broader effort to test capital markets activities—specifically issuance, trading, and settlement—using distributed ledger technology.
ANBIMA frames the work as an industry-led evaluation rather than a live rollout, with participating groups producing proofs of concept and mapping out how tokenized capital market instruments could fit into existing institutional processes.
That structure matters for markets because the barriers to tokenized assets are often as much operational and regulatory as they are technological. In a bank-led pilot, issues like controls, reconciliation, and compliance workflows can be as consequential as the smart contract design itself.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to test
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will provide the tokenization infrastructure used for the pilot’s technical work. Itaú, meanwhile, is expected to contribute capital markets expertise as the teams explore how tokenized assets could operate within institutional frameworks.
According to the announcement, the companies’ work will focus on developing technical proofs of concept and assessing the operational, compliance, and technology requirements for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are explicitly included among the use cases being examined.
Because the pilot is conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated environment, the activity is intended to test system behavior and requirements without deploying real financial transactions. That approach is often used early on to reduce risk while still exposing the process to realistic constraints.
From 39 proposals to 20 use cases—and why the simulated network matters
ANBIMA previously moved the pilot into its testing phase in April, selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies.
While the announcement does not provide details on how Itaú’s participation changes the existing scope, it does show how quickly the project is attracting large institutional players. The selection step indicates there was already substantial interest across different segments of Brazil’s financial industry, with many groups competing to define what should be tested first.
Running trials on a permissioned network and in a simulated environment is a significant design choice. It allows participants to model how tokenized instruments might be issued, transferred, and settled while keeping the pilot insulated from the risk and complexity of live markets. For investors and market participants watching tokenization efforts, that distinction helps clarify what is being validated: process design and feasibility, not yet market migration or production-grade infrastructure.
RWA momentum continues to rise on public blockchains
Although Itaú’s work is focused on Brazil’s capital markets pilot within a permissioned DLT setting, it lands amid broader momentum for real-world asset tokenization globally.
RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the value of tokenized real-world assets distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year. It rose from around $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of the report, with US Treasury debt the largest category, accounting for more than $16 billion.
That growth highlights a key tension the industry is working through: public blockchain tokenization has seen expanding adoption, while institutional fixed-income and fund tokenization often requires additional layers—legal, operational, and settlement-related—before it can be integrated at scale. Pilots like ANBIMA’s aim to bridge that gap by testing capital markets workflows in a way that aligns with institutional expectations.
What to watch next in Brazil’s tokenization roadmap
Participants will likely focus on whether tokenized debentures and investment funds can be handled with acceptable operational rigor and compliance alignment in the pilot’s proof-of-concept environment. The next signal investors and market observers should look for is how ANBIMA and participating institutions translate those simulated results into clearer requirements for real-world issuance, trading, and settlement.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA) and is designed to evaluate not only the technical feasibility of issuance and trading, but also the practical requirements that institutions face around operations, compliance, and overall system design.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets will develop technical proofs of concept for tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot is organized by ANBIMA and examines issuance, trading, and settlement using DLT in a controlled, simulated setting.
Debentures and investment funds are among the primary tokenization use cases being explored.
ANBIMA’s pilot originally began testing after selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 organizations.
ANBIMA-led pilot expands tokenization testing beyond concept
Tuesday’s announcement places Itaú and OpenAssets inside ANBIMA’s broader effort to test capital markets activities—specifically issuance, trading, and settlement—using distributed ledger technology.
ANBIMA frames the work as an industry-led evaluation rather than a live rollout, with participating groups producing proofs of concept and mapping out how tokenized capital market instruments could fit into existing institutional processes.
That structure matters for markets because the barriers to tokenized assets are often as much operational and regulatory as they are technological. In a bank-led pilot, issues like controls, reconciliation, and compliance workflows can be as consequential as the smart contract design itself.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to test
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will provide the tokenization infrastructure used for the pilot’s technical work. Itaú, meanwhile, is expected to contribute capital markets expertise as the teams explore how tokenized assets could operate within institutional frameworks.
According to the announcement, the companies’ work will focus on developing technical proofs of concept and assessing the operational, compliance, and technology requirements for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are explicitly included among the use cases being examined.
Because the pilot is conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated environment, the activity is intended to test system behavior and requirements without deploying real financial transactions. That approach is often used early on to reduce risk while still exposing the process to realistic constraints.
From 39 proposals to 20 use cases—and why the simulated network matters
ANBIMA previously moved the pilot into its testing phase in April, selecting 20 use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies.
While the announcement does not provide details on how Itaú’s participation changes the existing scope, it does show how quickly the project is attracting large institutional players. The selection step indicates there was already substantial interest across different segments of Brazil’s financial industry, with many groups competing to define what should be tested first.
Running trials on a permissioned network and in a simulated environment is a significant design choice. It allows participants to model how tokenized instruments might be issued, transferred, and settled while keeping the pilot insulated from the risk and complexity of live markets. For investors and market participants watching tokenization efforts, that distinction helps clarify what is being validated: process design and feasibility, not yet market migration or production-grade infrastructure.
RWA momentum continues to rise on public blockchains
Although Itaú’s work is focused on Brazil’s capital markets pilot within a permissioned DLT setting, it lands amid broader momentum for real-world asset tokenization globally.
RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the value of tokenized real-world assets distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year. It rose from around $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of the report, with US Treasury debt the largest category, accounting for more than $16 billion.
That growth highlights a key tension the industry is working through: public blockchain tokenization has seen expanding adoption, while institutional fixed-income and fund tokenization often requires additional layers—legal, operational, and settlement-related—before it can be integrated at scale. Pilots like ANBIMA’s aim to bridge that gap by testing capital markets workflows in a way that aligns with institutional expectations.
What to watch next in Brazil’s tokenization roadmap
Participants will likely focus on whether tokenized debentures and investment funds can be handled with acceptable operational rigor and compliance alignment in the pilot’s proof-of-concept environment. The next signal investors and market observers should look for is how ANBIMA and participating institutions translate those simulated results into clearer requirements for real-world issuance, trading, and settlement.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
47
記事
翻訳参照
SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi CaseThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have filed separate civil lawsuits targeting Goliath Ventures and its founder Christopher Delgado, alleging conduct consistent with a crypto Ponzi scheme that raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.
The SEC’s action focuses on an alleged unregistered securities offering totaling at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says roughly 1,600 customers contributed about $397 million tied to solicitations for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agencies are seeking remedies that include restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and permanent bans—expanding potential consequences beyond a parallel criminal case already moving through the courts.
Key takeaways
The SEC alleges Goliath raised at least $425 million via an unregistered offering and that investor funds were not invested as promised.
According to the SEC, Delgado allegedly diverted at least $51 million for personal use and allegedly fabricated account balances and performance reporting.
The CFTC alleges about $397 million came from approximately 1,600 customers after solicitations connected to crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether.
Both civil suits add securities and commodities-law enforcement actions, potentially enabling broader investor compensation and market bans than the criminal plea alone.
Delgado has agreed to a bifurcated settlement in the SEC case that would impose permanent bars, pending court approval and final determinations on financial penalties.
SEC: Alleged unregistered offering and diverted investor funds
In its complaint, the SEC said Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what it characterized as an unregistered securities offering. The agency alleged that investors were told their money would be placed into crypto liquidity pools, but that “none” of the funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the manner represented.
The SEC further alleged that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. The SEC also said Goliath used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to make earlier payments—an arrangement the agency characterized as inconsistent with the investment strategy sold to participants.
According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns ranging from 3% to 10% and guaranteed investor principal, claiming the returns were generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the company made payments by recycling investor money and fabricated account balances and performance metrics to support the scheme.
The SEC also alleged that commissions were paid to sales agents who recruited investors. The agency said the business eventually faltered after it could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and collapsed—an outcome the SEC said came after the company’s operations turned unsustainable.
CFTC: Commodities-law claims tied to Bitcoin and Ether trading solicitations
Separately, the CFTC said Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether, attracting approximately 1,600 customers and at least $397 million. The agency’s complaint positions the conduct within commodities and trading enforcement frameworks, seeking consequences aimed at restoring losses and preventing continued market participation.
In its civil action, the CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. While the SEC case centers on alleged unregistered securities and the handling of investor capital, the CFTC action reflects the regulator’s view that the underlying promotional and trading-related representations also triggered commodities-law concerns.
Delgado’s SEC settlement and what it does—and doesn’t—end
In the SEC matter, Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval. The deal, as described by the SEC, would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. It would also restrict him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer.
The settlement leaves key financial components to be determined by the court, including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. In practice, this means the case can still produce significant financial exposure, even as certain legal and behavioral restrictions are agreed in principle.
Delgado is also tied to a criminal resolution. The article notes that he previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice has said that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. The DOJ further stated that forfeiture was part of the agreement, covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme.
These developments underscore why the SEC and CFTC actions matter: civil proceedings can pursue investor-focused remedies and broader prohibitions that may not be fully addressed through a plea deal alone. Together, the cases give regulators additional tools to seek compensation, impose penalties, and limit future access to regulated markets.
Why the paired SEC and CFTC cases signal a tougher enforcement stance
Running parallel civil actions under two different federal agencies is notable because it reflects a broader pattern in crypto enforcement: regulators are increasingly willing to frame the same promotional conduct through multiple legal lenses—securities and commodities—depending on how the offering and trading-related representations are structured.
Here, the SEC’s allegations emphasize return guarantees, alleged principal protection, and promised placement into liquidity pools—elements the agency says were used to attract capital under an unregistered offering. The CFTC’s allegations, meanwhile, tie customer solicitations to Bitcoin and Ether trading, supporting its request for trading-specific bans and other restrictions.
For investors watching these cases, one practical takeaway is that “getting the money back” often depends on how quickly courts move on disgorgement, restitution, and related orders. Another is that criminal outcomes do not necessarily close the door to civil enforcement: as the regulators seek permanent injunctions and long-term participation restrictions, the civil cases can continue to shape who is barred from markets even after criminal resolution.
Next, investors and observers will likely focus on court approval of the SEC settlement terms and the final rulings on disgorgement, interest, and penalties, along with how the CFTC case progresses toward relief such as restitution and permanent bans.
This article was originally published as SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi Case
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have filed separate civil lawsuits targeting Goliath Ventures and its founder Christopher Delgado, alleging conduct consistent with a crypto Ponzi scheme that raised hundreds of millions of dollars from investors.
The SEC’s action focuses on an alleged unregistered securities offering totaling at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says roughly 1,600 customers contributed about $397 million tied to solicitations for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agencies are seeking remedies that include restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and permanent bans—expanding potential consequences beyond a parallel criminal case already moving through the courts.
Key takeaways
The SEC alleges Goliath raised at least $425 million via an unregistered offering and that investor funds were not invested as promised.
According to the SEC, Delgado allegedly diverted at least $51 million for personal use and allegedly fabricated account balances and performance reporting.
The CFTC alleges about $397 million came from approximately 1,600 customers after solicitations connected to crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether.
Both civil suits add securities and commodities-law enforcement actions, potentially enabling broader investor compensation and market bans than the criminal plea alone.
Delgado has agreed to a bifurcated settlement in the SEC case that would impose permanent bars, pending court approval and final determinations on financial penalties.
SEC: Alleged unregistered offering and diverted investor funds
In its complaint, the SEC said Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what it characterized as an unregistered securities offering. The agency alleged that investors were told their money would be placed into crypto liquidity pools, but that “none” of the funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the manner represented.
The SEC further alleged that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. The SEC also said Goliath used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to make earlier payments—an arrangement the agency characterized as inconsistent with the investment strategy sold to participants.
According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns ranging from 3% to 10% and guaranteed investor principal, claiming the returns were generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the company made payments by recycling investor money and fabricated account balances and performance metrics to support the scheme.
The SEC also alleged that commissions were paid to sales agents who recruited investors. The agency said the business eventually faltered after it could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and collapsed—an outcome the SEC said came after the company’s operations turned unsustainable.
CFTC: Commodities-law claims tied to Bitcoin and Ether trading solicitations
Separately, the CFTC said Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether, attracting approximately 1,600 customers and at least $397 million. The agency’s complaint positions the conduct within commodities and trading enforcement frameworks, seeking consequences aimed at restoring losses and preventing continued market participation.
In its civil action, the CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. While the SEC case centers on alleged unregistered securities and the handling of investor capital, the CFTC action reflects the regulator’s view that the underlying promotional and trading-related representations also triggered commodities-law concerns.
Delgado’s SEC settlement and what it does—and doesn’t—end
In the SEC matter, Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval. The deal, as described by the SEC, would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. It would also restrict him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer.
The settlement leaves key financial components to be determined by the court, including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. In practice, this means the case can still produce significant financial exposure, even as certain legal and behavioral restrictions are agreed in principle.
Delgado is also tied to a criminal resolution. The article notes that he previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice has said that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. The DOJ further stated that forfeiture was part of the agreement, covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme.
These developments underscore why the SEC and CFTC actions matter: civil proceedings can pursue investor-focused remedies and broader prohibitions that may not be fully addressed through a plea deal alone. Together, the cases give regulators additional tools to seek compensation, impose penalties, and limit future access to regulated markets.
Why the paired SEC and CFTC cases signal a tougher enforcement stance
Running parallel civil actions under two different federal agencies is notable because it reflects a broader pattern in crypto enforcement: regulators are increasingly willing to frame the same promotional conduct through multiple legal lenses—securities and commodities—depending on how the offering and trading-related representations are structured.
Here, the SEC’s allegations emphasize return guarantees, alleged principal protection, and promised placement into liquidity pools—elements the agency says were used to attract capital under an unregistered offering. The CFTC’s allegations, meanwhile, tie customer solicitations to Bitcoin and Ether trading, supporting its request for trading-specific bans and other restrictions.
For investors watching these cases, one practical takeaway is that “getting the money back” often depends on how quickly courts move on disgorgement, restitution, and related orders. Another is that criminal outcomes do not necessarily close the door to civil enforcement: as the regulators seek permanent injunctions and long-term participation restrictions, the civil cases can continue to shape who is barred from markets even after criminal resolution.
Next, investors and observers will likely focus on court approval of the SEC settlement terms and the final rulings on disgorgement, interest, and penalties, along with how the CFTC case progresses toward relief such as restitution and permanent bans.
This article was originally published as SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The SEC’s action focuses on an alleged unregistered securities offering totaling at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors, while the CFTC says roughly 1,600 customers contributed about $397 million tied to solicitations for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether. The agencies are seeking remedies that include restitution, disgorgement, penalties, and permanent bans—expanding potential consequences beyond a parallel criminal case already moving through the courts.
Key takeaways
The SEC alleges Goliath raised at least $425 million via an unregistered offering and that investor funds were not invested as promised.
According to the SEC, Delgado allegedly diverted at least $51 million for personal use and allegedly fabricated account balances and performance reporting.
The CFTC alleges about $397 million came from approximately 1,600 customers after solicitations connected to crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether.
Both civil suits add securities and commodities-law enforcement actions, potentially enabling broader investor compensation and market bans than the criminal plea alone.
Delgado has agreed to a bifurcated settlement in the SEC case that would impose permanent bars, pending court approval and final determinations on financial penalties.
SEC: Alleged unregistered offering and diverted investor funds
In its complaint, the SEC said Goliath collected at least $425 million from more than 1,300 investors through what it characterized as an unregistered securities offering. The agency alleged that investors were told their money would be placed into crypto liquidity pools, but that “none” of the funds or crypto assets were actually invested in the manner represented.
The SEC further alleged that Delgado diverted at least $51 million for personal use. The SEC also said Goliath used funds and crypto assets from new and existing investors to make earlier payments—an arrangement the agency characterized as inconsistent with the investment strategy sold to participants.
According to the SEC, Goliath promised monthly returns ranging from 3% to 10% and guaranteed investor principal, claiming the returns were generated from fees paid by traders using its liquidity pools. The SEC alleges that, in reality, the company made payments by recycling investor money and fabricated account balances and performance metrics to support the scheme.
The SEC also alleged that commissions were paid to sales agents who recruited investors. The agency said the business eventually faltered after it could no longer raise funds quickly enough to meet obligations, stopped making monthly distributions, and collapsed—an outcome the SEC said came after the company’s operations turned unsustainable.
CFTC: Commodities-law claims tied to Bitcoin and Ether trading solicitations
Separately, the CFTC said Goliath solicited funds for crypto trading in Bitcoin and Ether, attracting approximately 1,600 customers and at least $397 million. The agency’s complaint positions the conduct within commodities and trading enforcement frameworks, seeking consequences aimed at restoring losses and preventing continued market participation.
In its civil action, the CFTC is seeking restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, trading and registration bans, and a permanent injunction. While the SEC case centers on alleged unregistered securities and the handling of investor capital, the CFTC action reflects the regulator’s view that the underlying promotional and trading-related representations also triggered commodities-law concerns.
Delgado’s SEC settlement and what it does—and doesn’t—end
In the SEC matter, Delgado agreed to a bifurcated settlement, subject to court approval. The deal, as described by the SEC, would permanently bar him from violating the securities-law provisions charged in the complaint. It would also restrict him from participating in securities transactions outside personal-account activity and from associating with a broker or dealer.
