Crypto Breaking

Storj Labs, the decentralized cloud storage provider behind the STORJ token, has filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States. The company says it will continue operating its network and providing customer services while it restructures legacy liabilities and seeks a court-approved pathway that could allow tokenholders to participate in the ownership of a post-bankruptcy entity.
In a statement released Sunday, Storj said the case was filed in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. Storj also stated that its parent company, Inveniam, will continue supporting the business during the restructuring process, subject to court oversight.
Key takeaways
Storj Labs has entered voluntary Chapter 11, with the network and customer services expected to keep running during restructuring.
The company is exploring a mechanism that could give STORJ tokenholders a route to equity in the reorganized business, but details remain undisclosed.
Storj says its core network utility is unchanged and that its liabilities largely predate its current strategy.
STORJ saw no immediate major price move at announcement time, trading around $0.072, according to CoinGecko.
Bankruptcy filing with continuity for the network
According to Storj’s filing announcement and accompanying community communication, the bankruptcy is primarily aimed at addressing legacy obligations that the company says are too significant to resolve through growth alone. Storj emphasized in an open letter to tokenholders that the platform’s operations were continuing normally and that the token’s utility would remain unchanged.
The company’s approach matters because decentralized infrastructure businesses rely on ongoing participation and service continuity. While Chapter 11 typically involves constraints around certain contracts and expenditures, Storj is positioning its restructuring as compatible with maintaining the storage network’s day-to-day functioning through the period of court supervision.
Tokenholders and the challenge of an equity pathway
Storj’s most notable claim is that management intends to propose a mechanism for STORJ tokenholders to participate in the equity of the reorganized company. The company, however, did not provide specifics on how eligibility would be determined—whether through a token snapshot, a lockup requirement, or other criteria. It also did not disclose what portion of equity, if any, might be reserved for tokenholders.
Storj acknowledged that any plan must comply with bankruptcy priority rules and receive court approval. That point is central: equity participation for token holders in bankruptcy typically depends on how the token’s legal and economic status is treated in the restructuring process, and on how the reorganization plan is structured relative to creditor claims.
The situation effectively becomes a live test of whether utility-token holders can secure a meaningful ownership role in a company emerging from Chapter 11, especially when the token’s utility is positioned as separate from the company’s preexisting liabilities.
Market reaction and what investors should watch
STORJ did not show an immediate sharp reaction following the news. CoinGecko data, as cited in the announcement coverage, indicated STORJ was trading around $0.072 at the time of writing.
For investors and network participants, the more consequential variable is unlikely to be the short-term token price—rather, it is the eventual shape of the Chapter 11 plan. The missing details from Storj’s statements include the criteria for tokenholder eligibility, the form participation might take (equity allocation versus other compensation structures), and whether there will be any valuation framework tied to token holdings.
As the process moves forward, readers should focus on court filings and confirmed reorganization terms: how Storj categorizes its liabilities, how claims are prioritized, and whether the proposed “shared ownership” pathway survives the restructuring review with creditor and court buy-in.
A broader pattern of crypto Chapter 11 filings
Storj’s bankruptcy comes amid a period in which at least two other crypto-related firms sought Chapter 11 protection. Movement Labs filed under Subchapter V on July 15 following months of turmoil connected to its MOVE token, while Bitcoin mining pool Poolin filed on July 22 as it pursued a court-supervised sale of two Texas mining sites. Separately, BitMEX announced in July that it would shut down after 11 years, choosing an orderly wind-down rather than filing for bankruptcy.
This clustering of Chapter 11 actions highlights a sector-wide reality: decentralized and blockchain-adjacent businesses still depend on traditional legal and financial structures when legacy obligations become unmanageable. For utility-token networks, that can create a difficult tension between keeping infrastructure running and negotiating outcomes that may reshape the relationship between token economics and corporate ownership.
What happens next for Storj
Storj’s next steps—especially the specifics of any tokenholder equity mechanism and the court-approved reorganization plan—will determine whether the company’s “shared ownership” vision is feasible within bankruptcy priorities. Until then, tokenholders will be watching for concrete filing details rather than assurances, and for confirmation that network continuity remains intact under court oversight.
This article was originally published as Storj Files for Bankruptcy, Reviews Equity Options for Tokenholders on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

With the August recess deadline closing in, U.S. lawmakers are still negotiating the Clarity Act—an ethics-focused proposal tied to digital asset activity that would also restrict officials from issuing or sponsoring crypto. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has signaled skepticism that there are enough votes for passage, but said a floor vote could still be pursued to “get Clarity started” and test support.
The bill is also at the center of a deeper political struggle over enforcement. Democrats want ethics rules to be enforced by state attorneys general, while the White House and Republicans have advanced an approach that hinges on the federal Attorney General—an official appointed by President Trump. The dispute, along with provisions that Democrats criticize as giving the President special leeway, is leaving the legislation in limbo even as industry and law enforcement groups begin to line up behind the latest version.
Key takeaways
Clarity Act momentum depends less on technical drafting and more on whether lawmakers can reconcile a major enforcement disagreement and the scope of presidential exceptions.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune doubts the bill has the votes for passage, but may still move toward a vote to gauge support.
Institutional backers—including Fidelity and Charles Schwab, and a statement of support from Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon—suggest the bill remains attractive to parts of traditional finance despite imperfections.
Outside politics, crypto infrastructure news continues with BitMEX announcing it will shut down operations in September after 11 years, while S&P Dow Jones and Pantera launch an institutional digital asset benchmark index that excludes Bitcoin and XRP.
Clarity Act: ethics rules collide with enforcement politics
At the heart of the Clarity Act negotiations is a proposed ethics deal that would bar U.S. officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. However, the plan also includes exceptions Democrats say amount to a “get out of jail free” arrangement for the President. One sticking point raised in reporting is that certain rules would expire on the day President Trump is scheduled to leave office in 2029—an element that has been criticized as undermining the durability of the restrictions.
The enforcement mechanism is another major fault line. The ethics provisions would be administered by the Attorney General appointed by Trump, but Democrats have pushed for state attorneys general to enforce the rules instead. That expansion would create a broader enforcement footprint across jurisdictions—something Republicans and the White House appear unlikely to support, especially given the likelihood that the President would resist changes that empower many independent state-level prosecutors.
According to Cointelegraph, Senate Majority Leader John Thune does not believe the bill has enough votes to pass yet. Still, he indicated he may bring it to the floor to “get Clarity started” and determine where the remaining votes stand as the August recess deadline nears.
Support from institutions and law enforcement—while trust remains strained
While political factions remain divided, signals of support from outside government have started to build. The White House described the bill as the “most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history,” while Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego characterized it with unusually blunt language, calling it neither serious nor acceptable. Negotiations are reportedly continuing in an effort to find wording that both sides can accept.
Financial institutions have also weighed in. Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon acknowledged the proposal is “not perfect,” but still supported it. Cointelegraph also reported that Fidelity and Charles Schwab have backed the initiative. Taken together, these endorsements suggest the bill’s advocates see it as a workable baseline for reducing perceived conflicts—particularly for firms that want clearer conduct expectations involving digital assets.
Law enforcement signals have been another ingredient. The National Fraternal Order of Police said the latest version of the BRCA—described as protecting developers of decentralized protocols—would not impede investigations into money laundering and fraud. That point matters for the bill’s political sell: proponents want ethics restrictions to target conflicts of interest without unintentionally constraining legitimate enforcement activity.
Still, the level of distrust between parties appears to be the dominant constraint. Negotiators may be able to close gaps on implementation details, but the bill’s most consequential disagreements—presidential exceptions and who can enforce the rules—go to the core of each side’s incentives.
What the odds say—and what to watch next
Market odds also reflect uncertainty. According to Polymarket, the odds of the Clarity Act passing this year are currently 38%. Even if a floor vote is scheduled, that number implies the bill could still face serious headwinds, particularly if negotiations fail to produce a package that enough senators can defend publicly.
Investors and market participants should watch for two developments in the near term: whether the enforcement framework shifts meaningfully toward a multi-enforcer model, and whether the presidential exception provisions remain intact or are narrowed. Those items likely determine whether additional lawmakers feel comfortable turning a political compromise into a concrete vote.
BitMEX to shut down, highlighting consolidation in derivatives trading
Elsewhere in crypto policy and markets, BitMEX—one of the early pioneers of crypto derivatives trading—announced it will shut down operations in September after 11 years. BitMEX launched in 2014 and gained notoriety for introducing 100x leverage perpetual swaps.
But in recent years, volumes fell as competition intensified, with major centralized exchanges such as Binance and fast-growing decentralized venues like Hyperliquid taking share. CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju said BitMEX’s share of the Bitcoin futures market has dropped to 0.08%, with about $84 million in daily trading volume.
Ju described the closure as an industry “torch” moment—an exchange that helped shape the market now stepping aside for the next wave it inspired. Cointelegraph also reported that BitMEX’s utility token, BMEX, fell sharply after the shutdown announcement. The same day, a class action lawsuit surfaced alleging that BitMEX fraudulently engineered liquidations to seize trader collateral. BitMEX denied the accusations and said it previously defended itself successfully against similar claims.
Analysts tied the shutdown to broader structural changes. Cointelegraph reported restructuring adviser Roshan Dharia saying BitMEX’s demise reflects accelerated consolidation. A quoted passage highlighted that the top five platforms control an estimated 80% of global spot volume, squeezing mid-tier operators as structural headwinds—rather than temporary cycles—reduce margins and limit scaling pathways.
That consolidation narrative continued quickly: Cointelegraph also reported that BitMart later announced it would close in the coming months, underscoring how pressure is spreading across crypto venues rather than concentrating on a single platform.
Institutional benchmarks expand: S&P and Pantera launch a crypto index
Index providers are also moving deeper into digital assets. S&P Dow Jones Indices and Pantera Capital launched the S&P Pantera Digital Asset Index, positioned as an institutional benchmark that tracks major crypto assets but excludes Bitcoin and XRP.
According to Cointelegraph, the index is designed to serve institutions by filtering blockchains based on minimum thresholds for protocol revenue, market capitalization, and liquidity. The index launched with 18 constituents. Ether (ETH), BNB (BNB), Solana (SOL), TRON (TRX), and Hyperliquid (HYPE) make up the five largest holdings, while Bitcoin (BTC) and XRP remain the largest non-constituents.
The effort fits a broader industry push for institutional-grade benchmarks. Cointelegraph cited related products such as the Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF, a Franklin Crypto Index ETF, and a Coinbase Store of Value Index—signaling that tradfi-style benchmarking continues to shift from concept to increasingly concrete infrastructure.
Robinhood prediction markets grow as regulators focus on event contract specificity
On the U.S. consumer-facing side, Robinhood is reportedly discussing an expansion of its prediction markets business by integrating yes-or-no event contracts supplied by Crypto.com. Cointelegraph noted that Robinhood began prediction markets in March 2025, initially facilitated by Kalshi to satisfy compliance requirements from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
At the same time, regulatory scrutiny is intensifying around how event contracts are certified. Cointelegraph reported that the CFTC issued another warning that platforms must be more specific rather than relying on broad template-style certifications covering multiple potential variations of events. The regulatory push matters because it can constrain how quickly providers scale new contract templates or broaden the range of covered scenarios.
Cointelegraph also referenced legal commentary linking potential clarity on market structure oversight to the Clarity Act, framing the ethics legislation as possibly supportive of the CFTC’s ability to monitor prediction market growth.