The settlement leaves key financial components to be determined by the court, including disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty. In practice, this means the case can still produce significant financial exposure, even as certain legal and behavioral restrictions are agreed in principle.
Delgado is also tied to a criminal resolution. The article notes that he previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. The U.S. Department of Justice has said that at least $400 million was paid to Goliath and that Delgado admitted causing at least $250 million in investor losses. The DOJ further stated that forfeiture was part of the agreement, covering properties, vehicles, luxury goods, bank accounts, and crypto wallets traceable to the scheme.
These developments underscore why the SEC and CFTC actions matter: civil proceedings can pursue investor-focused remedies and broader prohibitions that may not be fully addressed through a plea deal alone. Together, the cases give regulators additional tools to seek compensation, impose penalties, and limit future access to regulated markets.
Why the paired SEC and CFTC cases signal a tougher enforcement stance
Running parallel civil actions under two different federal agencies is notable because it reflects a broader pattern in crypto enforcement: regulators are increasingly willing to frame the same promotional conduct through multiple legal lenses—securities and commodities—depending on how the offering and trading-related representations are structured.
Here, the SEC’s allegations emphasize return guarantees, alleged principal protection, and promised placement into liquidity pools—elements the agency says were used to attract capital under an unregistered offering. The CFTC’s allegations, meanwhile, tie customer solicitations to Bitcoin and Ether trading, supporting its request for trading-specific bans and other restrictions.
For investors watching these cases, one practical takeaway is that “getting the money back” often depends on how quickly courts move on disgorgement, restitution, and related orders. Another is that criminal outcomes do not necessarily close the door to civil enforcement: as the regulators seek permanent injunctions and long-term participation restrictions, the civil cases can continue to shape who is barred from markets even after criminal resolution.
Next, investors and observers will likely focus on court approval of the SEC settlement terms and the final rulings on disgorgement, interest, and penalties, along with how the CFTC case progresses toward relief such as restitution and permanent bans.
This article was originally published as SEC and CFTC File Suit Against Goliath Ventures in $400M Crypto Ponzi Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
68
記事
翻訳参照
Russia Proposes Regulated Exchange Trading for Bitcoin, Ether, USDTRussia’s central bank has drawn up a proposed shortlist of crypto assets that, if approved, could be eligible for trading on regulated platforms under the country’s newly enacted crypto framework. The regulator said the candidate assets include Bitcoin, Ether, and the stablecoin USDT.
The proposal is part of broader rules taking shape after President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Aug. 4 granting the Bank of Russia authority to decide which digital currencies may be admitted to “organized” trading and to set investor-access requirements. The central bank is now inviting public comments on the draft through Aug. 24.
Key takeaways
The Bank of Russia’s draft list names Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether’s USDT as potential candidates for admission to organized exchange trading.
Eligibility is tied to criteria such as market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on overseas markets.
New access rules would cap purchases for non-qualified investors at 300,000 Russian rubles (about $3,650) per year per intermediary, while qualified investors face no such limit.
All investors would need to complete a test and review crypto risk information before trading, regardless of their classification.
The regulator is accepting comments on the proposal until Aug. 24, meaning the draft could change before final rules are set.
Draft eligibility list: what assets could be admitted
In a statement Tuesday, the Bank of Russia said it has compiled a proposed set of crypto assets that could be allowed for public trading on exchanges under the incoming regulatory regime. The announcement, published on the regulator’s website, also specified that the assets must satisfy a number of benchmark conditions.
According to the central bank, those conditions include a requirement tied to market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on international markets. By emphasizing both scale and long-running market data, the approach appears designed to narrow eligibility toward more established assets rather than newer tokens.
Among the named candidates are Bitcoin and Ether—two of the most liquid and widely traded cryptocurrencies globally—as well as USDT, a stablecoin issued by Tether. The inclusion of a major stablecoin signals that the regulator’s framework is not limited strictly to volatile coins, at least at the eligibility stage.
Why the new law changes the regulator’s role
The draft list does not stand alone; it follows a shift in Russia’s regulatory structure created by federal law that took effect after being signed by Putin on Aug. 4. That law gives the Bank of Russia the power to determine which crypto assets can enter organized trading and to create the operating rules for that process.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that the core rules were set to take effect in 2026 as part of the new legal framework. With the central bank now moving to propose an asset list and investor rules, the practical implementation of that authority is beginning to take shape.
For market participants, the key implication is that not all tokens may be treated equally under the same umbrella. The regulator’s criteria—and the fact that eligibility is decided by the central bank—introduces an additional layer of compliance and potentially affects which assets exchanges can list for retail access.
Investor access rules: limits, “qualified” status, and risk testing
Beyond which assets could trade, the Bank of Russia’s proposal also addresses who can buy and how much. Under the draft rules, non-qualified investors would be limited to purchasing up to 300,000 rubles per year (about $3,650) of cryptocurrency through each intermediary. Intermediaries explicitly referenced include brokers, crypto exchange services, and asset managers.
Qualified investors, by contrast, would not face purchase limits for crypto assets traded on exchanges or through over-the-counter markets. The distinction between “qualified” and “non-qualified” investors matters because it shapes the effective scale at which different classes of customers can participate.
Importantly, the Bank of Russia said the framework requires a pre-trade step for everyone. “Before making transactions, all investors, regardless of their status, will have to pass a test and familiarize themselves with the risks of investing in crypto assets,” the central bank stated.
This requirement is designed to apply across the board, potentially limiting impulsive participation by ensuring buyers demonstrate awareness of crypto risk—while still allowing higher-volume activity for those who qualify.
Regulator rationale and what to watch next
The central bank said the restrictions are intended to protect non-qualified investors from sharp and unpredictable crypto price fluctuations. The logic is straightforward: if retail access is permitted, the regulator wants guardrails to reduce the likelihood of outsized losses among less experienced participants.
Russia’s draft also signals where the regulator’s focus may be during implementation. First, asset eligibility appears to rely on objective market metrics and longevity, which may constrain the range of tokens available for public exchange trading. Second, investor limits and required testing could reshape the economics of retail trading—especially if intermediaries must build compliance processes around classification and risk education.
The proposal remains open for public comment until Aug. 24, so investors and industry participants should watch for any changes to the eligibility criteria, the list of assets, or the specifics of the investor test and qualification thresholds.
For now, the central development is clear: Russia’s crypto market is moving toward a regulated structure where both the tradable universe and retail access conditions are determined by the Bank of Russia. The next key moment will be how the regulator responds to feedback and finalizes the framework ahead of full implementation of the new law.
This article was originally published as Russia Proposes Regulated Exchange Trading for Bitcoin, Ether, USDT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Russia Proposes Regulated Exchange Trading for Bitcoin, Ether, USDT
Russia’s central bank has drawn up a proposed shortlist of crypto assets that, if approved, could be eligible for trading on regulated platforms under the country’s newly enacted crypto framework. The regulator said the candidate assets include Bitcoin, Ether, and the stablecoin USDT.
The proposal is part of broader rules taking shape after President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Aug. 4 granting the Bank of Russia authority to decide which digital currencies may be admitted to “organized” trading and to set investor-access requirements. The central bank is now inviting public comments on the draft through Aug. 24.
Key takeaways
The Bank of Russia’s draft list names Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether’s USDT as potential candidates for admission to organized exchange trading.
Eligibility is tied to criteria such as market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on overseas markets.
New access rules would cap purchases for non-qualified investors at 300,000 Russian rubles (about $3,650) per year per intermediary, while qualified investors face no such limit.
All investors would need to complete a test and review crypto risk information before trading, regardless of their classification.
The regulator is accepting comments on the proposal until Aug. 24, meaning the draft could change before final rules are set.
Draft eligibility list: what assets could be admitted
In a statement Tuesday, the Bank of Russia said it has compiled a proposed set of crypto assets that could be allowed for public trading on exchanges under the incoming regulatory regime. The announcement, published on the regulator’s website, also specified that the assets must satisfy a number of benchmark conditions.
According to the central bank, those conditions include a requirement tied to market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on international markets. By emphasizing both scale and long-running market data, the approach appears designed to narrow eligibility toward more established assets rather than newer tokens.
Among the named candidates are Bitcoin and Ether—two of the most liquid and widely traded cryptocurrencies globally—as well as USDT, a stablecoin issued by Tether. The inclusion of a major stablecoin signals that the regulator’s framework is not limited strictly to volatile coins, at least at the eligibility stage.
Why the new law changes the regulator’s role
The draft list does not stand alone; it follows a shift in Russia’s regulatory structure created by federal law that took effect after being signed by Putin on Aug. 4. That law gives the Bank of Russia the power to determine which crypto assets can enter organized trading and to create the operating rules for that process.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that the core rules were set to take effect in 2026 as part of the new legal framework. With the central bank now moving to propose an asset list and investor rules, the practical implementation of that authority is beginning to take shape.
For market participants, the key implication is that not all tokens may be treated equally under the same umbrella. The regulator’s criteria—and the fact that eligibility is decided by the central bank—introduces an additional layer of compliance and potentially affects which assets exchanges can list for retail access.
Investor access rules: limits, “qualified” status, and risk testing
Beyond which assets could trade, the Bank of Russia’s proposal also addresses who can buy and how much. Under the draft rules, non-qualified investors would be limited to purchasing up to 300,000 rubles per year (about $3,650) of cryptocurrency through each intermediary. Intermediaries explicitly referenced include brokers, crypto exchange services, and asset managers.
Qualified investors, by contrast, would not face purchase limits for crypto assets traded on exchanges or through over-the-counter markets. The distinction between “qualified” and “non-qualified” investors matters because it shapes the effective scale at which different classes of customers can participate.
Importantly, the Bank of Russia said the framework requires a pre-trade step for everyone. “Before making transactions, all investors, regardless of their status, will have to pass a test and familiarize themselves with the risks of investing in crypto assets,” the central bank stated.
This requirement is designed to apply across the board, potentially limiting impulsive participation by ensuring buyers demonstrate awareness of crypto risk—while still allowing higher-volume activity for those who qualify.
Regulator rationale and what to watch next
The central bank said the restrictions are intended to protect non-qualified investors from sharp and unpredictable crypto price fluctuations. The logic is straightforward: if retail access is permitted, the regulator wants guardrails to reduce the likelihood of outsized losses among less experienced participants.
Russia’s draft also signals where the regulator’s focus may be during implementation. First, asset eligibility appears to rely on objective market metrics and longevity, which may constrain the range of tokens available for public exchange trading. Second, investor limits and required testing could reshape the economics of retail trading—especially if intermediaries must build compliance processes around classification and risk education.
The proposal remains open for public comment until Aug. 24, so investors and industry participants should watch for any changes to the eligibility criteria, the list of assets, or the specifics of the investor test and qualification thresholds.
For now, the central development is clear: Russia’s crypto market is moving toward a regulated structure where both the tradable universe and retail access conditions are determined by the Bank of Russia. The next key moment will be how the regulator responds to feedback and finalizes the framework ahead of full implementation of the new law.
This article was originally published as Russia Proposes Regulated Exchange Trading for Bitcoin, Ether, USDT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The proposal is part of broader rules taking shape after President Vladimir Putin signed a law on Aug. 4 granting the Bank of Russia authority to decide which digital currencies may be admitted to “organized” trading and to set investor-access requirements. The central bank is now inviting public comments on the draft through Aug. 24.
Key takeaways
The Bank of Russia’s draft list names Bitcoin, Ether, and Tether’s USDT as potential candidates for admission to organized exchange trading.
Eligibility is tied to criteria such as market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on overseas markets.
New access rules would cap purchases for non-qualified investors at 300,000 Russian rubles (about $3,650) per year per intermediary, while qualified investors face no such limit.
All investors would need to complete a test and review crypto risk information before trading, regardless of their classification.
The regulator is accepting comments on the proposal until Aug. 24, meaning the draft could change before final rules are set.
Draft eligibility list: what assets could be admitted
In a statement Tuesday, the Bank of Russia said it has compiled a proposed set of crypto assets that could be allowed for public trading on exchanges under the incoming regulatory regime. The announcement, published on the regulator’s website, also specified that the assets must satisfy a number of benchmark conditions.
According to the central bank, those conditions include a requirement tied to market capitalization, average daily trading volume, and at least five years of price history on international markets. By emphasizing both scale and long-running market data, the approach appears designed to narrow eligibility toward more established assets rather than newer tokens.
Among the named candidates are Bitcoin and Ether—two of the most liquid and widely traded cryptocurrencies globally—as well as USDT, a stablecoin issued by Tether. The inclusion of a major stablecoin signals that the regulator’s framework is not limited strictly to volatile coins, at least at the eligibility stage.
Why the new law changes the regulator’s role
The draft list does not stand alone; it follows a shift in Russia’s regulatory structure created by federal law that took effect after being signed by Putin on Aug. 4. That law gives the Bank of Russia the power to determine which crypto assets can enter organized trading and to create the operating rules for that process.
Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted that the core rules were set to take effect in 2026 as part of the new legal framework. With the central bank now moving to propose an asset list and investor rules, the practical implementation of that authority is beginning to take shape.
For market participants, the key implication is that not all tokens may be treated equally under the same umbrella. The regulator’s criteria—and the fact that eligibility is decided by the central bank—introduces an additional layer of compliance and potentially affects which assets exchanges can list for retail access.
Investor access rules: limits, “qualified” status, and risk testing
Beyond which assets could trade, the Bank of Russia’s proposal also addresses who can buy and how much. Under the draft rules, non-qualified investors would be limited to purchasing up to 300,000 rubles per year (about $3,650) of cryptocurrency through each intermediary. Intermediaries explicitly referenced include brokers, crypto exchange services, and asset managers.
Qualified investors, by contrast, would not face purchase limits for crypto assets traded on exchanges or through over-the-counter markets. The distinction between “qualified” and “non-qualified” investors matters because it shapes the effective scale at which different classes of customers can participate.
Importantly, the Bank of Russia said the framework requires a pre-trade step for everyone. “Before making transactions, all investors, regardless of their status, will have to pass a test and familiarize themselves with the risks of investing in crypto assets,” the central bank stated.
This requirement is designed to apply across the board, potentially limiting impulsive participation by ensuring buyers demonstrate awareness of crypto risk—while still allowing higher-volume activity for those who qualify.
Regulator rationale and what to watch next
The central bank said the restrictions are intended to protect non-qualified investors from sharp and unpredictable crypto price fluctuations. The logic is straightforward: if retail access is permitted, the regulator wants guardrails to reduce the likelihood of outsized losses among less experienced participants.
Russia’s draft also signals where the regulator’s focus may be during implementation. First, asset eligibility appears to rely on objective market metrics and longevity, which may constrain the range of tokens available for public exchange trading. Second, investor limits and required testing could reshape the economics of retail trading—especially if intermediaries must build compliance processes around classification and risk education.
The proposal remains open for public comment until Aug. 24, so investors and industry participants should watch for any changes to the eligibility criteria, the list of assets, or the specifics of the investor test and qualification thresholds.
For now, the central development is clear: Russia’s crypto market is moving toward a regulated structure where both the tradable universe and retail access conditions are determined by the Bank of Russia. The next key moment will be how the regulator responds to feedback and finalizes the framework ahead of full implementation of the new law.
This article was originally published as Russia Proposes Regulated Exchange Trading for Bitcoin, Ether, USDT on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
77
記事
SECとCFTC、4億ドル規模の暗号詐欺でゴライアス・ベンチャーズを提訴米国証券取引委員会（SEC）と商品先物取引委員会（CFTC）は、ゴライアス・ベンチャーズおよびその創業者クリストファー・デルガドを対象とする別々の民事訴訟を提起し、同社が投資家から約4億ドルを集めた暗号資産に連動するポンジ・スキームを運営していたと非難している。
SECは、未登録の有価証券の募集を行い、1,300人超の投資家から少なくとも4億2,500万ドルを調達したと主張している。これに対しCFTCは、ゴライアスがビットコインおよびイーサの暗号取引のために資金を募った後、約1,600人の顧客が少なくとも3億9,700万ドルを預けたとしている。これらの民事手続きは、関連する刑事事件でデルガドが既に行った有罪答弁を超えて規制・金融上の影響を拡大し、追加の補償を求める取り組みや市場での取引停止につながる可能性がある。
SECとCFTC、4億ドル規模の暗号詐欺でゴライアス・ベンチャーズを提訴
米国証券取引委員会（SEC）と商品先物取引委員会（CFTC）は、ゴライアス・ベンチャーズおよびその創業者クリストファー・デルガドを対象とする別々の民事訴訟を提起し、同社が投資家から約4億ドルを集めた暗号資産に連動するポンジ・スキームを運営していたと非難している。
SECは、未登録の有価証券の募集を行い、1,300人超の投資家から少なくとも4億2,500万ドルを調達したと主張している。これに対しCFTCは、ゴライアスがビットコインおよびイーサの暗号取引のために資金を募った後、約1,600人の顧客が少なくとも3億9,700万ドルを預けたとしている。これらの民事手続きは、関連する刑事事件でデルガドが既に行った有罪答弁を超えて規制・金融上の影響を拡大し、追加の補償を求める取り組みや市場での取引停止につながる可能性がある。
SECは、未登録の有価証券の募集を行い、1,300人超の投資家から少なくとも4億2,500万ドルを調達したと主張している。これに対しCFTCは、ゴライアスがビットコインおよびイーサの暗号取引のために資金を募った後、約1,600人の顧客が少なくとも3億9,700万ドルを預けたとしている。これらの民事手続きは、関連する刑事事件でデルガドが既に行った有罪答弁を超えて規制・金融上の影響を拡大し、追加の補償を求める取り組みや市場での取引停止につながる可能性がある。
119
記事
翻訳参照
Nasdaq to Acquire LeveL Markets to Expand Always-On TradingNasdaq has agreed to acquire LeveL Markets, a major US alternative trading system (ATS), as the exchange operator moves deeper into tokenized and “always-on” trading infrastructure. The deal combines Nasdaq’s push for programmable market structures with LeveL’s institutional execution network, positioning the assets under Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit.
Under the terms announced Tuesday, LeveL Markets will keep operating as a FINRA-regulated ATS with its own management team after the acquisition. Financial details were not disclosed, and the transaction remains subject to regulatory approval.
Key takeaways
Nasdaq will add LeveL Markets’ institutional execution network to its Digital Liquidity Networks initiative focused on tokenization and always-on trading.
LeveL will remain FINRA-regulated as an ATS, preserving its regulatory status and management structure post-acquisition.
The agreement follows Nasdaq’s earlier investment in LeveL (made in 2021) and builds on LeveL’s growth in multi-symbol execution.
Nasdaq’s acquisition aligns with broader industry moves toward longer trading hours and tokenized equity settlement pilots.
Why Nasdaq wants LeveL Markets
Nasdaq says LeveL Markets handles “hundreds of millions” of shares daily and supports more than 2,500 buy- and sell-side clients. The venue operates across more than 7,000 symbols each day, and Nasdaq credits LeveL’s expansion to increased institutional usage—stating it serves more than 300 institutional buy-side firms and that average daily trading volume rose by 56% in 2025.
The acquisition matters for traders and liquidity providers because ATS infrastructure often determines how quickly and efficiently orders are routed and executed across market participants. By folding LeveL into a dedicated digital unit, Nasdaq is effectively tying execution capacity to its larger ambition: building market plumbing that can support tokenization, programmable settlement, and a more continuous trading experience.
LeveL stays an ATS—at least for now
Nasdaq emphasized that LeveL Markets will continue to operate as a FINRA-regulated ATS following the acquisition. It will also keep its own management team, suggesting Nasdaq wants to preserve operational continuity while integrating the network into its broader digital strategy.
Nasdaq will run the combined effort within its Digital Liquidity Networks unit, led by Roland Chai. Nasdaq also noted that Chai has been overseeing its digital assets strategy since earlier this year, placing tokenization and next-generation market design inside a single execution-focused organization.
While financial terms were not shared, the transaction’s stated dependency on regulatory approval is important. Because ATS operations and cross-market integration can raise oversight questions, the final structure will likely determine how quickly both companies can translate their combined capabilities into live tokenized or extended-hour execution use cases.
Nasdaq’s tokenized markets roadmap and the SEC’s moving target
Nasdaq’s interest in LeveL arrives alongside multiple regulatory and product efforts aimed at tokenized equities and longer trading sessions.
According to filings and updates cited by Nasdaq, the exchange first proposed a framework allowing tokenized securities to trade on its exchange in September 2025. A January 2026 SEC filing updating the proposal states that eligible stocks and exchange-traded products could be traded in tokenized form alongside traditional shares, with Depository Trust Company handling tokenization and blockchain-based settlement through a three-year pilot program. (These details are based on SEC documents referenced in the announcement.)
Nasdaq also pointed to a March partnership effort involving Payward (which operates as Kraken), along with tokenization firm Backed, to develop infrastructure intended to link traditional equities markets with blockchain networks.
Beyond Nasdaq, other market operators are reportedly pursuing similar shifts. Cointelegraph earlier noted that Cboe and the London Stock Exchange are pursuing plans for longer trading hours, while the New York Stock Exchange is developing a separate platform for 24/7 trading and onchain settlement of tokenized securities. Those parallel initiatives suggest competition not only for liquidity but for the technical standards that govern how tokenized assets can be traded and settled.
In July, the SEC announced a September 17 roundtable focused on the shift toward 24-hour US equity trading. Cointelegraph’s coverage of the announcement referenced SEC chair Paul Atkins saying, “We are moving towards a new day – and night – in the US equity markets.” That backdrop reinforces why execution network capacity, not just tokenization software, has become a strategic priority for large venues.
Tokenized equities are growing—now execution networks are the bottleneck
Nasdaq framed the LeveL acquisition as part of its push toward programmable, “always-on” markets. It also tied the strategy to broader growth indicators for tokenized equities.
In the past year, Cointelegraph-referenced data from RWA.xyz suggests tokenized equities expanded more than sixfold. The report indicated distributed value rising to nearly $2.5 billion today from around $381 million in August 2025. While that figure is not a measure of how much of that trading occurs on any single venue, it underscores that the category is moving from concept to measurable capital allocation.
As tokenized equities attract more participants, the operational question becomes whether order routing, market-making participation, settlement mechanics, and compliance workflows can handle continuous or near-continuous trading at scale. That is the gap Nasdaq appears to be trying to close by pairing LeveL’s institutional execution network with its digital infrastructure capabilities.
For investors and market participants, the key issue to watch is not only whether tokenized products can be issued and settled, but whether liquidity can be sustained across trading hours—especially as “always-on” narratives meet the realities of regulation, counterparty risk, and operational readiness.
With the acquisition awaiting regulatory approval, the next milestones to track are the integration plan for LeveL Markets inside Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit and how Nasdaq’s tokenized trading proposal and pilots progress alongside broader SEC engagement on 24-hour equities. Those steps will determine how quickly tokenized markets move from growth in distributed value to reliably distributed liquidity.
This article was originally published as Nasdaq to Acquire LeveL Markets to Expand Always-On Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Nasdaq to Acquire LeveL Markets to Expand Always-On Trading
Nasdaq has agreed to acquire LeveL Markets, a major US alternative trading system (ATS), as the exchange operator moves deeper into tokenized and “always-on” trading infrastructure. The deal combines Nasdaq’s push for programmable market structures with LeveL’s institutional execution network, positioning the assets under Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit.
Under the terms announced Tuesday, LeveL Markets will keep operating as a FINRA-regulated ATS with its own management team after the acquisition. Financial details were not disclosed, and the transaction remains subject to regulatory approval.
Key takeaways
Nasdaq will add LeveL Markets’ institutional execution network to its Digital Liquidity Networks initiative focused on tokenization and always-on trading.
LeveL will remain FINRA-regulated as an ATS, preserving its regulatory status and management structure post-acquisition.
The agreement follows Nasdaq’s earlier investment in LeveL (made in 2021) and builds on LeveL’s growth in multi-symbol execution.
Nasdaq’s acquisition aligns with broader industry moves toward longer trading hours and tokenized equity settlement pilots.
Why Nasdaq wants LeveL Markets
Nasdaq says LeveL Markets handles “hundreds of millions” of shares daily and supports more than 2,500 buy- and sell-side clients. The venue operates across more than 7,000 symbols each day, and Nasdaq credits LeveL’s expansion to increased institutional usage—stating it serves more than 300 institutional buy-side firms and that average daily trading volume rose by 56% in 2025.
The acquisition matters for traders and liquidity providers because ATS infrastructure often determines how quickly and efficiently orders are routed and executed across market participants. By folding LeveL into a dedicated digital unit, Nasdaq is effectively tying execution capacity to its larger ambition: building market plumbing that can support tokenization, programmable settlement, and a more continuous trading experience.
LeveL stays an ATS—at least for now
Nasdaq emphasized that LeveL Markets will continue to operate as a FINRA-regulated ATS following the acquisition. It will also keep its own management team, suggesting Nasdaq wants to preserve operational continuity while integrating the network into its broader digital strategy.
Nasdaq will run the combined effort within its Digital Liquidity Networks unit, led by Roland Chai. Nasdaq also noted that Chai has been overseeing its digital assets strategy since earlier this year, placing tokenization and next-generation market design inside a single execution-focused organization.
While financial terms were not shared, the transaction’s stated dependency on regulatory approval is important. Because ATS operations and cross-market integration can raise oversight questions, the final structure will likely determine how quickly both companies can translate their combined capabilities into live tokenized or extended-hour execution use cases.
Nasdaq’s tokenized markets roadmap and the SEC’s moving target
Nasdaq’s interest in LeveL arrives alongside multiple regulatory and product efforts aimed at tokenized equities and longer trading sessions.
According to filings and updates cited by Nasdaq, the exchange first proposed a framework allowing tokenized securities to trade on its exchange in September 2025. A January 2026 SEC filing updating the proposal states that eligible stocks and exchange-traded products could be traded in tokenized form alongside traditional shares, with Depository Trust Company handling tokenization and blockchain-based settlement through a three-year pilot program. (These details are based on SEC documents referenced in the announcement.)
Nasdaq also pointed to a March partnership effort involving Payward (which operates as Kraken), along with tokenization firm Backed, to develop infrastructure intended to link traditional equities markets with blockchain networks.
Beyond Nasdaq, other market operators are reportedly pursuing similar shifts. Cointelegraph earlier noted that Cboe and the London Stock Exchange are pursuing plans for longer trading hours, while the New York Stock Exchange is developing a separate platform for 24/7 trading and onchain settlement of tokenized securities. Those parallel initiatives suggest competition not only for liquidity but for the technical standards that govern how tokenized assets can be traded and settled.
In July, the SEC announced a September 17 roundtable focused on the shift toward 24-hour US equity trading. Cointelegraph’s coverage of the announcement referenced SEC chair Paul Atkins saying, “We are moving towards a new day – and night – in the US equity markets.” That backdrop reinforces why execution network capacity, not just tokenization software, has become a strategic priority for large venues.
Tokenized equities are growing—now execution networks are the bottleneck
Nasdaq framed the LeveL acquisition as part of its push toward programmable, “always-on” markets. It also tied the strategy to broader growth indicators for tokenized equities.
In the past year, Cointelegraph-referenced data from RWA.xyz suggests tokenized equities expanded more than sixfold. The report indicated distributed value rising to nearly $2.5 billion today from around $381 million in August 2025. While that figure is not a measure of how much of that trading occurs on any single venue, it underscores that the category is moving from concept to measurable capital allocation.
As tokenized equities attract more participants, the operational question becomes whether order routing, market-making participation, settlement mechanics, and compliance workflows can handle continuous or near-continuous trading at scale. That is the gap Nasdaq appears to be trying to close by pairing LeveL’s institutional execution network with its digital infrastructure capabilities.
For investors and market participants, the key issue to watch is not only whether tokenized products can be issued and settled, but whether liquidity can be sustained across trading hours—especially as “always-on” narratives meet the realities of regulation, counterparty risk, and operational readiness.
With the acquisition awaiting regulatory approval, the next milestones to track are the integration plan for LeveL Markets inside Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit and how Nasdaq’s tokenized trading proposal and pilots progress alongside broader SEC engagement on 24-hour equities. Those steps will determine how quickly tokenized markets move from growth in distributed value to reliably distributed liquidity.
This article was originally published as Nasdaq to Acquire LeveL Markets to Expand Always-On Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Under the terms announced Tuesday, LeveL Markets will keep operating as a FINRA-regulated ATS with its own management team after the acquisition. Financial details were not disclosed, and the transaction remains subject to regulatory approval.
Key takeaways
Nasdaq will add LeveL Markets’ institutional execution network to its Digital Liquidity Networks initiative focused on tokenization and always-on trading.
LeveL will remain FINRA-regulated as an ATS, preserving its regulatory status and management structure post-acquisition.
The agreement follows Nasdaq’s earlier investment in LeveL (made in 2021) and builds on LeveL’s growth in multi-symbol execution.
Nasdaq’s acquisition aligns with broader industry moves toward longer trading hours and tokenized equity settlement pilots.
Why Nasdaq wants LeveL Markets
Nasdaq says LeveL Markets handles “hundreds of millions” of shares daily and supports more than 2,500 buy- and sell-side clients. The venue operates across more than 7,000 symbols each day, and Nasdaq credits LeveL’s expansion to increased institutional usage—stating it serves more than 300 institutional buy-side firms and that average daily trading volume rose by 56% in 2025.
The acquisition matters for traders and liquidity providers because ATS infrastructure often determines how quickly and efficiently orders are routed and executed across market participants. By folding LeveL into a dedicated digital unit, Nasdaq is effectively tying execution capacity to its larger ambition: building market plumbing that can support tokenization, programmable settlement, and a more continuous trading experience.
LeveL stays an ATS—at least for now
Nasdaq emphasized that LeveL Markets will continue to operate as a FINRA-regulated ATS following the acquisition. It will also keep its own management team, suggesting Nasdaq wants to preserve operational continuity while integrating the network into its broader digital strategy.
Nasdaq will run the combined effort within its Digital Liquidity Networks unit, led by Roland Chai. Nasdaq also noted that Chai has been overseeing its digital assets strategy since earlier this year, placing tokenization and next-generation market design inside a single execution-focused organization.
While financial terms were not shared, the transaction’s stated dependency on regulatory approval is important. Because ATS operations and cross-market integration can raise oversight questions, the final structure will likely determine how quickly both companies can translate their combined capabilities into live tokenized or extended-hour execution use cases.
Nasdaq’s tokenized markets roadmap and the SEC’s moving target
Nasdaq’s interest in LeveL arrives alongside multiple regulatory and product efforts aimed at tokenized equities and longer trading sessions.
According to filings and updates cited by Nasdaq, the exchange first proposed a framework allowing tokenized securities to trade on its exchange in September 2025. A January 2026 SEC filing updating the proposal states that eligible stocks and exchange-traded products could be traded in tokenized form alongside traditional shares, with Depository Trust Company handling tokenization and blockchain-based settlement through a three-year pilot program. (These details are based on SEC documents referenced in the announcement.)
Nasdaq also pointed to a March partnership effort involving Payward (which operates as Kraken), along with tokenization firm Backed, to develop infrastructure intended to link traditional equities markets with blockchain networks.
Beyond Nasdaq, other market operators are reportedly pursuing similar shifts. Cointelegraph earlier noted that Cboe and the London Stock Exchange are pursuing plans for longer trading hours, while the New York Stock Exchange is developing a separate platform for 24/7 trading and onchain settlement of tokenized securities. Those parallel initiatives suggest competition not only for liquidity but for the technical standards that govern how tokenized assets can be traded and settled.
In July, the SEC announced a September 17 roundtable focused on the shift toward 24-hour US equity trading. Cointelegraph’s coverage of the announcement referenced SEC chair Paul Atkins saying, “We are moving towards a new day – and night – in the US equity markets.” That backdrop reinforces why execution network capacity, not just tokenization software, has become a strategic priority for large venues.
Tokenized equities are growing—now execution networks are the bottleneck
Nasdaq framed the LeveL acquisition as part of its push toward programmable, “always-on” markets. It also tied the strategy to broader growth indicators for tokenized equities.
In the past year, Cointelegraph-referenced data from RWA.xyz suggests tokenized equities expanded more than sixfold. The report indicated distributed value rising to nearly $2.5 billion today from around $381 million in August 2025. While that figure is not a measure of how much of that trading occurs on any single venue, it underscores that the category is moving from concept to measurable capital allocation.
As tokenized equities attract more participants, the operational question becomes whether order routing, market-making participation, settlement mechanics, and compliance workflows can handle continuous or near-continuous trading at scale. That is the gap Nasdaq appears to be trying to close by pairing LeveL’s institutional execution network with its digital infrastructure capabilities.
For investors and market participants, the key issue to watch is not only whether tokenized products can be issued and settled, but whether liquidity can be sustained across trading hours—especially as “always-on” narratives meet the realities of regulation, counterparty risk, and operational readiness.
With the acquisition awaiting regulatory approval, the next milestones to track are the integration plan for LeveL Markets inside Nasdaq’s Digital Liquidity Networks unit and how Nasdaq’s tokenized trading proposal and pilots progress alongside broader SEC engagement on 24-hour equities. Those steps will determine how quickly tokenized markets move from growth in distributed value to reliably distributed liquidity.
This article was originally published as Nasdaq to Acquire LeveL Markets to Expand Always-On Trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
13
記事
翻訳参照
Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets PlatformItaú, the largest private-sector bank in Latin America, is joining an industry pilot to explore how tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds could work in Brazil’s capital markets. The bank has partnered with digital asset infrastructure provider OpenAssets to participate in the testing phase focused on tokenizing real-world securities using distributed ledger technology (DLT).
According to an announcement made on Tuesday, the work will center on technical proofs of concept and an evaluation of the operational, compliance, and technology requirements needed for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are among the use cases being considered as the parties assess how tokenized instruments might fit within existing institutional workflows.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets are participating in an ANBIMA-led pilot to test tokenized fixed-income securities and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot aims to validate the technical feasibility of issuing, trading, and settling capital markets instruments on DLT, along with compliance and operational prerequisites.
Tests are being conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated setting without real financial transactions.
ANBIMA selected 20 pilot use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 institutions and technology firms.
Interest in tokenized real-world assets continues to expand, with RWA.xyz reporting more than doubling in value over the past year.