Across governance, exchanges, and benchmarks, the throughline is clear: crypto is entering a phase where regulation, institutional infrastructure, and market structure pressures are reshaping outcomes. For the Clarity Act specifically, the next signals to monitor are whether negotiations produce a durable enforcement compromise and whether senators are willing to translate that compromise into votes before the August recess deadline.
This article was originally published as BitMEX Shuts Amid Lawsuit as CLARITY Case Uncertainty Grows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, says it plans to roll out cryptocurrency trading infrastructure by Dec. 1, including a “digital depository” designed to record customers’ crypto ownership and handle transactions largely outside the public blockchain.
Interfax reported that the depository will track rights in clients’ cryptocurrency positions and process most transfers off-chain, while Sberbank will also run active wallets for deposits, withdrawals, and client-initiated transfers.
Key takeaways
Sberbank’s scheduled Dec. 1 rollout would add a regulated-style custody and settlement layer, using a digital depository to record ownership and process transactions off-chain.
Russia’s crypto market framework is progressing toward an effective date of Sept. 1, 2026, defining regulated participant categories and expanding central bank oversight.
Regulatory preparation is unfolding alongside intensifying EU and UK sanctions affecting crypto-asset service providers linked to Russia-related activity.
Investors and market participants should watch how Russia’s central bank sets licensing rules and eligibility for which assets can be offered through intermediaries.
Sberbank’s digital depository: custody and off-chain settlement
According to Interfax, the digital depository will serve as the core component of Sberbank’s planned infrastructure. It is intended to maintain records of customers’ cryptocurrency rights and to account for transactions outside the main blockchain.
The state-affiliated press service quoted Alexander Vedyakhin, Sberbank’s first deputy chairman of the management board, explaining that the depository would also support transfers requested through “active wallets.” In other words, customers’ interactions—depositing, withdrawing, and moving crypto via the bank—would be handled through a banking-operated system that mirrors custody and payment workflows more than traditional on-chain exchange mechanics.
The practical implication is that, if implemented as described, Sberbank could reduce reliance on direct peer-to-peer blockchain settlement for everyday client movements, instead concentrating transaction processing and ownership accounting inside the bank’s infrastructure.
Russia’s regulated crypto framework heads toward 2026
The Sberbank announcement arrives as Russia’s legislators have advanced the country’s first comprehensive crypto market framework. Earlier in the month, lawmakers completed final readings on a bill intended to bring crypto trading, custody, and settlement into a regulated financial system.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the bill would grant the Bank of Russia broad oversight of the regulated market. That oversight would include determining which crypto assets may be offered via licensed intermediaries and issuing implementing regulations.
Cointelegraph’s reporting also highlighted that the central bank has established liquidity thresholds for participating in the regulated market. Those thresholds include an average market capitalization above 5 trillion rubles (about $64 billion) and an average daily volume above 1 trillion rubles (about $12.8 billion) over a two-year period.
Once the framework takes effect, it establishes five categories of regulated market participants: crypto exchanges, brokers, asset managers, custodians, and exchange service providers. The framework is set to define what market participants can do—such as buying, selling, holding, and exchanging crypto assets—as of the effective date, Sept. 1, 2026.
Infrastructure rollout meets tightening sanctions environment
While Russia builds out domestic infrastructure, external compliance pressure continues to rise. The move toward a working crypto system inside Russia is unfolding as the European Union expands sanctions targeting Russia amid its war on Ukraine.
Last week, the EU listed cryptocurrency exchange HTX (formerly Huobi Global) among sanctioned entities. In a Thursday decision, the European Council amended earlier measures “in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine,” adding HTX to a list of 18 entities “providing crypto-assets services or payment services established outside of the Union that are significantly frustrating the purpose of the prohibitions” against Russia.
Earlier, Cointelegraph reported that EU officials said they would prohibit Belarusian nationals and residents from owning, controlling, or managing crypto exchanges and digital asset service providers, aligning the approach with the EU’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) framework.
The sanctions on HTX were not limited to the EU. The UK government imposed similar measures in May, stating there were “reasonable grounds to suspect” HTX supported Russia’s government by using financial services and funds facilitated by sanctioned entities.
For market participants, the key tension is that Russia is tightening domestic regulation while many foreign-facing crypto service providers remain exposed to sanction risks and compliance constraints. That gap can shape where liquidity flows, which counterparties can operate with certain clients, and how banks and exchanges structure their services.
What to watch next: licensing mechanics and depository operations
Sberbank’s planned digital depository—alongside the broader Russia framework set for Sept. 1, 2026—puts the spotlight on implementation details. Readers should watch how the Bank of Russia operationalizes licensing requirements, how asset eligibility is defined under the liquidity thresholds, and whether bank-operated off-chain custody and transfer accounting becomes a model for other regulated intermediaries.
Outside Russia, the sanctions trajectory suggests that cross-border partnerships and access to international payment rails may remain a moving target for crypto businesses tied to the region.
This article was originally published as Sberbank to Deploy Crypto Trading Infrastructure in 2024, Russia on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued another warning to prediction market operators, urging them to ensure that contract “self-certifications” are detailed and product-specific when event contracts cover a wide range of outcomes.
In an advisory published Friday, the CFTC said that—despite ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking for prediction markets—operators may still certify certain event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act and applicable CFTC regulations under the existing self-certification framework, so long as they follow the statutory requirements.
Key takeaways
The CFTC warned that platforms should not use broad, template-style self-certifications for events contracts that cover many permutations.
According to the agency, “self-certified” submissions must include the terms and conditions for each proposed variation and a concise explanation of compliance for the product as structured.
The latest advisory echoes a prior CFTC warning earlier this year about overly generalized filings.
The guidance arrives shortly before the CFTC’s July 27 deadline for comments on proposed rule amendments tied to public interest determinations for certain event contracts.