ANBIMA’s pilot expands beyond concept into controlled testing
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA), which is running a structured pilot to evaluate capital markets activities—issuance, trading, and settlement—using DLT. Unlike public blockchain experiments that rely on live settlement, the pilot is designed around controlled conditions: it uses a private, permissioned network and a simulated environment to test key mechanics without executing actual trades.
ANBIMA selected the pilot’s initial set of 20 use cases in April from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies. Itaú and OpenAssets are now contributing to the effort by developing proofs of concept and examining what it would take for tokenized instruments to operate within institutional and regulatory expectations.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to do
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will supply its tokenization infrastructure. Itaú’s role focuses on bringing capital markets expertise to the testing process, particularly as the partners examine how tokenized assets could be integrated into existing institutional frameworks.
The work is not limited to testing token issuance mechanics. The Tuesday announcement emphasizes that the parties will assess operational requirements, compliance considerations, and broader technology needs for tokenized products. In practice, these evaluations often determine whether tokenization can be deployed without undermining governance, auditability, custody models, or the controls financial institutions rely on for regulated market activity.
Debentures and investment funds are specifically named among the use cases being explored, highlighting that the pilot targets more than a single asset type. That breadth matters for investors and market participants because it can clarify whether one technical approach can generalize across different security structures—or whether separate designs are needed for different product categories.
Where tokenization demand is coming from
While the Brazil pilot remains focused on technical feasibility and institutional requirements, the broader market backdrop continues to draw attention to tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the total value of tokenized RWAs distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year, rising from roughly $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of writing.
According to the same data, US Treasury debt is the largest category, representing more than $16 billion. This concentration suggests that the RWA market—at least in terms of public-chain issuance—has largely started with highly standardized government instruments. The ANBIMA pilot’s focus on Brazilian debentures and investment funds therefore sits at an important junction: it tests whether tokenization approaches can be adapted from relatively uniform instruments to a wider set of capital markets products with distinct legal and operational features.
Why permissioned, simulated DLT matters for institutional adoption
A key detail in the pilot design is the use of a private, permissioned DLT network operating in a simulated environment without real financial transactions. For institutional participants, this approach can accelerate learning while containing risk: participants can evaluate workflow integration, data handling, and settlement logic before moving toward any live environment.
For market watchers, the permissioned and simulated structure also sets expectations around what success looks like. Rather than measuring immediate liquidity or adoption, the pilot’s milestones are likely to be tied to how issuance, trading, and settlement processes can be mapped into tokenized representations—and whether those representations can satisfy compliance and operational constraints under Brazil’s market rules.
What remains uncertain is how quickly any workable model can be translated into production deployments in the real economy. Tokenization pilots often uncover implementation gaps—ranging from data standardization and system integration to control frameworks—that take time to resolve, even when the core DLT mechanics perform as intended.
For readers tracking the tokenization race, the next signal to watch is how ANBIMA and its partners move from technical proofs of concept toward clearer operational and compliance pathways—particularly whether debentures and investment funds can be tokenized in a way that preserves institutional requirements without sacrificing efficiency.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets Platform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets Platform
Itaú, the largest private-sector bank in Latin America, is joining an industry pilot to explore how tokenized fixed-income instruments and investment funds could work in Brazil’s capital markets. The bank has partnered with digital asset infrastructure provider OpenAssets to participate in the testing phase focused on tokenizing real-world securities using distributed ledger technology (DLT).
According to an announcement made on Tuesday, the work will center on technical proofs of concept and an evaluation of the operational, compliance, and technology requirements needed for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are among the use cases being considered as the parties assess how tokenized instruments might fit within existing institutional workflows.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets are participating in an ANBIMA-led pilot to test tokenized fixed-income securities and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot aims to validate the technical feasibility of issuing, trading, and settling capital markets instruments on DLT, along with compliance and operational prerequisites.
Tests are being conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated setting without real financial transactions.
ANBIMA selected 20 pilot use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 institutions and technology firms.
Interest in tokenized real-world assets continues to expand, with RWA.xyz reporting more than doubling in value over the past year.
ANBIMA’s pilot expands beyond concept into controlled testing
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA), which is running a structured pilot to evaluate capital markets activities—issuance, trading, and settlement—using DLT. Unlike public blockchain experiments that rely on live settlement, the pilot is designed around controlled conditions: it uses a private, permissioned network and a simulated environment to test key mechanics without executing actual trades.
ANBIMA selected the pilot’s initial set of 20 use cases in April from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies. Itaú and OpenAssets are now contributing to the effort by developing proofs of concept and examining what it would take for tokenized instruments to operate within institutional and regulatory expectations.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to do
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will supply its tokenization infrastructure. Itaú’s role focuses on bringing capital markets expertise to the testing process, particularly as the partners examine how tokenized assets could be integrated into existing institutional frameworks.
The work is not limited to testing token issuance mechanics. The Tuesday announcement emphasizes that the parties will assess operational requirements, compliance considerations, and broader technology needs for tokenized products. In practice, these evaluations often determine whether tokenization can be deployed without undermining governance, auditability, custody models, or the controls financial institutions rely on for regulated market activity.
Debentures and investment funds are specifically named among the use cases being explored, highlighting that the pilot targets more than a single asset type. That breadth matters for investors and market participants because it can clarify whether one technical approach can generalize across different security structures—or whether separate designs are needed for different product categories.
Where tokenization demand is coming from
While the Brazil pilot remains focused on technical feasibility and institutional requirements, the broader market backdrop continues to draw attention to tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the total value of tokenized RWAs distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year, rising from roughly $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of writing.
According to the same data, US Treasury debt is the largest category, representing more than $16 billion. This concentration suggests that the RWA market—at least in terms of public-chain issuance—has largely started with highly standardized government instruments. The ANBIMA pilot’s focus on Brazilian debentures and investment funds therefore sits at an important junction: it tests whether tokenization approaches can be adapted from relatively uniform instruments to a wider set of capital markets products with distinct legal and operational features.
Why permissioned, simulated DLT matters for institutional adoption
A key detail in the pilot design is the use of a private, permissioned DLT network operating in a simulated environment without real financial transactions. For institutional participants, this approach can accelerate learning while containing risk: participants can evaluate workflow integration, data handling, and settlement logic before moving toward any live environment.
For market watchers, the permissioned and simulated structure also sets expectations around what success looks like. Rather than measuring immediate liquidity or adoption, the pilot’s milestones are likely to be tied to how issuance, trading, and settlement processes can be mapped into tokenized representations—and whether those representations can satisfy compliance and operational constraints under Brazil’s market rules.
What remains uncertain is how quickly any workable model can be translated into production deployments in the real economy. Tokenization pilots often uncover implementation gaps—ranging from data standardization and system integration to control frameworks—that take time to resolve, even when the core DLT mechanics perform as intended.
For readers tracking the tokenization race, the next signal to watch is how ANBIMA and its partners move from technical proofs of concept toward clearer operational and compliance pathways—particularly whether debentures and investment funds can be tokenized in a way that preserves institutional requirements without sacrificing efficiency.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets Platform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to an announcement made on Tuesday, the work will center on technical proofs of concept and an evaluation of the operational, compliance, and technology requirements needed for tokenized assets. Debentures and investment funds are among the use cases being considered as the parties assess how tokenized instruments might fit within existing institutional workflows.
Key takeaways
Itaú and OpenAssets are participating in an ANBIMA-led pilot to test tokenized fixed-income securities and investment funds in Brazil.
The pilot aims to validate the technical feasibility of issuing, trading, and settling capital markets instruments on DLT, along with compliance and operational prerequisites.
Tests are being conducted on a private, permissioned DLT network in a simulated setting without real financial transactions.
ANBIMA selected 20 pilot use cases from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 institutions and technology firms.
Interest in tokenized real-world assets continues to expand, with RWA.xyz reporting more than doubling in value over the past year.
ANBIMA’s pilot expands beyond concept into controlled testing
The initiative is led by the Brazilian Financial and Capital Markets Association (ANBIMA), which is running a structured pilot to evaluate capital markets activities—issuance, trading, and settlement—using DLT. Unlike public blockchain experiments that rely on live settlement, the pilot is designed around controlled conditions: it uses a private, permissioned network and a simulated environment to test key mechanics without executing actual trades.
ANBIMA selected the pilot’s initial set of 20 use cases in April from 39 proposals submitted by more than 50 banks, asset managers, and technology companies. Itaú and OpenAssets are now contributing to the effort by developing proofs of concept and examining what it would take for tokenized instruments to operate within institutional and regulatory expectations.
What Itaú and OpenAssets are expected to do
Under the partnership, OpenAssets will supply its tokenization infrastructure. Itaú’s role focuses on bringing capital markets expertise to the testing process, particularly as the partners examine how tokenized assets could be integrated into existing institutional frameworks.
The work is not limited to testing token issuance mechanics. The Tuesday announcement emphasizes that the parties will assess operational requirements, compliance considerations, and broader technology needs for tokenized products. In practice, these evaluations often determine whether tokenization can be deployed without undermining governance, auditability, custody models, or the controls financial institutions rely on for regulated market activity.
Debentures and investment funds are specifically named among the use cases being explored, highlighting that the pilot targets more than a single asset type. That breadth matters for investors and market participants because it can clarify whether one technical approach can generalize across different security structures—or whether separate designs are needed for different product categories.
Where tokenization demand is coming from
While the Brazil pilot remains focused on technical feasibility and institutional requirements, the broader market backdrop continues to draw attention to tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). RWA.xyz data cited in the announcement indicates that the total value of tokenized RWAs distributed on public blockchains has more than doubled over the past year, rising from roughly $18.9 billion in August 2025 to about $38.3 billion at the time of writing.
According to the same data, US Treasury debt is the largest category, representing more than $16 billion. This concentration suggests that the RWA market—at least in terms of public-chain issuance—has largely started with highly standardized government instruments. The ANBIMA pilot’s focus on Brazilian debentures and investment funds therefore sits at an important junction: it tests whether tokenization approaches can be adapted from relatively uniform instruments to a wider set of capital markets products with distinct legal and operational features.
Why permissioned, simulated DLT matters for institutional adoption
A key detail in the pilot design is the use of a private, permissioned DLT network operating in a simulated environment without real financial transactions. For institutional participants, this approach can accelerate learning while containing risk: participants can evaluate workflow integration, data handling, and settlement logic before moving toward any live environment.
For market watchers, the permissioned and simulated structure also sets expectations around what success looks like. Rather than measuring immediate liquidity or adoption, the pilot’s milestones are likely to be tied to how issuance, trading, and settlement processes can be mapped into tokenized representations—and whether those representations can satisfy compliance and operational constraints under Brazil’s market rules.
What remains uncertain is how quickly any workable model can be translated into production deployments in the real economy. Tokenization pilots often uncover implementation gaps—ranging from data standardization and system integration to control frameworks—that take time to resolve, even when the core DLT mechanics perform as intended.
For readers tracking the tokenization race, the next signal to watch is how ANBIMA and its partners move from technical proofs of concept toward clearer operational and compliance pathways—particularly whether debentures and investment funds can be tokenized in a way that preserves institutional requirements without sacrificing efficiency.
This article was originally published as Itaú Enters Brazil Tokenization Pilot With OpenAssets Platform on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
22
記事
上院の先送りで暗号資産法案は可決への窮屈な道筋に多数党院内総務のジョン・トゥーン氏は、デジタル資産市場の明確化（CLARITY）法案について、9月の可能性ある採決に向け米上院を前進させてきた。これは、広範な暗号資産の市場構造を扱う同法案を上院本会議で審議できるようにする、クローチャー（討論打ち切り）手続の申請を用いたものだ。議員が1カ月に及ぶ休会から戻った後、同措置は厳しい手続・立法のタイムラインに直面する見通しとなっている。
とはいえ、最終的な可決への道のりは不透明なままだ。上院民主党と業界関係者は、最終合意に向けた重要な障害となる点を挙げており、その中には、ドナルド・トランプ大統領のデジタル資産とのつながりに関連付けた倫理面の文言案や、暗号資産企業がステーブルコインの報酬を提供できる範囲に対する追加の制限が含まれる。9月にクローチャーが成立したとしても、11月の選挙に向けて議場が再び閉じる前に、未解決の争点を処理するための時間は限られたものにとどまる可能性がある。
上院の先送りで暗号資産法案は可決への窮屈な道筋に
多数党院内総務のジョン・トゥーン氏は、デジタル資産市場の明確化（CLARITY）法案について、9月の可能性ある採決に向け米上院を前進させてきた。これは、広範な暗号資産の市場構造を扱う同法案を上院本会議で審議できるようにする、クローチャー（討論打ち切り）手続の申請を用いたものだ。議員が1カ月に及ぶ休会から戻った後、同措置は厳しい手続・立法のタイムラインに直面する見通しとなっている。
とはいえ、最終的な可決への道のりは不透明なままだ。上院民主党と業界関係者は、最終合意に向けた重要な障害となる点を挙げており、その中には、ドナルド・トランプ大統領のデジタル資産とのつながりに関連付けた倫理面の文言案や、暗号資産企業がステーブルコインの報酬を提供できる範囲に対する追加の制限が含まれる。9月にクローチャーが成立したとしても、11月の選挙に向けて議場が再び閉じる前に、未解決の争点を処理するための時間は限られたものにとどまる可能性がある。
とはいえ、最終的な可決への道のりは不透明なままだ。上院民主党と業界関係者は、最終合意に向けた重要な障害となる点を挙げており、その中には、ドナルド・トランプ大統領のデジタル資産とのつながりに関連付けた倫理面の文言案や、暗号資産企業がステーブルコインの報酬を提供できる範囲に対する追加の制限が含まれる。9月にクローチャーが成立したとしても、11月の選挙に向けて議場が再び閉じる前に、未解決の争点を処理するための時間は限られたものにとどまる可能性がある。
49
記事
翻訳参照
Strategy CEO Says Firm Will Resume Bitcoin Accumulation This YearStrategy CEO Phong Le says the company plans to resume accumulating Bitcoin later this year, despite having sold portions of its BTC holdings earlier in the year—an approach that has attracted investor scrutiny.
In a Monday interview with FOX Business, Le said Strategy purchased about 175,000 Bitcoin since the start of the year while selling roughly 7,000 BTC. He characterized the net flow as “about 25 times more” buying than selling and noted that Strategy has moved from being the world’s second-largest institutional Bitcoin holder to becoming the largest.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it will restart net Bitcoin accumulation later this year after earlier sales.
Le reported ~175,000 BTC bought since the beginning of the year versus ~7,000 BTC sold, implying Strategy remains a major net buyer.
Strategy has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, with the most recent sale totaling 1,690 BTC.
Recent sales have been linked to shareholder payouts and balance-sheet uses, including dividends and share repurchases.
Broader pressure is building on the corporate Bitcoin treasury model as some public companies trade below the net asset value of their BTC.
Strategy’s plan to keep buying, and why the sales matter
Le’s message is direct: despite stepping back from pure accumulation, Strategy intends to increase its BTC exposure again “throughout the course of the year.” That stance arrives after the company diverged from its long-running “never sell” narrative, even if the magnitude of selling appears small relative to its total holdings.
According to the interview, Strategy has accumulated more than 840,000 BTC overall, while still making sales on four occasions since May. The most recent disclosed sale was for 1,690 BTC.
Le’s comments help frame the trade-off Strategy is facing as a public company with ongoing obligations. The company has used proceeds from recent Bitcoin sales for purposes that extend beyond building its BTC treasury—supporting preferred stock dividends, funding share repurchases, and adding to its U.S. dollar reserve.
The tension for investors is straightforward: selling Bitcoin—even when paired with larger net buying—can be seen as a shift in the risk-management and capital allocation logic that originally attracted many BTC-focused shareholders.
From “never sell” to balancing equity and dividends
Market scrutiny has focused on Strategy’s departure from its “never sell” approach. The company’s situation underscores a challenge unique to Bitcoin-heavy treasury models when they operate under traditional public-company constraints.
As a result, Strategy’s capital decisions are not driven by Bitcoin price views alone. Instead, it must weigh requirements tied to common and preferred shareholders alongside its accumulation strategy. The implication is that even firms positioned as long-term Bitcoin holders may still periodically liquidate BTC to meet other corporate finance priorities.
Why the corporate Bitcoin treasury model is under strain
Beyond Strategy specifically, the broader economics of corporate Bitcoin treasuries have been stressed by weaker market conditions. Data cited from BitcoinTreasuries.NET indicates that public companies collectively hold more than 1.26 million BTC, while spot-exposed vehicles such as exchange-traded funds and other funds hold more than 1.6 million BTC.
The treasury model historically gained momentum during a period when corporate Bitcoin holders traded at premiums to the value of their BTC holdings. In that environment, firms could raise capital through equity or debt and then convert that financing into additional Bitcoin, according to analysis referenced from Novaque Research.
But the mechanics worsen when the market assigns a discount. When companies trade below the net asset value of their Bitcoin holdings, new capital raises can dilute existing shareholders more than they did during premium periods. That makes it harder for treasury firms to perpetuate rapid accumulation without creating downside dilution—especially if capital markets are tighter and equity valuation is less supportive.