Why the CFTC is pushing back on template certifications
The CFTC’s Friday notice focused on how operators describe and certify event contracts under the agency’s jurisdiction. The regulator highlighted concerns with the number of instances where platforms have “self-certified” event contracts without providing sufficient detail for each version of the product.
In particular, the CFTC criticized submissions that do not include, for each proposed permutation of the contract, the terms and conditions and a concise explanation and analysis addressing compliance with respect to the product’s terms, the underlying commodity, and the product’s regulatory compliance.
As the CFTC put it in its July 24 announcement, the guidance “reiterates that broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted.” The agency framed this as a compliance issue rather than a change to the underlying legal concept of self-certification.
A repeat warning earlier this year
This is the second time in 2026 that the CFTC has flagged the same type of problem. In March, the Commission issued an earlier warning about submissions that were “overly generalized,” again indicating that template-level descriptions are not adequate when contracts are structured to cover a broad range of event outcomes.
By issuing a follow-up advisory in July, the CFTC effectively signaled that its concerns are ongoing and that it expects operators to make practical adjustments to how they document certifications—especially for contracts with multiple permutations rather than a single, narrowly defined instrument.
The practical takeaway for platforms is straightforward: if an operator is certifying a wide slate of event outcomes under one certification approach, the filing must still be organized in a way that maps to each contract variation and explains how the design fits regulatory requirements.
Advisory timing ahead of public interest rulemaking
The advisory landed just days before the July 27 deadline for submitting comments on the CFTC’s proposed rule amendments related to public interest determinations for certain event contracts that fall under the Commodity Exchange Act’s enumerated activities.
While the Friday guidance largely addresses self-certification behavior, the timing matters because it underscores that multiple regulatory strands for prediction markets are moving at once: day-to-day product certification practices, and longer-term rules for determining when specific types of event contracts should be evaluated or restricted on public interest grounds.
The CFTC has proposed amendments that outline how it determines whether certain event contracts are contrary to the public interest. In the agency’s proposal, it would apply a three-step analytical framework to evaluate contracts, including those involving activities such as terrorism or assassination, as well as gaming-related considerations tied to the enumerated activities listed in the Commodity Exchange Act.
If those proposed amendments are adopted, the CFTC said they would reshape parts of the regulatory landscape for prediction markets by clarifying the evaluation method used for specific contract types. Legal analysis cited in the source notes that the proposal could represent a meaningful shift in how prediction markets are assessed from a public interest standpoint.
What operators and traders should watch next
For prediction market operators, the CFTC’s warning increases pressure to ensure certification workflows produce filings that are not only legally sufficient but also detailed enough to match each contract permutation and the underlying product structure. Investors and traders should watch for how platforms revise their certification documents—and whether the CFTC’s public interest rule amendments, due to be shaped by the July 27 comment process, later alter the types of event contracts that can be listed or how they are evaluated for regulatory compatibility.
This article was originally published as CFTC Issues Second Warning to Prediction Markets Over Template Self-Certs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued another warning to prediction market operators, urging them to follow its rules when certifying event contracts that cover a wide range of possible outcomes. The regulator said some platforms are submitting “self-certified” listings without providing the specific terms and compliance analysis required for each contract permutation.
In an advisory released on July 24 and published as part of a Friday notice, the CFTC reiterated that—despite ongoing policy discussions and proposed rulemaking—operators may still self-certify certain event contracts as compliant with the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and CFTC regulations, as long as they do so within the statutory self-certification framework.
Key takeaways
The CFTC warned that broad, template-style self-certifications for event contracts are not acceptable for listings under its jurisdiction.
Operators are expected to submit the terms and conditions for each proposed permutation, along with concise explanations tied to the product and the relevant commodity and compliance requirements.
The advisory underscores the regulator’s view that generalized submissions have been a recurring issue, with a similar warning issued earlier this year.
The latest move comes just before a public comment deadline tied to the CFTC’s proposed amendments on public interest determinations for certain event contracts.
Why the CFTC is pushing back on “self-certified” event contracts
According to the CFTC’s July 24 announcement, the agency has observed multiple instances where event contracts are being self-certified by platforms without supplying the full details the CFTC says it needs. Specifically, the regulator criticized submissions that do not include the terms and conditions of each proposed permutation, nor a concise explanation and analysis explaining how the product’s terms and conditions relate to compliance expectations.
The advisory frames this as a compliance execution problem rather than a blanket prohibition on prediction market products. The CFTC emphasized that operators can certify certain event contracts without seeking prior commission approval, but they must do so properly under the self-certification structure established by law and CFTC regulations.
In the regulator’s words, broad, template-style certifications should not be submitted. The CFTC’s concern is that generalized paperwork makes it harder to evaluate whether each individual contract listing complies with the CEA and applicable CFTC requirements—particularly when a contract covers a wide swath of events and permutations.
A warning issued twice in 2026
The July 24 advisory is not the first time the CFTC has flagged the issue this year. The agency referenced a similar warning on March 12, again targeting overly generalized submissions. By issuing the guidance for a second time, the CFTC is effectively signaling that it expects corrective action and that it views continued template-style filings as a repeated compliance failure.
For operators, this matters because self-certification is often treated as a faster path to listing products compared with seeking affirmative approval. If the CFTC continues to find that filings lack the required detail, platforms may face heightened regulatory scrutiny, which can translate into delays, requests for additional information, or more direct enforcement consequences—especially for contracts built around broad event categories.
Regulatory timeline: comments due before rule amendments
The advisory arrives shortly before the CFTC’s July 27 deadline for submitting comments on proposed rule amendments related to how the agency conducts public interest determinations for certain event contracts.