In other words, even if the long-term thesis remains intact, the near-term path to growth may require more careful balancing between BTC buying and other corporate uses of cash, particularly when the equity story is no longer a simple premium-to-NAV loop.
What to watch next for Strategy and other BTC treasuries
Strategy says it intends to resume accumulation later this year, but investors should monitor whether future buying is funded primarily through balance-sheet decisions (including any further BTC sales) or through renewed access to capital markets. More broadly, the sustainability of corporate Bitcoin treasury expansion may increasingly depend on whether share pricing can recover toward—or at least not deeply undercut—BTC net asset values.
This article was originally published as Strategy CEO Says Firm Will Resume Bitcoin Accumulation This Year on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
Strategy CEO Says Firm Will Resume Bitcoin Accumulation This Year
Strategy CEO Phong Le says the company plans to resume accumulating Bitcoin later this year, despite having sold portions of its BTC holdings earlier in the year—an approach that has attracted investor scrutiny.
In a Monday interview with FOX Business, Le said Strategy purchased about 175,000 Bitcoin since the start of the year while selling roughly 7,000 BTC. He characterized the net flow as “about 25 times more” buying than selling and noted that Strategy has moved from being the world’s second-largest institutional Bitcoin holder to becoming the largest.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it will restart net Bitcoin accumulation later this year after earlier sales.
Le reported ~175,000 BTC bought since the beginning of the year versus ~7,000 BTC sold, implying Strategy remains a major net buyer.
Strategy has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, with the most recent sale totaling 1,690 BTC.
Recent sales have been linked to shareholder payouts and balance-sheet uses, including dividends and share repurchases.
Broader pressure is building on the corporate Bitcoin treasury model as some public companies trade below the net asset value of their BTC.
Strategy’s plan to keep buying, and why the sales matter
Le’s message is direct: despite stepping back from pure accumulation, Strategy intends to increase its BTC exposure again “throughout the course of the year.” That stance arrives after the company diverged from its long-running “never sell” narrative, even if the magnitude of selling appears small relative to its total holdings.
According to the interview, Strategy has accumulated more than 840,000 BTC overall, while still making sales on four occasions since May. The most recent disclosed sale was for 1,690 BTC.
Le’s comments help frame the trade-off Strategy is facing as a public company with ongoing obligations. The company has used proceeds from recent Bitcoin sales for purposes that extend beyond building its BTC treasury—supporting preferred stock dividends, funding share repurchases, and adding to its U.S. dollar reserve.
The tension for investors is straightforward: selling Bitcoin—even when paired with larger net buying—can be seen as a shift in the risk-management and capital allocation logic that originally attracted many BTC-focused shareholders.
From “never sell” to balancing equity and dividends
Market scrutiny has focused on Strategy’s departure from its “never sell” approach. The company’s situation underscores a challenge unique to Bitcoin-heavy treasury models when they operate under traditional public-company constraints.
As a result, Strategy’s capital decisions are not driven by Bitcoin price views alone. Instead, it must weigh requirements tied to common and preferred shareholders alongside its accumulation strategy. The implication is that even firms positioned as long-term Bitcoin holders may still periodically liquidate BTC to meet other corporate finance priorities.
Why the corporate Bitcoin treasury model is under strain
Beyond Strategy specifically, the broader economics of corporate Bitcoin treasuries have been stressed by weaker market conditions. Data cited from BitcoinTreasuries.NET indicates that public companies collectively hold more than 1.26 million BTC, while spot-exposed vehicles such as exchange-traded funds and other funds hold more than 1.6 million BTC.
The treasury model historically gained momentum during a period when corporate Bitcoin holders traded at premiums to the value of their BTC holdings. In that environment, firms could raise capital through equity or debt and then convert that financing into additional Bitcoin, according to analysis referenced from Novaque Research.
But the mechanics worsen when the market assigns a discount. When companies trade below the net asset value of their Bitcoin holdings, new capital raises can dilute existing shareholders more than they did during premium periods. That makes it harder for treasury firms to perpetuate rapid accumulation without creating downside dilution—especially if capital markets are tighter and equity valuation is less supportive.
In other words, even if the long-term thesis remains intact, the near-term path to growth may require more careful balancing between BTC buying and other corporate uses of cash, particularly when the equity story is no longer a simple premium-to-NAV loop.
What to watch next for Strategy and other BTC treasuries
Strategy says it intends to resume accumulation later this year, but investors should monitor whether future buying is funded primarily through balance-sheet decisions (including any further BTC sales) or through renewed access to capital markets. More broadly, the sustainability of corporate Bitcoin treasury expansion may increasingly depend on whether share pricing can recover toward—or at least not deeply undercut—BTC net asset values.
This article was originally published as Strategy CEO Says Firm Will Resume Bitcoin Accumulation This Year on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In a Monday interview with FOX Business, Le said Strategy purchased about 175,000 Bitcoin since the start of the year while selling roughly 7,000 BTC. He characterized the net flow as “about 25 times more” buying than selling and noted that Strategy has moved from being the world’s second-largest institutional Bitcoin holder to becoming the largest.
Key takeaways
Strategy says it will restart net Bitcoin accumulation later this year after earlier sales.
Le reported ~175,000 BTC bought since the beginning of the year versus ~7,000 BTC sold, implying Strategy remains a major net buyer.
Strategy has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, with the most recent sale totaling 1,690 BTC.
Recent sales have been linked to shareholder payouts and balance-sheet uses, including dividends and share repurchases.
Broader pressure is building on the corporate Bitcoin treasury model as some public companies trade below the net asset value of their BTC.
Strategy’s plan to keep buying, and why the sales matter
Le’s message is direct: despite stepping back from pure accumulation, Strategy intends to increase its BTC exposure again “throughout the course of the year.” That stance arrives after the company diverged from its long-running “never sell” narrative, even if the magnitude of selling appears small relative to its total holdings.
According to the interview, Strategy has accumulated more than 840,000 BTC overall, while still making sales on four occasions since May. The most recent disclosed sale was for 1,690 BTC.
Le’s comments help frame the trade-off Strategy is facing as a public company with ongoing obligations. The company has used proceeds from recent Bitcoin sales for purposes that extend beyond building its BTC treasury—supporting preferred stock dividends, funding share repurchases, and adding to its U.S. dollar reserve.
The tension for investors is straightforward: selling Bitcoin—even when paired with larger net buying—can be seen as a shift in the risk-management and capital allocation logic that originally attracted many BTC-focused shareholders.
From “never sell” to balancing equity and dividends
Market scrutiny has focused on Strategy’s departure from its “never sell” approach. The company’s situation underscores a challenge unique to Bitcoin-heavy treasury models when they operate under traditional public-company constraints.
As a result, Strategy’s capital decisions are not driven by Bitcoin price views alone. Instead, it must weigh requirements tied to common and preferred shareholders alongside its accumulation strategy. The implication is that even firms positioned as long-term Bitcoin holders may still periodically liquidate BTC to meet other corporate finance priorities.
Why the corporate Bitcoin treasury model is under strain
Beyond Strategy specifically, the broader economics of corporate Bitcoin treasuries have been stressed by weaker market conditions. Data cited from BitcoinTreasuries.NET indicates that public companies collectively hold more than 1.26 million BTC, while spot-exposed vehicles such as exchange-traded funds and other funds hold more than 1.6 million BTC.
The treasury model historically gained momentum during a period when corporate Bitcoin holders traded at premiums to the value of their BTC holdings. In that environment, firms could raise capital through equity or debt and then convert that financing into additional Bitcoin, according to analysis referenced from Novaque Research.
But the mechanics worsen when the market assigns a discount. When companies trade below the net asset value of their Bitcoin holdings, new capital raises can dilute existing shareholders more than they did during premium periods. That makes it harder for treasury firms to perpetuate rapid accumulation without creating downside dilution—especially if capital markets are tighter and equity valuation is less supportive.
In other words, even if the long-term thesis remains intact, the near-term path to growth may require more careful balancing between BTC buying and other corporate uses of cash, particularly when the equity story is no longer a simple premium-to-NAV loop.
What to watch next for Strategy and other BTC treasuries
Strategy says it intends to resume accumulation later this year, but investors should monitor whether future buying is funded primarily through balance-sheet decisions (including any further BTC sales) or through renewed access to capital markets. More broadly, the sustainability of corporate Bitcoin treasury expansion may increasingly depend on whether share pricing can recover toward—or at least not deeply undercut—BTC net asset values.
This article was originally published as Strategy CEO Says Firm Will Resume Bitcoin Accumulation This Year on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
37
記事
ARPデジタル、ブローカー・ディーラーとしてドバイVARAライセンスを獲得ARPデジタルは、バーレーン拠点の機関向けデジタル・アセット・インフラ提供会社であり、ドバイの仮想資産規制当局（VARA）からブローカー・ディーラーのライセンスを取得した。今回の承認により、同社はUAEにおける適格な顧客に対して、デジタル・アセットとUAEディルハムの間の規制されたコンバージョン（交換）サービスを提供できるようになる。
ARPデジタルによれば、このライセンスはUAE拠点の法人、資本市場の参加者、適格投資家を対象に設計されている。これにはステーブルコインとディルハムを含むコンバージョンが含まれる。同社はまた、今回の承認を、機関がデジタル・アセットの資本をローカルのUAE投資へ投入するために転換する、規制されたルートとして位置付けている。
ARPデジタル、ブローカー・ディーラーとしてドバイVARAライセンスを獲得
ARPデジタルは、バーレーン拠点の機関向けデジタル・アセット・インフラ提供会社であり、ドバイの仮想資産規制当局（VARA）からブローカー・ディーラーのライセンスを取得した。今回の承認により、同社はUAEにおける適格な顧客に対して、デジタル・アセットとUAEディルハムの間の規制されたコンバージョン（交換）サービスを提供できるようになる。
ARPデジタルによれば、このライセンスはUAE拠点の法人、資本市場の参加者、適格投資家を対象に設計されている。これにはステーブルコインとディルハムを含むコンバージョンが含まれる。同社はまた、今回の承認を、機関がデジタル・アセットの資本をローカルのUAE投資へ投入するために転換する、規制されたルートとして位置付けている。
ARPデジタルによれば、このライセンスはUAE拠点の法人、資本市場の参加者、適格投資家を対象に設計されている。これにはステーブルコインとディルハムを含むコンバージョンが含まれる。同社はまた、今回の承認を、機関がデジタル・アセットの資本をローカルのUAE投資へ投入するために転換する、規制されたルートとして位置付けている。
17
記事
翻訳参照
FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation DataFlightAware, the aviation data company behind real-time flight tracking and status updates, has sued Kalshi in New York federal court over Kalshi’s use of FlightAware’s “data and name” to power prediction market contracts tied to flight cancellations. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, accuses Kalshi of continuing to list event contracts using FlightAware’s registered trademark and purportedly “verified” flight-cancellation information despite repeated demands to stop.
The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.
Key takeaways
FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.
Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center
According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.
FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.
“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”
The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.
Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument
While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.
FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.
On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:
“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“
“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“
The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.
Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US
FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.
Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.
Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.
Market dominance and scale add pressure
The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.
At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.
Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation Data on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation Data
FlightAware, the aviation data company behind real-time flight tracking and status updates, has sued Kalshi in New York federal court over Kalshi’s use of FlightAware’s “data and name” to power prediction market contracts tied to flight cancellations. The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York on Monday, accuses Kalshi of continuing to list event contracts using FlightAware’s registered trademark and purportedly “verified” flight-cancellation information despite repeated demands to stop.
The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.
Key takeaways
FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.
Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center
According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.
FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.
“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”
The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.
Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument
While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.
FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.
On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:
“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“
“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“
The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.
Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US
FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.
Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.
Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.
Market dominance and scale add pressure
The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.
At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.
Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation Data on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The lawsuit adds a reputational and safety dimension to the broader legal battle already surrounding prediction markets in the US. FlightAware argues that wagering tied to flight disruptions could create incentives for manipulation and even interfere with air travel, while also positioning FlightAware as being involved in alleged “illicit” activity through unauthorized branding and data use.
Key takeaways
FlightAware sued Kalshi in New York federal court, alleging continued use of FlightAware’s trademark and flight-cancellation data in prediction market contracts.
The complaint frames flight events as safety-relevant, arguing wagers could incentivize participants to interfere with cancellations or pressure aviation workers to cut corners.
Regulatory pressure on prediction markets is escalating, with states and federal regulators already contesting whether event contracts function as illegal gambling.
FlightAware says customers may assume involvement due to the way Kalshi presents “verified by FlightAware” information and FlightAware branding.
Trademark and data-use claims put FlightAware at the center
According to the Monday filing in the Southern District of New York, FlightAware contends that Kalshi kept publishing event contracts related to flight cancellations even after FlightAware demanded Kalshi stop using its registered trademark. FlightAware also claims Kalshi continued to advertise those markets as being “verified by FlightAware’s data,” effectively tying FlightAware’s brand and information to the trading activity.
FlightAware’s lawsuit asserts multiple legal theories, including trademark infringement, breach of contract, harm to its reputation, and unfair competition. The company characterizes the expansion of Kalshi’s trading into commercial flight operations—reported as starting in July—as amplifying the reputational stakes of unauthorized association.
“[T]here was widespread outrage and concern that the markets would incentivize unsafe tactics to impact cancellations, threatening public safety and creating the potential for massive disruption of air travel. Airlines condemned the markets,” said the lawsuit. “And due to Kalshi’s unauthorized use of FlightAware’s data and mark, customers immediately assumed that FlightAware was involved in the scheme.”
The complaint describes FlightAware’s requested remedy as preventing “harm to public safety” before any alleged damage grows—an argument that goes beyond branding disputes and into how flight-event markets might influence behavior.
Why flight-cancellation markets are central to the safety argument
While the lawsuit is anchored in trademark infringement and related business claims, it also makes a broader case that some prediction market structures can distort incentives—especially when participants may have information before it becomes public.
FlightAware’s filing points to concerns about manipulation in event contracts generally—particularly cases where traders might know more than the public until an event is formally disclosed. The filing references public reporting that has highlighted unusual betting activity in other contexts, including claims tied to political speech wording and allegations involving alleged nonpublic information.
On flight disruptions specifically, FlightAware argues Kalshi’s model risks creating incentives to affect outcomes that are operationally complex and safety-sensitive. In its complaint, FlightAware contends that:
“A market that allows the public to wager on whether flights will be delayed or cancelled creates an incentive for participants to interfere with air travel—including by causing or contributing to flight cancellations—to profit from their wagers.“
“Worse, wagers on flights being timely may incentivize airline, airport, or other aviation workers to cut corners to keep a flight on time.“
The practical implication for investors and users of prediction markets is that the debate is not only about legality; it’s also about whether these markets create behavioral pressures that regulators and consumers should treat differently from, say, entertainment-focused or purely informational forecasts.
Prediction markets face a wider legal showdown in the US
FlightAware’s suit arrives amid intensifying legal scrutiny of prediction markets such as Kalshi and Polymarket. The company’s complaint is described as another step in a pattern of court challenges where gaming authorities have asked judges to halt or block event contracts for residents in their states.
Earlier coverage cited in the source notes that Michigan has sought to block Kalshi’s sports betting contracts. More broadly, the continuing legal conflict is expected to develop into a standoff between federal regulators and state officials over whether certain prediction markets amount to illegal gambling under state law, with attention often focused on sports-betting-adjacent products.
Within that landscape, FlightAware’s complaint is notable for targeting the infrastructure behind a specific market type: the data feeds and branding used to connect aviation status information to tradable events. Even if a court ultimately decides the “wager” question in a different frame, the trademark and reputational claims could still materially affect how prediction markets partner with, or reference, data providers.
Market dominance and scale add pressure
The source also points to a report from Predicted’s “State of Prediction Markets – Q2 2026,” which says Kalshi and Polymarket combined controlled more than 90% of all prediction market volume, and together had more than $90 billion in second-quarter notional volume. While this figure is not part of FlightAware’s lawsuit, it helps explain why disputes involving major platforms and data sources attract immediate attention: the potential impact of any court outcome is amplified by the scale at which these venues operate.
At the same time, scale can cut both ways. For data providers and industry stakeholders, widely used prediction products increase the cost of getting the compliance picture wrong—especially when branding and “verified” claims link a company’s name to markets that may be perceived as encouraging unsafe interference or manipulation.
Cointelegraph reported that it reached out to Kalshi for comment on the lawsuit but did not receive an immediate response.
Readers should watch how courts address both strands of this conflict—whether event contracts are treated as wagers under relevant laws, and whether unauthorized trademark and data-use claims can force changes to how prediction platforms source and present verified information. The next developments in the case could determine how far prediction markets can go in partnering with real-world data providers without triggering safety and compliance concerns.
This article was originally published as FlightAware Sues Kalshi Over Use of Flight Cancellation Data on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
33
記事
翻訳参照
eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30%eToro has outlined a new step in its push to broaden beyond crypto by announcing plans to acquire US online brokerage TradeZero. The deal is positioned as part of the company’s expansion strategy in the United States, with closing expected in the first half of 2026.
In parallel with the acquisition announcement, eToro’s second-quarter update showed crypto trading and revenues under pressure. The company reported $1.59 billion in total revenue for the quarter, with crypto assets contributing $1.34 billion—down roughly 30% from $1.9 billion in the prior-year comparable quarter. While crypto revenue fell, eToro also reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets, alongside $53.4 million in total net income.
Key takeaways
eToro plans to acquire TradeZero to accelerate its US expansion, targeting closing in the first half of 2026.
In Q2, crypto remained the largest revenue stream for eToro at $1.34 billion, but it fell about 30% year over year.
Crypto net income was positive at $19.7 million for the quarter, even as overall crypto trades and invested amounts declined sharply in July.
The company reported strong cross-asset engagement: many users who traded commodities later traded equities and then crypto on eToro.
TradeZero reportedly generated about $80 million in revenue over the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026, with 81% gross margins.
Why eToro wants TradeZero in its US strategy
The acquisition of TradeZero is framed by eToro as a practical move to become a broader multi-asset platform in the United States. The focus on US brokerage capabilities comes as the firm works to deepen trading relationships across asset classes, rather than relying solely on digital-asset activity.
eToro also previously signaled similar intent in crypto infrastructure: in April, it announced plans to acquire self-custodial wallet provider Zengo. Taken together, the company’s approach appears to combine more traditional brokerage reach (through TradeZero) with continuing investment in crypto custody and user access (through Zengo).
Crypto performance remains the swing factor
Despite the company’s ongoing multi-asset push, crypto continues to dominate the revenue mix. In its second-quarter report, eToro said total revenue came in at $1.59 billion, down from $2 billion in the comparable 2025 period. Of that amount, $1.34 billion was revenue from crypto assets, which the company said was about 30% lower than $1.9 billion in Q2 2025.
eToro reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets. Total net income for the quarter was $53.4 million, indicating that losses or reductions in crypto activity did not fully translate into an overall earnings collapse—though the numbers highlight how sensitive the business remains to the direction of crypto volumes and fees.
The broader trading picture also weakened after the quarter. According to eToro’s disclosures, total cryptocurrency trades on the platform fell to 1.4 million in July, representing a 73% year-on-year decline. The invested amount was down 50% over the same period, reinforcing that reduced trading activity has been affecting both the number of transactions and the size of positions.
Cross-asset engagement and the commodities-to-crypto funnel
Alongside crypto-specific declines, eToro highlighted user behavior that could support its multi-asset thesis. In commentary attributed to its financial leadership, the company said that more than 60% of users who traded commodities during Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 later traded equities in Q2 2026. It added that nearly nine in ten of those users have also traded crypto on eToro.
This matters because it suggests eToro is attempting to build a funnel where initial engagement in one asset category can lead to additional trading across other categories. If TradeZero helps expand access to US equities and other traditional brokerage products, eToro may be betting that increased equity trading will feed back into crypto usage—offsetting parts of the volatility in digital-asset demand.
eToro also reported that equities and commodities-related trading generated $141 million in net income for the platform, providing another anchor outside crypto revenue even as crypto volumes cooled.
Deal economics: TradeZero’s margins and expected earnings impact
From the perspective of deal structure, eToro provided figures intended to show that TradeZero could strengthen the business rather than dilute it. The company stated that TradeZero generated about $80 million of revenue with 81% gross margins in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026.
Looking ahead, eToro said it expects the acquisition to be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year after closing. Closing is expected in the first half of 2026, meaning the earliest period for the claimed benefit would likely follow shortly thereafter.
Market reaction to the announcement appeared cautious. eToro’s Nasdaq-traded shares were down more than 5% in pre-market activity on Tuesday, with the move expected to extend Monday’s decline according to Yahoo Finance data for ETOR.
What to watch next
Investors and users will likely focus on whether the TradeZero acquisition helps stabilize revenues as crypto volumes fluctuate, and on whether eToro can translate its reported cross-asset engagement into sustained trading activity in the US. In the meantime, July’s sharp drop in crypto trades and invested amounts remains a key signal for how quickly digital-asset performance can change the company’s quarterly outlook.
This article was originally published as eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30%
eToro has outlined a new step in its push to broaden beyond crypto by announcing plans to acquire US online brokerage TradeZero. The deal is positioned as part of the company’s expansion strategy in the United States, with closing expected in the first half of 2026.
In parallel with the acquisition announcement, eToro’s second-quarter update showed crypto trading and revenues under pressure. The company reported $1.59 billion in total revenue for the quarter, with crypto assets contributing $1.34 billion—down roughly 30% from $1.9 billion in the prior-year comparable quarter. While crypto revenue fell, eToro also reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets, alongside $53.4 million in total net income.
Key takeaways
eToro plans to acquire TradeZero to accelerate its US expansion, targeting closing in the first half of 2026.
In Q2, crypto remained the largest revenue stream for eToro at $1.34 billion, but it fell about 30% year over year.
Crypto net income was positive at $19.7 million for the quarter, even as overall crypto trades and invested amounts declined sharply in July.
The company reported strong cross-asset engagement: many users who traded commodities later traded equities and then crypto on eToro.
TradeZero reportedly generated about $80 million in revenue over the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026, with 81% gross margins.
Why eToro wants TradeZero in its US strategy
The acquisition of TradeZero is framed by eToro as a practical move to become a broader multi-asset platform in the United States. The focus on US brokerage capabilities comes as the firm works to deepen trading relationships across asset classes, rather than relying solely on digital-asset activity.
eToro also previously signaled similar intent in crypto infrastructure: in April, it announced plans to acquire self-custodial wallet provider Zengo. Taken together, the company’s approach appears to combine more traditional brokerage reach (through TradeZero) with continuing investment in crypto custody and user access (through Zengo).
Crypto performance remains the swing factor
Despite the company’s ongoing multi-asset push, crypto continues to dominate the revenue mix. In its second-quarter report, eToro said total revenue came in at $1.59 billion, down from $2 billion in the comparable 2025 period. Of that amount, $1.34 billion was revenue from crypto assets, which the company said was about 30% lower than $1.9 billion in Q2 2025.
eToro reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets. Total net income for the quarter was $53.4 million, indicating that losses or reductions in crypto activity did not fully translate into an overall earnings collapse—though the numbers highlight how sensitive the business remains to the direction of crypto volumes and fees.
The broader trading picture also weakened after the quarter. According to eToro’s disclosures, total cryptocurrency trades on the platform fell to 1.4 million in July, representing a 73% year-on-year decline. The invested amount was down 50% over the same period, reinforcing that reduced trading activity has been affecting both the number of transactions and the size of positions.
Cross-asset engagement and the commodities-to-crypto funnel
Alongside crypto-specific declines, eToro highlighted user behavior that could support its multi-asset thesis. In commentary attributed to its financial leadership, the company said that more than 60% of users who traded commodities during Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 later traded equities in Q2 2026. It added that nearly nine in ten of those users have also traded crypto on eToro.
This matters because it suggests eToro is attempting to build a funnel where initial engagement in one asset category can lead to additional trading across other categories. If TradeZero helps expand access to US equities and other traditional brokerage products, eToro may be betting that increased equity trading will feed back into crypto usage—offsetting parts of the volatility in digital-asset demand.
eToro also reported that equities and commodities-related trading generated $141 million in net income for the platform, providing another anchor outside crypto revenue even as crypto volumes cooled.
Deal economics: TradeZero’s margins and expected earnings impact
From the perspective of deal structure, eToro provided figures intended to show that TradeZero could strengthen the business rather than dilute it. The company stated that TradeZero generated about $80 million of revenue with 81% gross margins in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026.
Looking ahead, eToro said it expects the acquisition to be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year after closing. Closing is expected in the first half of 2026, meaning the earliest period for the claimed benefit would likely follow shortly thereafter.
Market reaction to the announcement appeared cautious. eToro’s Nasdaq-traded shares were down more than 5% in pre-market activity on Tuesday, with the move expected to extend Monday’s decline according to Yahoo Finance data for ETOR.
What to watch next
Investors and users will likely focus on whether the TradeZero acquisition helps stabilize revenues as crypto volumes fluctuate, and on whether eToro can translate its reported cross-asset engagement into sustained trading activity in the US. In the meantime, July’s sharp drop in crypto trades and invested amounts remains a key signal for how quickly digital-asset performance can change the company’s quarterly outlook.
This article was originally published as eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
In parallel with the acquisition announcement, eToro’s second-quarter update showed crypto trading and revenues under pressure. The company reported $1.59 billion in total revenue for the quarter, with crypto assets contributing $1.34 billion—down roughly 30% from $1.9 billion in the prior-year comparable quarter. While crypto revenue fell, eToro also reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets, alongside $53.4 million in total net income.
Key takeaways
eToro plans to acquire TradeZero to accelerate its US expansion, targeting closing in the first half of 2026.
In Q2, crypto remained the largest revenue stream for eToro at $1.34 billion, but it fell about 30% year over year.
Crypto net income was positive at $19.7 million for the quarter, even as overall crypto trades and invested amounts declined sharply in July.
The company reported strong cross-asset engagement: many users who traded commodities later traded equities and then crypto on eToro.
TradeZero reportedly generated about $80 million in revenue over the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026, with 81% gross margins.
Why eToro wants TradeZero in its US strategy
The acquisition of TradeZero is framed by eToro as a practical move to become a broader multi-asset platform in the United States. The focus on US brokerage capabilities comes as the firm works to deepen trading relationships across asset classes, rather than relying solely on digital-asset activity.
eToro also previously signaled similar intent in crypto infrastructure: in April, it announced plans to acquire self-custodial wallet provider Zengo. Taken together, the company’s approach appears to combine more traditional brokerage reach (through TradeZero) with continuing investment in crypto custody and user access (through Zengo).
Crypto performance remains the swing factor
Despite the company’s ongoing multi-asset push, crypto continues to dominate the revenue mix. In its second-quarter report, eToro said total revenue came in at $1.59 billion, down from $2 billion in the comparable 2025 period. Of that amount, $1.34 billion was revenue from crypto assets, which the company said was about 30% lower than $1.9 billion in Q2 2025.
eToro reported $1.35 billion in crypto-related cost of revenue and $19.7 million in net income from crypto assets. Total net income for the quarter was $53.4 million, indicating that losses or reductions in crypto activity did not fully translate into an overall earnings collapse—though the numbers highlight how sensitive the business remains to the direction of crypto volumes and fees.
The broader trading picture also weakened after the quarter. According to eToro’s disclosures, total cryptocurrency trades on the platform fell to 1.4 million in July, representing a 73% year-on-year decline. The invested amount was down 50% over the same period, reinforcing that reduced trading activity has been affecting both the number of transactions and the size of positions.
Cross-asset engagement and the commodities-to-crypto funnel
Alongside crypto-specific declines, eToro highlighted user behavior that could support its multi-asset thesis. In commentary attributed to its financial leadership, the company said that more than 60% of users who traded commodities during Q4 2025 to Q1 2026 later traded equities in Q2 2026. It added that nearly nine in ten of those users have also traded crypto on eToro.
This matters because it suggests eToro is attempting to build a funnel where initial engagement in one asset category can lead to additional trading across other categories. If TradeZero helps expand access to US equities and other traditional brokerage products, eToro may be betting that increased equity trading will feed back into crypto usage—offsetting parts of the volatility in digital-asset demand.
eToro also reported that equities and commodities-related trading generated $141 million in net income for the platform, providing another anchor outside crypto revenue even as crypto volumes cooled.
Deal economics: TradeZero’s margins and expected earnings impact
From the perspective of deal structure, eToro provided figures intended to show that TradeZero could strengthen the business rather than dilute it. The company stated that TradeZero generated about $80 million of revenue with 81% gross margins in the last 12 months ended June 30, 2026.
Looking ahead, eToro said it expects the acquisition to be accretive to adjusted earnings per share in the first year after closing. Closing is expected in the first half of 2026, meaning the earliest period for the claimed benefit would likely follow shortly thereafter.
Market reaction to the announcement appeared cautious. eToro’s Nasdaq-traded shares were down more than 5% in pre-market activity on Tuesday, with the move expected to extend Monday’s decline according to Yahoo Finance data for ETOR.
What to watch next
Investors and users will likely focus on whether the TradeZero acquisition helps stabilize revenues as crypto volumes fluctuate, and on whether eToro can translate its reported cross-asset engagement into sustained trading activity in the US. In the meantime, July’s sharp drop in crypto trades and invested amounts remains a key signal for how quickly digital-asset performance can change the company’s quarterly outlook.