Those proposed amendments aim to clarify how the CFTC determines whether specific event contracts are contrary to the public interest under the CEA. The CFTC described the approach as a three-step analytical framework intended to evaluate contracts based on their involvement in certain enumerated activities—such as terrorism, assassination, or gaming—so that only appropriate contracts are listed for trading.
The proximity between the self-certification warning and the comment period is likely not accidental. For prediction market businesses, the next regulatory phase could change how contracts are assessed for public interest risks even if self-certification remains available in some circumstances. Operators will therefore need to reconcile two parallel expectations: submit sufficiently detailed self-certifications now, while also preparing for potential changes in the CFTC’s public interest evaluation standards later.
What changes for operators: from templates to permutation-specific filings
The practical thrust of the CFTC’s message is straightforward: when an event contract can take many forms—or when it is designed to cover numerous permutations—operators need documentation that matches that complexity. The CFTC’s criticism centered on certifications that do not provide, for each proposed permutation, the terms and conditions and a concise compliance explanation tailored to the product’s conditions, the underlying commodity, and applicable compliance considerations.
That means the template approach that may be common for scaled product development—where only a few parameters are varied across listings—could be viewed by the CFTC as insufficient when the certification is expected to demonstrate compliance for each unique configuration.
For market participants such as traders and liquidity providers, the filing quality issue may not directly change how contracts trade day-to-day, but it does affect listing stability and regulatory risk. If contract certifications are challenged, the availability of products could be disrupted, and participants may face sudden changes in trading access or contract availability.
Legal practitioners have also pointed to how the pending amendments could alter the regulatory landscape. Earlier coverage noted that law firm Ropes & Gray said the CFTC’s proposed changes could “rewrite the rulebook” for prediction market contracts, reflecting how significant the public interest determination framework could be if adopted.
What to watch next
With comments due July 27 on the proposed public interest determinations framework, prediction market operators should expect follow-on developments that could refine what the CFTC considers acceptable contract listings and how self-certification must be documented. The key question ahead is whether operators will update certification practices to avoid template-style submissions and how the CFTC will translate its three-step framework into enforceable guidance if the proposed amendments move forward.
This article was originally published as CFTC Warns Again as Prediction Markets Use Standardized Self-Certification on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, says it will put new crypto trading infrastructure in place as the country moves its digital-asset activity into a regulated financial system. Interfax reported that Sberbank plans to create a “digital depository” by Dec. 1, alongside client-facing wallet operations for deposits, withdrawals and transfers.
The bank’s approach aims to shift the mechanics of ownership tracking and many transactions away from the public blockchain layer. Interfax said the depository will record clients’ rights to cryptocurrency and handle most transaction processing off the main blockchain, while Sberbank also operates active wallets to support customer orders for moving funds in and out.
Key takeaways
Sberbank plans a crypto “digital depository” to record ownership rights and process most transfers outside the main blockchain.
Interfax reports the infrastructure is targeted for completion by Dec. 1.
Russia’s regulated crypto framework includes central bank oversight and sets liquidity thresholds tied to market size and volume.
The timeline matters because the law defines categories of regulated market participants effective Sept. 1, 2026.
Regulatory progress in Russia is unfolding alongside intensifying EU and UK sanctions involving major crypto service providers.
Sberbank’s proposed “digital depository” and how it would work
According to Interfax, the planned digital depository will serve as an institutional ledger for customer cryptocurrency ownership. Instead of relying solely on on-chain records to reflect balances and account entitlements, the system would maintain records of clients’ crypto rights and account for transactions outside the main blockchain.
Sberbank’s state-affiliated press service quoted Alexander Vedyakhin, first deputy chairman of Sberbank’s management board, describing the depository as a core element of the new infrastructure. He said it would track clients’ rights and support transfers by enabling transactions connected to “active wallets” used for deposit, withdrawal and client transfer instructions.
For market participants, the practical significance is that an institutional depository model can change operational workflows—particularly around reconciliation, custody accounting, and settlement processes—while potentially reducing reliance on public-chain activity for day-to-day internal movement and bookkeeping.
Russia’s broader shift toward a regulated crypto market
Russia has been working toward its first comprehensive crypto market framework. Earlier this month, lawmakers moved closer to that goal after completing final readings on a bill that would regulate digital-asset activity, according to earlier reporting linked in the source text.
The framework would grant the Bank of Russia broad oversight of a regulated market. The central bank’s role, as described in the source, would include deciding which crypto assets may be offered through licensed intermediaries and issuing implementing regulations.
Liquidity requirements also feature prominently. The Bank of Russia has set thresholds including an average market capitalization of more than 5 trillion rubles (about $64 billion) and an average daily volume above 1 trillion rubles (about $12.8 billion) over a two-year period. These benchmarks are intended to narrow eligibility and help define which assets qualify under the licensing regime.
Once the framework takes effect, the law establishes five categories of regulated market participants: crypto exchanges, brokers, asset managers, custodians and exchange service providers. The effective date for defining who can buy, sell, hold and exchange crypto assets is set for Sept. 1, 2026.
Why the Dec. 1 deadline could matter for regulated operations
The reported Dec. 1 target date for Sberbank’s digital depository suggests a pre-launch phase where banks and regulated intermediaries build internal rails before the broader participant categories become fully operative in 2026. In other words, infrastructure timelines are starting to line up ahead of the formal market framework’s effective date.
That sequence matters for two reasons. First, custody and settlement mechanics tend to be among the most complex components of bringing crypto into a mainstream regulated financial model. Second, the Bank of Russia’s licensing and asset-selection approach likely depends on firms being able to demonstrate controlled handling of ownership and transaction processing.
Even though the source does not provide additional technical specifics beyond off-chain recordkeeping and wallet-based customer operations, the intended function—maintaining ownership records and processing most transactions outside the main blockchain—implies that Sberbank is aiming to standardize how balances and client entitlements are managed within regulated channels.