This article was originally published as eToro Plans to Acquire TradeZero as Q2 Crypto Revenue Drops 30% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
45
記事
ADI ChainとShipfinex、5億ドル規模の船舶パイプラインをトークン化するため提携ドバイ拠点の海事トークン化プラットフォームであるShipfinexは、アブダビのブロックチェーンネットワークADI Chainと提携し、船に紐づく資産をオンチェーン上でどのように表現し、資金調達できるかを試験している。両者は、約35隻の船からなる総額約5億ドル規模のパイプラインをトークン化しており、船主に対して資金調達の追加オプションを生み出すことを目指していると述べている。
この構想は、船舶を別々の特別目的ビークル（SPV）に組み込むことを中心にしている。次にトークンを発行し、各船への経済的エクスポージャーを反映させる。構成としては、船舶裏付けのクレジット、チャーターに関連する収益、または基礎となる資産に紐づくその他の権利などが想定される。ADI Chainは配布・決済のレイヤーを担うと見込まれており、主要な配分および配当（ディストリビューション）は、UAEディルハム建て、米ドル建て、その他の通貨建てのステーブルコインを用いて行う計画だ。
ADI ChainとShipfinex、5億ドル規模の船舶パイプラインをトークン化するため提携
ドバイ拠点の海事トークン化プラットフォームであるShipfinexは、アブダビのブロックチェーンネットワークADI Chainと提携し、船に紐づく資産をオンチェーン上でどのように表現し、資金調達できるかを試験している。両者は、約35隻の船からなる総額約5億ドル規模のパイプラインをトークン化しており、船主に対して資金調達の追加オプションを生み出すことを目指していると述べている。
この構想は、船舶を別々の特別目的ビークル（SPV）に組み込むことを中心にしている。次にトークンを発行し、各船への経済的エクスポージャーを反映させる。構成としては、船舶裏付けのクレジット、チャーターに関連する収益、または基礎となる資産に紐づくその他の権利などが想定される。ADI Chainは配布・決済のレイヤーを担うと見込まれており、主要な配分および配当（ディストリビューション）は、UAEディルハム建て、米ドル建て、その他の通貨建てのステーブルコインを用いて行う計画だ。
この構想は、船舶を別々の特別目的ビークル（SPV）に組み込むことを中心にしている。次にトークンを発行し、各船への経済的エクスポージャーを反映させる。構成としては、船舶裏付けのクレジット、チャーターに関連する収益、または基礎となる資産に紐づくその他の権利などが想定される。ADI Chainは配布・決済のレイヤーを担うと見込まれており、主要な配分および配当（ディストリビューション）は、UAEディルハム建て、米ドル建て、その他の通貨建てのステーブルコインを用いて行う計画だ。
22
記事
SharpLink、ETH価格が重しとなり第2四半期の純損失3億9400万ドルを計上イーサに重点を置く最大級の法人トレジャリーの1つであるSharpLinkは、ETHの価格下落が同社の貸借対照表にのしかかったことで、2026年の第2四半期の損失が大幅に拡大したと報告した。フロリダ州マイアミに拠点を置く同社は、純損失を3億9400万ドルとし、前年同四半期の純損失1億300万ドルと比べた。
月曜の同社発表では、SharpLinkは損失の大半を、未実現の暗号資産損失3億2100万ドルと、ステーキングされたイーサ（Ether）トークンに関連する7,600万ドルの減損によるものとした。同時に、同社はETHステーキングによる1,110万ドルを含む1,150万ドルの売上を計上した。
SharpLink、ETH価格が重しとなり第2四半期の純損失3億9400万ドルを計上
イーサに重点を置く最大級の法人トレジャリーの1つであるSharpLinkは、ETHの価格下落が同社の貸借対照表にのしかかったことで、2026年の第2四半期の損失が大幅に拡大したと報告した。フロリダ州マイアミに拠点を置く同社は、純損失を3億9400万ドルとし、前年同四半期の純損失1億300万ドルと比べた。
月曜の同社発表では、SharpLinkは損失の大半を、未実現の暗号資産損失3億2100万ドルと、ステーキングされたイーサ（Ether）トークンに関連する7,600万ドルの減損によるものとした。同時に、同社はETHステーキングによる1,110万ドルを含む1,150万ドルの売上を計上した。
月曜の同社発表では、SharpLinkは損失の大半を、未実現の暗号資産損失3億2100万ドルと、ステーキングされたイーサ（Ether）トークンに関連する7,600万ドルの減損によるものとした。同時に、同社はETHステーキングによる1,110万ドルを含む1,150万ドルの売上を計上した。
447
記事
eToroはQ2の暗号資産売上が30%減の中、TradeZeroを買収へeToroは米国の金融市場での拡大を後押しする新たな一手を示した。火曜日、同社は米国のオンライン証券会社TradeZeroを買収する計画だと発表した。この取引は、株式、コモディティ、デジタル資産を含むマルチアセット・プラットフォームを構築しようとするeToroのより広範な取り組みの一環として位置づけられている。
買収発表に加えて、eToroの第2四半期アップデートは、同社の暗号資産ビジネスが引き続きボラティリティ（変動性）を伴っていることも示した。同社は当四半期の売上が15.9億ドルで、比較対象となる2025年の同期間（20億ドル）から減少したと報告している。暗号資産に紐づく売上は13.4億ドルで、2025年Q2の19億ドルに比べて約30%減だった。一方でeToroは暗号資産関連の売上原価として13.5億ドルも計上し、暗号資産からの純利益は19.7百万ドルとなった。四半期の純利益の合計は53.4百万ドルだった。
eToroはQ2の暗号資産売上が30%減の中、TradeZeroを買収へ
eToroは米国の金融市場での拡大を後押しする新たな一手を示した。火曜日、同社は米国のオンライン証券会社TradeZeroを買収する計画だと発表した。この取引は、株式、コモディティ、デジタル資産を含むマルチアセット・プラットフォームを構築しようとするeToroのより広範な取り組みの一環として位置づけられている。
買収発表に加えて、eToroの第2四半期アップデートは、同社の暗号資産ビジネスが引き続きボラティリティ（変動性）を伴っていることも示した。同社は当四半期の売上が15.9億ドルで、比較対象となる2025年の同期間（20億ドル）から減少したと報告している。暗号資産に紐づく売上は13.4億ドルで、2025年Q2の19億ドルに比べて約30%減だった。一方でeToroは暗号資産関連の売上原価として13.5億ドルも計上し、暗号資産からの純利益は19.7百万ドルとなった。四半期の純利益の合計は53.4百万ドルだった。
買収発表に加えて、eToroの第2四半期アップデートは、同社の暗号資産ビジネスが引き続きボラティリティ（変動性）を伴っていることも示した。同社は当四半期の売上が15.9億ドルで、比較対象となる2025年の同期間（20億ドル）から減少したと報告している。暗号資産に紐づく売上は13.4億ドルで、2025年Q2の19億ドルに比べて約30%減だった。一方でeToroは暗号資産関連の売上原価として13.5億ドルも計上し、暗号資産からの純利益は19.7百万ドルとなった。四半期の純利益の合計は53.4百万ドルだった。
99
記事
CryptoQuant：ビットコインの4BドルUSDT下落が売り圧の弱まりを示すビットコインのトレーダーは、リスク志向がどちらへ向かうのかを探る手がかりとして、ステーブルコインを参照する動きがますます強まっています。CryptoQuantによる新たなデータ見直しでは、テザーのUSDTが異常に速いペースで市場価値を減らしている一方で、過去の弱気相場で見られた同様のパターンから、売りの局面は終盤に近づいている可能性が示唆されていることが強調されています。
CryptoQuantによると、USDTの60日移動平均の時価総額変化は8月10日時点で約マイナス48.8億ドルでした。一方で直近の11日間では、USDT供給が約8.7億ドル分消失しました。この組み合わせは、流動性が後退していることを示し、通常は暗号資産全体のパフォーマンスに圧力をかけますが、同時に、過去の下振れ局面における終盤の行動とも一致しています。
CryptoQuant：ビットコインの4BドルUSDT下落が売り圧の弱まりを示す
ビットコインのトレーダーは、リスク志向がどちらへ向かうのかを探る手がかりとして、ステーブルコインを参照する動きがますます強まっています。CryptoQuantによる新たなデータ見直しでは、テザーのUSDTが異常に速いペースで市場価値を減らしている一方で、過去の弱気相場で見られた同様のパターンから、売りの局面は終盤に近づいている可能性が示唆されていることが強調されています。
CryptoQuantによると、USDTの60日移動平均の時価総額変化は8月10日時点で約マイナス48.8億ドルでした。一方で直近の11日間では、USDT供給が約8.7億ドル分消失しました。この組み合わせは、流動性が後退していることを示し、通常は暗号資産全体のパフォーマンスに圧力をかけますが、同時に、過去の下振れ局面における終盤の行動とも一致しています。
CryptoQuantによると、USDTの60日移動平均の時価総額変化は8月10日時点で約マイナス48.8億ドルでした。一方で直近の11日間では、USDT供給が約8.7億ドル分消失しました。この組み合わせは、流動性が後退していることを示し、通常は暗号資産全体のパフォーマンスに圧力をかけますが、同時に、過去の下振れ局面における終盤の行動とも一致しています。
49
記事
調査者はColdcardハックの損失と盗まれたビットコインをどう追跡するか暗号資産セキュリティの分野で、自己管理ウォレットからの盗難を推定する—つまり、影響を受けたユーザーを権威ある形で記録したレジストリが存在しない—という、デジタル資産の損失配分で最も難しい問題の一つに、暗号調査者たちは取り組んでいる。Coldcard関連のハックに関する現在進行中の分析は、チームが「確認済み」の被害者報告をどう扱うか、あるいはオンチェーン上での帰属をどこまで広げるかによって、著しく異なる数字を生み出している。
ブロックチェーン分析プラットフォームのCryptoQuantは現在、確認された損失を1,432ビットコインとしている。一方でGalaxy ResearchとTRM Labsは、追跡の結果として複数の波にまたがって追加の被害者が見つかるため、より大きな被害総額だと主張している。この食い違いは、ハードウェア・ウォレットの悪用は金額を定量化しにくい理由を示すとともに、投資家やセキュリティ監視者が、いかなる単一の数字も暫定的なものとして扱うべきだという点を浮き彫りにしている。
調査者はColdcardハックの損失と盗まれたビットコインをどう追跡するか
暗号資産セキュリティの分野で、自己管理ウォレットからの盗難を推定する—つまり、影響を受けたユーザーを権威ある形で記録したレジストリが存在しない—という、デジタル資産の損失配分で最も難しい問題の一つに、暗号調査者たちは取り組んでいる。Coldcard関連のハックに関する現在進行中の分析は、チームが「確認済み」の被害者報告をどう扱うか、あるいはオンチェーン上での帰属をどこまで広げるかによって、著しく異なる数字を生み出している。
ブロックチェーン分析プラットフォームのCryptoQuantは現在、確認された損失を1,432ビットコインとしている。一方でGalaxy ResearchとTRM Labsは、追跡の結果として複数の波にまたがって追加の被害者が見つかるため、より大きな被害総額だと主張している。この食い違いは、ハードウェア・ウォレットの悪用は金額を定量化しにくい理由を示すとともに、投資家やセキュリティ監視者が、いかなる単一の数字も暫定的なものとして扱うべきだという点を浮き彫りにしている。
ブロックチェーン分析プラットフォームのCryptoQuantは現在、確認された損失を1,432ビットコインとしている。一方でGalaxy ResearchとTRM Labsは、追跡の結果として複数の波にまたがって追加の被害者が見つかるため、より大きな被害総額だと主張している。この食い違いは、ハードウェア・ウォレットの悪用は金額を定量化しにくい理由を示すとともに、投資家やセキュリティ監視者が、いかなる単一の数字も暫定的なものとして扱うべきだという点を浮き彫りにしている。
30
記事
Decta、財務決済のためのステーブルコイン決済をテスト決済企業デクタは、国際的な財務オペレーションのバックエンドにサークルのUSDCを追加し、オープンペイドを使って法定通貨をステーブルコインへ変換して、市場をまたいだ社内決済を行うと述べている。この動きは、暗号の分野で拡大しつつあるパターンを浮き彫りにしている。すなわち、ステーブルコインは、顧客向けのブランド化された決済オプションとしてというより、流動性や業務上の振替のためのインフラとしてますます使われるようになっている。
デクタはコインテレグラフに対し、同社は自社の資金をオープンペイドの規制下のインフラに通し、そこでオープンペイドのOTC機能を通じてUSDCに変換すると伝えた。さらにオープンペイドは、その後、デクタが通常の銀行プロセスで行っていた国際的な業務上の決済を支える。
Decta、財務決済のためのステーブルコイン決済をテスト
決済企業デクタは、国際的な財務オペレーションのバックエンドにサークルのUSDCを追加し、オープンペイドを使って法定通貨をステーブルコインへ変換して、市場をまたいだ社内決済を行うと述べている。この動きは、暗号の分野で拡大しつつあるパターンを浮き彫りにしている。すなわち、ステーブルコインは、顧客向けのブランド化された決済オプションとしてというより、流動性や業務上の振替のためのインフラとしてますます使われるようになっている。
デクタはコインテレグラフに対し、同社は自社の資金をオープンペイドの規制下のインフラに通し、そこでオープンペイドのOTC機能を通じてUSDCに変換すると伝えた。さらにオープンペイドは、その後、デクタが通常の銀行プロセスで行っていた国際的な業務上の決済を支える。
デクタはコインテレグラフに対し、同社は自社の資金をオープンペイドの規制下のインフラに通し、そこでオープンペイドのOTC機能を通じてUSDCに変換すると伝えた。さらにオープンペイドは、その後、デクタが通常の銀行プロセスで行っていた国際的な業務上の決済を支える。
14
記事
翻訳参照
South Korea’s New Seizure Rules Put Cryptocurrency Exchanges On A Short LeashSouth Korea’s Supreme Court has proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules allowing creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate crypto held by debtors.
The deadline for public comments on the proposed amendments is August 11. Under the new amendments, cryptocurrency exchanges will have only seven days to disclose customer holdings if they are served with a court order.
South Korea’s New Crypto Seizure Rules
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules create a standardized process for creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate debtor crypto holdings. If finalized, the rules will take effect from October 1. Once finalized, cryptocurrency exchanges will have a seven-week window to prepare to play a role in civil debt enforcement.
Simply put, a court could freeze the debtor’s access to assets held with a custodian. It can also prohibit the custodian from transferring the frozen assets to the debtor. Additionally, the debtor will also lose their right to dispose of the claim. Creditors can then petition the court to ask the custodian to disclose its holdings. The new rules will give the custodian one week to recognize the debtor’s claim, identify the asset and the quantity, and disclose any competing seizures, priority rights, or provisional orders.
Broad Implications For South Korean Crypto Market
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules could have far-reaching implications in South Korea’s retail-heavy cryptocurrency market. The country reached a significant milestone in February 2025, as data from Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax revealed over 16 million users held a cryptocurrency account with one of the major exchanges, up from 14 million a year earlier.
Once debtor assets are identified and frozen, the courts could order their liquidation or assign them to creditors. The sale can be executed by a virtual asset service provider (VASP), or the assets could be transferred to an enforcement officer. The court could also order their conversion to more liquid assets before their disbursal.
However, things could get complicated when the crypto is held by the debtor directly, as private key controls come into the picture. In such a situation, while the court could prohibit disposal and direct the debtor to transfer the crypto to an enforcement officer, the actual seizure would only occur once the officer receives the assets.
The proposal is part of South Korea’s efforts to build rules for a market meshed with its mainstream financial ecosystem. Lawmakers have introduced several statutory protections for users, and also plan to tighten exchange registration and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.
Lawmaker Proposes Postponing Crypto Tax
Separately, a South Korean opposition lawmaker has proposed postponing a planned 22% tax on crypto profits to 2030. The South Korean government had announced plans to impose a 22% tax on crypto profits starting in 2027. People Power Party Representative Jeong Seong-guk put forward the proposal, and also outlined plans to amend the Income Tax Act, keeping the proposed 22% tax, but changing the effective date from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2030. Jeong stated that lawmakers and tax authorities needed more time to review the virtual asset tax framework, strengthen existing investor protections, and build systems to tax crypto fairly.
Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol reiterated the government’s stance in a July 19 meeting, stating,
“At this point, we are proceeding with taxation starting next year as scheduled.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as South Korea’s New Seizure Rules Put Cryptocurrency Exchanges On A Short Leash on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
South Korea’s New Seizure Rules Put Cryptocurrency Exchanges On A Short Leash
South Korea’s Supreme Court has proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules allowing creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate crypto held by debtors.
The deadline for public comments on the proposed amendments is August 11. Under the new amendments, cryptocurrency exchanges will have only seven days to disclose customer holdings if they are served with a court order.
South Korea’s New Crypto Seizure Rules
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules create a standardized process for creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate debtor crypto holdings. If finalized, the rules will take effect from October 1. Once finalized, cryptocurrency exchanges will have a seven-week window to prepare to play a role in civil debt enforcement.
Simply put, a court could freeze the debtor’s access to assets held with a custodian. It can also prohibit the custodian from transferring the frozen assets to the debtor. Additionally, the debtor will also lose their right to dispose of the claim. Creditors can then petition the court to ask the custodian to disclose its holdings. The new rules will give the custodian one week to recognize the debtor’s claim, identify the asset and the quantity, and disclose any competing seizures, priority rights, or provisional orders.
Broad Implications For South Korean Crypto Market
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules could have far-reaching implications in South Korea’s retail-heavy cryptocurrency market. The country reached a significant milestone in February 2025, as data from Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax revealed over 16 million users held a cryptocurrency account with one of the major exchanges, up from 14 million a year earlier.
Once debtor assets are identified and frozen, the courts could order their liquidation or assign them to creditors. The sale can be executed by a virtual asset service provider (VASP), or the assets could be transferred to an enforcement officer. The court could also order their conversion to more liquid assets before their disbursal.
However, things could get complicated when the crypto is held by the debtor directly, as private key controls come into the picture. In such a situation, while the court could prohibit disposal and direct the debtor to transfer the crypto to an enforcement officer, the actual seizure would only occur once the officer receives the assets.
The proposal is part of South Korea’s efforts to build rules for a market meshed with its mainstream financial ecosystem. Lawmakers have introduced several statutory protections for users, and also plan to tighten exchange registration and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.
Lawmaker Proposes Postponing Crypto Tax
Separately, a South Korean opposition lawmaker has proposed postponing a planned 22% tax on crypto profits to 2030. The South Korean government had announced plans to impose a 22% tax on crypto profits starting in 2027. People Power Party Representative Jeong Seong-guk put forward the proposal, and also outlined plans to amend the Income Tax Act, keeping the proposed 22% tax, but changing the effective date from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2030. Jeong stated that lawmakers and tax authorities needed more time to review the virtual asset tax framework, strengthen existing investor protections, and build systems to tax crypto fairly.
Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol reiterated the government’s stance in a July 19 meeting, stating,
“At this point, we are proceeding with taxation starting next year as scheduled.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as South Korea’s New Seizure Rules Put Cryptocurrency Exchanges On A Short Leash on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
The deadline for public comments on the proposed amendments is August 11. Under the new amendments, cryptocurrency exchanges will have only seven days to disclose customer holdings if they are served with a court order.
South Korea’s New Crypto Seizure Rules
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules create a standardized process for creditors to freeze, identify, and liquidate debtor crypto holdings. If finalized, the rules will take effect from October 1. Once finalized, cryptocurrency exchanges will have a seven-week window to prepare to play a role in civil debt enforcement.
Simply put, a court could freeze the debtor’s access to assets held with a custodian. It can also prohibit the custodian from transferring the frozen assets to the debtor. Additionally, the debtor will also lose their right to dispose of the claim. Creditors can then petition the court to ask the custodian to disclose its holdings. The new rules will give the custodian one week to recognize the debtor’s claim, identify the asset and the quantity, and disclose any competing seizures, priority rights, or provisional orders.
Broad Implications For South Korean Crypto Market
The proposed amendments to the Civil Execution Rules could have far-reaching implications in South Korea’s retail-heavy cryptocurrency market. The country reached a significant milestone in February 2025, as data from Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax revealed over 16 million users held a cryptocurrency account with one of the major exchanges, up from 14 million a year earlier.
Once debtor assets are identified and frozen, the courts could order their liquidation or assign them to creditors. The sale can be executed by a virtual asset service provider (VASP), or the assets could be transferred to an enforcement officer. The court could also order their conversion to more liquid assets before their disbursal.
However, things could get complicated when the crypto is held by the debtor directly, as private key controls come into the picture. In such a situation, while the court could prohibit disposal and direct the debtor to transfer the crypto to an enforcement officer, the actual seizure would only occur once the officer receives the assets.
The proposal is part of South Korea’s efforts to build rules for a market meshed with its mainstream financial ecosystem. Lawmakers have introduced several statutory protections for users, and also plan to tighten exchange registration and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements.
Lawmaker Proposes Postponing Crypto Tax
Separately, a South Korean opposition lawmaker has proposed postponing a planned 22% tax on crypto profits to 2030. The South Korean government had announced plans to impose a 22% tax on crypto profits starting in 2027. People Power Party Representative Jeong Seong-guk put forward the proposal, and also outlined plans to amend the Income Tax Act, keeping the proposed 22% tax, but changing the effective date from January 1, 2027 to January 1, 2030. Jeong stated that lawmakers and tax authorities needed more time to review the virtual asset tax framework, strengthen existing investor protections, and build systems to tax crypto fairly.
Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol reiterated the government’s stance in a July 19 meeting, stating,
“At this point, we are proceeding with taxation starting next year as scheduled.”
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as South Korea’s New Seizure Rules Put Cryptocurrency Exchanges On A Short Leash on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
55
記事
翻訳参照
South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for TransfersSouth Korea is preparing to expand its crypto “Travel Rule” so that it applies to virtually all on-chain transfers between registered virtual asset service providers (VASPs), rather than only transactions above a set value. The change removes the current 1 million won threshold (about $700), a step aimed at closing an obvious loophole: users splitting transfers into smaller chunks to stay under reporting and information-sharing requirements.