Sanctions pressure continues as Russia formalizes its crypto rules
Russia’s regulatory momentum comes as external pressure on crypto businesses remains high. The source notes that the European Union has continued to tighten sanctions targeting Russia and has extended crypto-related measures affecting service providers.
In a Thursday European Council decision, the bloc amended previous measures “in view of Russia’s actions destabilizing the situation in Ukraine.” The decision added HTX—formerly Huobi Global—to a list of 18 entities described as “providing crypto-assets services or payment services established outside of the Union” that significantly “frustrate the purpose of the prohibitions” against Russia. A decision published on the EU’s legal database is linked in the source text.
The HTX sanctions were reported as arriving the same day EU officials announced a prohibition on Belarusian nationals and residents owning, controlling or managing crypto exchanges and digital asset service providers under MiCA compliance requirements, according to the linked earlier coverage in the source.
Meanwhile, the UK government also imposed similar sanctions on HTX in May, citing “reasonable grounds to suspect” the exchange supported Russia’s government through financial services involving funds facilitated by sanctioned entities, based on the linked prior report included in the source.
Taken together, the developments highlight a split dynamic: while Russia is building domestic, regulated infrastructure for crypto trading, European and UK authorities are simultaneously restricting certain offshore service providers through sanctions and regulatory compliance measures.
Readers should watch how Sberbank’s digital depository plan progresses beyond the announced deadline and whether other regulated market players follow with similar custody and settlement infrastructure ahead of the Sept. 1, 2026 effective date for participant categories. At the same time, sanctions risk remains a moving variable—especially for cross-border access to services—so the practical impact on liquidity and venue availability may depend on enforcement and compliance decisions in Europe and the UK.
This article was originally published as Sberbank (Russia) to Roll Out Crypto Trading Infrastructure in 2024 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMart is shutting down its cryptocurrency exchange, with trading services scheduled to end on Aug. 26 and the company planning to complete operations by Jan. 31, 2027. In an announcement posted to its support site, the exchange said the decision follows an evaluation of its operating conditions, market environment, and future strategy, adding that the wind-down process will be orderly.
As part of the shutdown plan, BitMart has stopped taking new user registrations and deposits. Futures trading has moved to a reduce-only mode, while spot markets are no longer accepting new orders. The move places BitMart among a growing group of crypto venues that have signaled closures in recent months, including BitMEX and Dango.
Key takeaways
BitMart will end trading services on Aug. 26 and expects to cease operations on Jan. 31, 2027, following an announced wind-down.
The exchange has halted new registrations and deposits; futures are reduce-only and spot trading won’t accept new orders.
BitMart’s token BMX fell sharply after the announcement amid user complaints about slower withdrawal processing.
Arkham data indicates BitMart-attributed wallets held about $71 million in crypto assets on Sunday, down from roughly $102 million on July 6.
BitMart said some withdrawals may require extra compliance and security checks, which could extend processing times.
Wind-down steps and what users can do
BitMart’s notice outlines a gradual shutdown rather than an immediate cutoff. It has already stopped onboarding: new user registrations and deposits are no longer allowed. For existing users, this change primarily affects how they can add funds or initiate new trades on the platform.
Trading access is also being restricted. Futures trading is in reduce-only mode, meaning positions can only be reduced rather than increased. On the spot side, the exchange says markets are closed to new orders, effectively freezing new spot trading activity while the company works through the wind-down.
The exchange further indicated that withdrawal handling may change during the process. BitMart said some withdrawal requests could be subject to additional compliance and security reviews, which may extend processing times. This is especially relevant for users who already reported delays after the shutdown announcement.
BMX drops as withdrawals draw complaints
BitMart’s native token, BMX, saw steep losses following the announcement, with the token trading around $0.09464 at the time of writing—down nearly 70% from about $0.31 late Friday. BMX reportedly touched as low as $0.1058 early Saturday before extending its decline, and it later slipped back under $0.10 after a brief recovery.
Alongside the token’s sharp repricing, some users took to X to report withdrawal delays. Posts referenced longer-than-usual processing times, including claims that Tether USD (USDT) withdrawal requests remained pending for hours.
On-chain attribution data from Arkham adds another layer to the story. Arkham’s explorer shows wallets attributed to BitMart holding about $71 million in crypto assets on Sunday, compared with roughly $102 million on July 6. The breakdown highlighted in Arkham data includes about $41.5 million in WeFi’s WFI tokens and a tracked USDT balance of roughly $91,000. While wallet attribution does not automatically confirm what portion is readily withdrawable at any given moment, it provides a snapshot of assets still associated with BitMart-operated addresses.
Token confusion: BMX versus BitMEX developments
In the days following the news, some users on X appeared to conflate BitMart’s BMX token with BitMEX’s token and shutdown process. In one widely circulated post, a Mandarin-speaking community participant flagged BMX’s price decline while discussing the exchange closure narrative online.
Replies then pointed out that the closure dates being discussed did not match BitMart’s timeline and appeared to reflect BitMEX’s own shutdown announcement schedule. Earlier coverage noted BitMEX’s shutdown date and reported that BitMEX’s token, BMEX, dropped sharply shortly after its notice.
Several other users in the Mandarin-speaking crypto community also reportedly mixed up BMX with BitMEX. It was not immediately clear whether this confusion had any direct effect on BMX trading volumes or flows, but the episode highlights a common problem during exchange shutdowns: market participants can react to similar-sounding assets and headlines without confirming which venue the news actually affects.
Why BitMart’s shutdown matters beyond a single platform
BitMart’s decision reflects a broader contraction trend in crypto derivatives and centralized exchange ecosystems. When platforms exit, the immediate effects are operational—new deposits stop, order flow becomes constrained, and users must focus on withdrawals. But there are also second-order consequences for liquidity, custody risk perceptions, and how traders price the tail risk of access during the wind-down period.
For market participants, the timeline is as important as the headlines. BitMart’s approach—ending trading on Aug. 26, continuing operations through a longer wind-down window, and planning final cessation by Jan. 31, 2027—means the risk profile will likely change in stages. Early in the process, users are mainly managing account access and withdrawal reliability; later, liquidity and settlement mechanics may become the primary concern as the remaining operational scope narrows.
In this case, user reports and BitMart’s stated possibility of additional withdrawal reviews suggest processing times may not be uniform for all assets and requests. Traders watching BMX—or any token tied to exchange narratives—may also need to account for the fact that token moves can be amplified by sentiment, confusion, and non-fundamental market behavior during shutdown news cycles.
Readers should monitor whether withdrawal processing stabilizes after the wind-down begins, and whether BitMart provides further operational updates as the company approaches the Aug. 26 trading cutoff. The remaining uncertainty is how consistently withdrawals clear for different asset types and whether any additional compliance or security steps materially extend timelines for users.
This article was originally published as BitMart to Shut Down as BMX Price Slides Further on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMart, a cryptocurrency exchange, has announced an orderly wind-down of its trading platform. The firm will end all trading services on Aug. 26 and fully cease operations on Jan. 31, 2027, according to a notice posted to its support portal on Sunday.
As part of the shutdown plan, BitMart said it has stopped accepting new user registrations and deposits. Futures trading has been moved to reduce-only mode, while spot markets will no longer accept new orders—changes that can materially affect liquidity and how quickly users can reposition or exit positions.
Key takeaways
BitMart will halt trading services on Aug. 26 and close permanently on Jan. 31, 2027, following an orderly wind-down announcement.
The platform has stopped new registrations and deposits; futures are reduce-only and spot trading no longer accepts new orders.
BitMart’s native token BMX fell sharply, losing nearly 70% in a short window amid user complaints about withdrawals.
According to Arkham data, wallets attributed to BitMart held about $71 million in crypto assets on Sunday, down from roughly $102 million on July 6.
BitMart’s wind-down timeline and trading restrictions
In its notice, BitMart said it reached the decision after evaluating “operating conditions, market environment, and future strategic direction,” and that it would begin an orderly wind-down of its trading platform operations.
Operationally, the company has already tightened access: it stopped accepting new user registrations and deposits. It also introduced trading limitations consistent with a platform winding down risk: futures trading was shifted to reduce-only mode, and spot markets stopped taking new orders.
For users, these restrictions typically mean the exchange becomes less capable of accommodating new risk-taking activity, and positions may become harder to manage as market depth changes. The policy also increases the importance of withdrawal functionality, since exiting holdings may be the primary remaining action.
BMX plunges as withdrawal complaints surface
BitMart’s BMX token came under heavy pressure during the announcement cycle. At the time of writing, BMX traded around $0.09464, down nearly 70% from about $0.31 late Friday. The token reportedly slipped as low as $0.1058 early Saturday before extending its decline.
Several users on X reported that withdrawals were taking longer than usual. Some claims focused on Tether’s USDT withdrawals remaining pending for hours.
BitMart also warned that some withdrawal requests could be subject to additional compliance and security reviews, which may extend processing times. That detail can be important for users deciding whether to wait, cancel, or resubmit withdrawal requests as the exchange transitions toward shutdown.
Before publication, BitMart did not respond to a request for comment made by Cointelegraph.
On-chain balances and what Arkham data suggests
While trading has been winding down in stages, attention has turned to whether user funds can be withdrawn smoothly. Arkham data, accessible via its explorer, indicated that wallets attributed to BitMart held about $71 million in crypto assets on Sunday—down from roughly $102 million on July 6.
Of the tracked holdings, about $41.5 million was in stablecoin-banking platform WeFi’s WFI tokens, while BitMart-attributed wallets held about $91,000 in USDT, according to the same Arkham view.
The decline in total assets over the period highlighted by Arkham does not, by itself, explain whether assets are moving into customer withdrawals, into other custody arrangements, or into operational buffers. Still, it provides traders and users with a real-time way to observe whether BitMart-attributed balances are shrinking as the wind-down progresses.
More platform shutdowns—and token confusion around BitMart vs BitMEX
BitMart’s plan places it among a growing list of crypto trading platforms announcing closures. Earlier in the week, BitMEX and Dango also said they would shut down their respective trading platforms, according to Cointelegraph’s coverage of those announcements.
Separately, social media chatter showed some confusion between BitMart’s token and BitMEX-related tickers. On Saturday, an X user in a Mandarin-speaking crypto community referred to BMX’s drop while speculating about the reason, and another user responded—citing a mismatch between online discussion and BitMEX’s announced shutdown date.
That reference did not align with BitMEX’s Sept. 23 shutdown date, as Cointelegraph previously reported. Cointelegraph also noted that BitMEX’s own token BMEX fell about 90% shortly after BitMEX’s notice, while multiple accounts in the same community appeared to mix up BMX with BitMEX.
It was not immediately clear whether that confusion materially affected BMX trading or simply reflected broader information noise during the broader shutdown cycle. Still, it highlights a recurring risk for users: during periods of exchange closures, similarly named products and tokens can lead to misinterpretation of price moves and the underlying drivers.
As BitMart moves from trading restrictions toward full cessation in January 2027, users should watch withdrawal processing times and any further changes to compliance review steps, while traders may want to monitor whether on-chain balances tied to BitMart continue trending downward as the wind-down advances.
This article was originally published as BitMart to Shut Down: Trading Ends by August 26 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance says it has been running internal, simulated phishing attacks against its own staff for several years—testing how well employees resist social engineering attempts and tying repeat failures to remediation training and performance consequences. The exchange’s chief security officer, Jimmy Su, described the program as a way to measure whether “security hygiene” is improving inside a growing organization.