According to a cabinet decision approving amendments to the Enforcement Decree of South Korea’s Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, the updated rules will also add tighter anti-money laundering (AML) obligations around transfers that involve foreign exchanges and personal wallets, where authorities have said existing controls have been exploited.
Key takeaways
South Korea’s Travel Rule will apply to all transfers between registered crypto VASPs, removing the 1 million won transaction cutoff.
Receiving platforms must obtain sender and recipient information and can request missing data or reject transfers if required information is unavailable.
New AML requirements extend to transfers involving overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets, including risk-based acceptance rules.
Platforms will need suspicious transaction monitoring for transfers of at least 10 million won involving foreign exchanges or personal wallets.
The expanded framework starts at staggered timelines: some VASP registration updates take effect Aug. 20, while other transfer-related requirements begin six months after promulgation.
Travel Rule expanded with threshold removed
South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said the main driver behind the amendment is the risk that users can circumvent the Travel Rule by breaking up activity into smaller transfers that fall below the prior reporting threshold. The cabinet-approved changes remove the value limit entirely, making information-sharing obligations standard across the board for covered transfers.
The FIU cited an example intended to illustrate how the threshold can be gamed. It described a case where a user purchased Tether USDt (USDT) after depositing roughly 200 million won into a crypto exchange, then executed 216 withdrawals, each valued below 1 million won. By keeping each withdrawal under the cutoff, the user aimed to reduce exposure to the Travel Rule’s information-sharing requirements.
Under the revised framework, the Travel Rule will cover all transfers between registered crypto service providers, regardless of amount. This matters for compliance teams and operational workflows: firms can no longer assume that smaller transfers are “out of scope,” and they will need to ensure their transaction processing can consistently handle sender/recipient information requirements at higher volumes and smaller denominations.
What receiving platforms must do
The amendments specify operational responsibilities for counterparties receiving transfers. Receiving VASPs will be required to obtain sender and recipient information. If required data is incomplete or missing, receiving platforms may request the missing information—or reject the transaction when necessary details cannot be obtained.
For users, this raises the prospect of more frequent transfer friction, particularly around transactions where counterparties fail to provide the expected information. For exchanges and wallet providers, it emphasizes the importance of internal controls and technical readiness—especially where transfers cross different service providers that may vary in how they capture and transmit required details.
The rule change is also designed to standardize accountability across the ecosystem. Instead of relying on a threshold that can be optimized around, the updated approach pushes toward comprehensive compliance for covered counterparties.
Overseas exchanges and personal wallets face new AML controls
Beyond expanding the Travel Rule, the decree introduces new AML requirements for transfers that involve overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets. Registered local VASPs will need to apply a risk-based approach to decide which transfers they allow based on the risk posed by the counterparty.
In practice, the amendments indicate that transfers to low-risk overseas exchanges will be permitted. However, transfers involving other foreign exchanges and personal wallets are generally allowed only when the sender and recipient are the same person—an effort to reduce anonymity and inter-personal laundering risks.
Where counterparties are assessed as high risk, transactions will be prohibited. This creates a compliance obligation that goes beyond simple eligibility checks: firms will have to maintain and update risk assessments tied to specific counterparties, and ensure those assessments are reflected in transaction controls.
The decree also requires crypto platforms to establish their own suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers worth at least 10 million won that involve foreign exchanges or personal wallets. Authorities said suspected money laundering involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets has risen because gaps in existing AML rules for such transfers have been exploited.
Even though the new Travel Rule applies to transfers between registered local providers, the AML changes broaden the compliance perimeter. They are aimed at the points where value can flow into or out of Korea’s regulated rails through foreign venues or self-custody arrangements.
Stronger registration standards and phased implementation
In addition to transaction-specific requirements, the decree strengthens the registration framework for crypto service providers. The amendments include requirements related to financial health, internal controls, staffing, and infrastructure standards, while also expanding scrutiny of major shareholders. This signals an intent to raise baseline operational quality and governance across the sector, not only to improve transaction monitoring.
The VASP registration provisions will take effect Aug. 20. However, existing providers will receive an additional year to comply with some of the financial, staffing, infrastructure, and internal control requirements—suggesting a transition period intended to reduce abrupt compliance shocks for incumbents.
Meanwhile, the expanded Travel Rule and the other transfer-related AML requirements will take effect six months after the decree is promulgated. That timing means exchanges and wallet providers will need to prepare their systems ahead of the compliance start date, including data capture and transfer handling logic required for sender/recipient information, as well as monitoring and risk assessment processes for cross-border and self-custody related activity.
For market participants, the key watch items are how risk assessments for overseas counterparties are implemented and how receiving platforms handle missing information in practice—because those operational details will determine whether the new rules mainly improve traceability or also introduce more frequent transaction rejections for edge cases.
This article was originally published as South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for Transfers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for Transfers
South Korea is preparing to expand its crypto “Travel Rule” so that it applies to virtually all on-chain transfers between registered virtual asset service providers (VASPs), rather than only transactions above a set value. The change removes the current 1 million won threshold (about $700), a step aimed at closing an obvious loophole: users splitting transfers into smaller chunks to stay under reporting and information-sharing requirements.
According to a cabinet decision approving amendments to the Enforcement Decree of South Korea’s Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, the updated rules will also add tighter anti-money laundering (AML) obligations around transfers that involve foreign exchanges and personal wallets, where authorities have said existing controls have been exploited.
Key takeaways
South Korea’s Travel Rule will apply to all transfers between registered crypto VASPs, removing the 1 million won transaction cutoff.
Receiving platforms must obtain sender and recipient information and can request missing data or reject transfers if required information is unavailable.
New AML requirements extend to transfers involving overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets, including risk-based acceptance rules.
Platforms will need suspicious transaction monitoring for transfers of at least 10 million won involving foreign exchanges or personal wallets.
The expanded framework starts at staggered timelines: some VASP registration updates take effect Aug. 20, while other transfer-related requirements begin six months after promulgation.
Travel Rule expanded with threshold removed
South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said the main driver behind the amendment is the risk that users can circumvent the Travel Rule by breaking up activity into smaller transfers that fall below the prior reporting threshold. The cabinet-approved changes remove the value limit entirely, making information-sharing obligations standard across the board for covered transfers.
The FIU cited an example intended to illustrate how the threshold can be gamed. It described a case where a user purchased Tether USDt (USDT) after depositing roughly 200 million won into a crypto exchange, then executed 216 withdrawals, each valued below 1 million won. By keeping each withdrawal under the cutoff, the user aimed to reduce exposure to the Travel Rule’s information-sharing requirements.
Under the revised framework, the Travel Rule will cover all transfers between registered crypto service providers, regardless of amount. This matters for compliance teams and operational workflows: firms can no longer assume that smaller transfers are “out of scope,” and they will need to ensure their transaction processing can consistently handle sender/recipient information requirements at higher volumes and smaller denominations.
What receiving platforms must do
The amendments specify operational responsibilities for counterparties receiving transfers. Receiving VASPs will be required to obtain sender and recipient information. If required data is incomplete or missing, receiving platforms may request the missing information—or reject the transaction when necessary details cannot be obtained.
For users, this raises the prospect of more frequent transfer friction, particularly around transactions where counterparties fail to provide the expected information. For exchanges and wallet providers, it emphasizes the importance of internal controls and technical readiness—especially where transfers cross different service providers that may vary in how they capture and transmit required details.
The rule change is also designed to standardize accountability across the ecosystem. Instead of relying on a threshold that can be optimized around, the updated approach pushes toward comprehensive compliance for covered counterparties.
Overseas exchanges and personal wallets face new AML controls
Beyond expanding the Travel Rule, the decree introduces new AML requirements for transfers that involve overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets. Registered local VASPs will need to apply a risk-based approach to decide which transfers they allow based on the risk posed by the counterparty.
In practice, the amendments indicate that transfers to low-risk overseas exchanges will be permitted. However, transfers involving other foreign exchanges and personal wallets are generally allowed only when the sender and recipient are the same person—an effort to reduce anonymity and inter-personal laundering risks.
Where counterparties are assessed as high risk, transactions will be prohibited. This creates a compliance obligation that goes beyond simple eligibility checks: firms will have to maintain and update risk assessments tied to specific counterparties, and ensure those assessments are reflected in transaction controls.
The decree also requires crypto platforms to establish their own suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers worth at least 10 million won that involve foreign exchanges or personal wallets. Authorities said suspected money laundering involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets has risen because gaps in existing AML rules for such transfers have been exploited.
Even though the new Travel Rule applies to transfers between registered local providers, the AML changes broaden the compliance perimeter. They are aimed at the points where value can flow into or out of Korea’s regulated rails through foreign venues or self-custody arrangements.
Stronger registration standards and phased implementation
In addition to transaction-specific requirements, the decree strengthens the registration framework for crypto service providers. The amendments include requirements related to financial health, internal controls, staffing, and infrastructure standards, while also expanding scrutiny of major shareholders. This signals an intent to raise baseline operational quality and governance across the sector, not only to improve transaction monitoring.
The VASP registration provisions will take effect Aug. 20. However, existing providers will receive an additional year to comply with some of the financial, staffing, infrastructure, and internal control requirements—suggesting a transition period intended to reduce abrupt compliance shocks for incumbents.
Meanwhile, the expanded Travel Rule and the other transfer-related AML requirements will take effect six months after the decree is promulgated. That timing means exchanges and wallet providers will need to prepare their systems ahead of the compliance start date, including data capture and transfer handling logic required for sender/recipient information, as well as monitoring and risk assessment processes for cross-border and self-custody related activity.
For market participants, the key watch items are how risk assessments for overseas counterparties are implemented and how receiving platforms handle missing information in practice—because those operational details will determine whether the new rules mainly improve traceability or also introduce more frequent transaction rejections for edge cases.
This article was originally published as South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for Transfers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
According to a cabinet decision approving amendments to the Enforcement Decree of South Korea’s Act on Reporting and Using Specified Financial Transaction Information, the updated rules will also add tighter anti-money laundering (AML) obligations around transfers that involve foreign exchanges and personal wallets, where authorities have said existing controls have been exploited.
Key takeaways
South Korea’s Travel Rule will apply to all transfers between registered crypto VASPs, removing the 1 million won transaction cutoff.
Receiving platforms must obtain sender and recipient information and can request missing data or reject transfers if required information is unavailable.
New AML requirements extend to transfers involving overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets, including risk-based acceptance rules.
Platforms will need suspicious transaction monitoring for transfers of at least 10 million won involving foreign exchanges or personal wallets.
The expanded framework starts at staggered timelines: some VASP registration updates take effect Aug. 20, while other transfer-related requirements begin six months after promulgation.
Travel Rule expanded with threshold removed
South Korea’s Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) said the main driver behind the amendment is the risk that users can circumvent the Travel Rule by breaking up activity into smaller transfers that fall below the prior reporting threshold. The cabinet-approved changes remove the value limit entirely, making information-sharing obligations standard across the board for covered transfers.
The FIU cited an example intended to illustrate how the threshold can be gamed. It described a case where a user purchased Tether USDt (USDT) after depositing roughly 200 million won into a crypto exchange, then executed 216 withdrawals, each valued below 1 million won. By keeping each withdrawal under the cutoff, the user aimed to reduce exposure to the Travel Rule’s information-sharing requirements.
Under the revised framework, the Travel Rule will cover all transfers between registered crypto service providers, regardless of amount. This matters for compliance teams and operational workflows: firms can no longer assume that smaller transfers are “out of scope,” and they will need to ensure their transaction processing can consistently handle sender/recipient information requirements at higher volumes and smaller denominations.
What receiving platforms must do
The amendments specify operational responsibilities for counterparties receiving transfers. Receiving VASPs will be required to obtain sender and recipient information. If required data is incomplete or missing, receiving platforms may request the missing information—or reject the transaction when necessary details cannot be obtained.
For users, this raises the prospect of more frequent transfer friction, particularly around transactions where counterparties fail to provide the expected information. For exchanges and wallet providers, it emphasizes the importance of internal controls and technical readiness—especially where transfers cross different service providers that may vary in how they capture and transmit required details.
The rule change is also designed to standardize accountability across the ecosystem. Instead of relying on a threshold that can be optimized around, the updated approach pushes toward comprehensive compliance for covered counterparties.
Overseas exchanges and personal wallets face new AML controls
Beyond expanding the Travel Rule, the decree introduces new AML requirements for transfers that involve overseas crypto exchanges and personal wallets. Registered local VASPs will need to apply a risk-based approach to decide which transfers they allow based on the risk posed by the counterparty.
In practice, the amendments indicate that transfers to low-risk overseas exchanges will be permitted. However, transfers involving other foreign exchanges and personal wallets are generally allowed only when the sender and recipient are the same person—an effort to reduce anonymity and inter-personal laundering risks.
Where counterparties are assessed as high risk, transactions will be prohibited. This creates a compliance obligation that goes beyond simple eligibility checks: firms will have to maintain and update risk assessments tied to specific counterparties, and ensure those assessments are reflected in transaction controls.
The decree also requires crypto platforms to establish their own suspicious transaction monitoring systems for transfers worth at least 10 million won that involve foreign exchanges or personal wallets. Authorities said suspected money laundering involving overseas exchanges and personal wallets has risen because gaps in existing AML rules for such transfers have been exploited.
Even though the new Travel Rule applies to transfers between registered local providers, the AML changes broaden the compliance perimeter. They are aimed at the points where value can flow into or out of Korea’s regulated rails through foreign venues or self-custody arrangements.
Stronger registration standards and phased implementation
In addition to transaction-specific requirements, the decree strengthens the registration framework for crypto service providers. The amendments include requirements related to financial health, internal controls, staffing, and infrastructure standards, while also expanding scrutiny of major shareholders. This signals an intent to raise baseline operational quality and governance across the sector, not only to improve transaction monitoring.
The VASP registration provisions will take effect Aug. 20. However, existing providers will receive an additional year to comply with some of the financial, staffing, infrastructure, and internal control requirements—suggesting a transition period intended to reduce abrupt compliance shocks for incumbents.
Meanwhile, the expanded Travel Rule and the other transfer-related AML requirements will take effect six months after the decree is promulgated. That timing means exchanges and wallet providers will need to prepare their systems ahead of the compliance start date, including data capture and transfer handling logic required for sender/recipient information, as well as monitoring and risk assessment processes for cross-border and self-custody related activity.
For market participants, the key watch items are how risk assessments for overseas counterparties are implemented and how receiving platforms handle missing information in practice—because those operational details will determine whether the new rules mainly improve traceability or also introduce more frequent transaction rejections for edge cases.
This article was originally published as South Korea Lowers Crypto Travel Rule Threshold for Transfers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.
16
ログインして、さらにコンテンツを読む
厳選トピックで世界の暗号資産トレーダーの仲間入り
⚡️ 暗号資産に関する最新かつ有益な情報が見つかります。
💬 世界最大の暗号資産取引所から信頼されています。
👍 認証を受けたクリエイターから、有益なインサイトを得られます。
メール / 電話番号
トレンドトピック
USJulyCPI&PPIDueThisWeek
閲覧回数 9,874
259人が討論中
今週の2つの数字がすべての方向性を決める — $BTC 、株式、あなたのポートフォリオ。
📅 水曜日：7月のCPI（消費者物価指数）— 市場予想は前月比+0.1%（6月は-0.4%）。コアは前月比+0.2%、前年比2.5%が見込まれ、2月以来で最小の年次の伸び。
📅 木曜日：7月のPPI（生産者物価指数）— 前月は前年比5.5%だった。
状況は微妙：
• 金曜日の雇用統計がサプライズ — 7月のNFP（非農業部門雇用者数）は-23,000で、長らく続いた中で初のマイナス。これは「利上げ」派にすでに打撃を与えたが、それでもFRBは3.75%で、7月29日の会合では3人の当局者が利上げに投票している。
• シティは、CPIが2度続けて弱含みなら9月の利上げはほぼないとみる。BofAは、コアのサービス（サービス価格）の反発がそれをテーブルに残し得ると警告。
• エネルギーが最大の不確定要素 — ガソリンは、7月の前半に落ち着いた後、月末には再び1ガロンあたり4ドル超へ上昇。
市場はすでに先回りしている：BTCは$65k超、S&Pは史上最高値、週次のETF資金流入は$850M超。翻訳すると、弱い指標はほとんど織り込み済み — 本当に物事を壊すのは「強い」数字だ。
シンプルな現実のロジック：インフレとは、市場の露店での値段そのもの。毎日のバスケットがこれ以上値上がりしなければ、FRBが締め付ける理由はない。数字を見ろ — 市場はすでに結論を出している。
#usjulycpi&ppiduethisweek #OCCSaysDigitalFirmsCanSeekNationalBankStatus #SuperMicroForecastsAboveEstimatesSharesJump9% #SenateDelaysCLARITYActVoteToSeptember #SECAndCFTCSueGoliathOver$400MCryptoPonzi $ETH $SOL
Rohan Kishibe
·いいね：1件
·閲覧回数 492
NvidiaToLimitExposureIn$500BAIFinancing
閲覧回数 12
4人が討論中
SECMayUnveilTokenizedStockExemptionAsSoonAsFriday
閲覧回数 1,349
57人が討論中