Su told Cointelegraph that Binance’s internal red team performs phishing simulations on a monthly basis. Employees who fail receive remediation training, while continued poor performance can affect their performance review ratings and, in extreme cases, lead to dismissal.
Key takeaways
Binance conducts monthly phishing simulations via an internal red team, according to its chief security officer Jimmy Su.
Failed phishing tests are followed by remediation training, aiming to improve employees’ security habits over time.
Results can influence performance reviews; repeated failures may lower ratings to the point that employment risk increases.
Su says Binance has run these simulated attacks for roughly three to four years, with security hygiene improving compared with earlier stages.
The described tactics reflect broader industry risk: social engineering continues to be a major driver of crypto security incidents.
How Binance tests resistance to social engineering
Binance’s approach centers on realism: the red team acts as an attacker to probe the company’s human layer, not just technical controls. Su said the simulations are designed to show whether employees have become more vigilant over time, adding that the program has been running for about three to four years.
“We do phishing attacks on our own employees on a monthly basis just so we understand if our security hygiene is improving,” Su told Cointelegraph. The goal, he said, is to spot weaknesses early—before malicious actors can exploit them in real incidents.
“The ones that have failed it, we will do remediation training.”
Su also said that early on, security hygiene “left a lot to be desired.” But after continuing the internal testing for a sustained period, Binance has seen meaningful improvement. That long-running cadence matters because human error is rarely solved through a one-time training session; it often requires repeated exposure, feedback, and accountability.
Escalating accountability: training and performance reviews
Binance’s internal program isn’t only about education—it’s also about incentives. Su stated that employees are encouraged to perform well because simulation results are reflected in performance reviews.
“If someone repeatedly fails the phishing-simulation attack, that will negatively impact their rating. That’s the incentive to be vigilant.”
He added that repeated, severe failures could cause a person’s rating to “bottom out,” which could ultimately lead to dismissal. While exact thresholds or timelines were not specified, the direction is clear: Binance treats recurring susceptibility to phishing as a measurable risk rather than a purely training-based issue.
For employees and managers, this changes the information security conversation. Instead of treating phishing defenses as optional training, the simulations become part of how the organization assesses readiness—suggesting a shift toward continuous security evaluation.
The tactics: recruiter lures and Zoom-style schemes
Su described at least one scenario used in the red team’s simulations: the team poses as job recruiters. That reflects a common pattern in real-world phishing—using credible context and urgency to lower an employee’s guard, especially when the target might be inclined to respond to hiring-related messages.
He also referenced well-known social engineering techniques that have circulated widely in the crypto ecosystem, including “Zoom meeting attacks,” in which attackers try to get victims to install malware disguised as a meeting update. These attacks often begin with a lure such as a fake job opportunity, and they can also use other hooks like proposed funding or partnerships.
The Binance description aligns with incidents seen across the sector. Earlier coverage cited by Cointelegraph notes that AMLBot estimated that 65% of crypto security incidents in 2025 were driven by social engineering. Separately, a major hack suffered by Drift Protocol in April was described as following a long-term social engineering campaign.
One example of the “Zoom client” pattern occurred in September 2025, when a major Venus Protocol user reportedly lost around $13 million after a malicious Zoom client compromised their computer and granted an attacker control over their account. Venus paused the protocol and used an emergency governance vote to recover the assets, later returning positions worth $11.4 million to the victim, according to the related Cointelegraph reporting referenced in the original article.
Why internal phishing testing is becoming standard in crypto
Binance’s public discussion of internal simulated phishing comes at a time when social engineering is widely recognized as a persistent—and often underestimated—attack surface in digital-asset businesses. The reason these programs can matter is that even sophisticated security stacks cannot fully prevent compromise if employees can be tricked into revealing access, installing malware, or granting approvals.
Binance is also operating at a scale where human processes can become especially important. The exchange says it has 323 million registered users, and DefiLlama estimates Binance holds $137.7 billion in assets. In environments this large, attackers have strong incentives to focus on the easiest pathway to access—often the human decision layer.
Su indicated that Binance has treated phishing resilience as an ongoing operational discipline rather than a compliance box. He described scenarios that include collecting personal information through seemingly benign interactions, such as offering free conference invites as a way to see how many targets would share details.
That emphasis on varied lures is an important point for investors and operators watching the sector: attackers adapt, and defensive training must adapt too. Simulations that only teach one “shape” of attack can become outdated quickly, while programs that rotate scenarios help test whether employees can recognize patterns rather than memorize scripts.
What readers should watch next is whether other major exchanges and custody platforms adopt similar accountability-driven simulation programs—and, crucially, whether regulators and internal auditors begin to treat phishing resistance testing as a measurable control rather than a general training activity.
This article was originally published as Binance Details Staff Phishing Campaigns to Counter Social Engineering on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance’s chief security officer, Jimmy Su, says the exchange is actively testing its own workforce against simulated phishing attempts—and tying repeated failures to employment outcomes. Su told Cointelegraph that the internal “red team” runs phishing exercises on a monthly basis to gauge whether security awareness among staff is improving.
According to Su, employees who fail the exercises aren’t just retrained once. Instead, Binance uses remediation training for those who miss the mark, and persistent, repeat failures can ultimately affect their standing at the company, reflecting the role that social engineering plays in real-world cyber incidents.
Key takeaways
Binance conducts monthly simulated phishing attacks against employees as part of an ongoing internal security program.
The simulations are carried out by Binance’s red team, a unit focused on ethical hacking and vulnerability discovery.
Failed employees receive remediation training, while repeated failures can negatively affect performance reviews and potentially job outcomes.
Binance says the program has been running for three to four years, with Su describing significant improvements in security hygiene over time.
The company uses multiple real-world lures—such as fake recruiter outreach and other “information collection” tactics—to test staff resilience.
Why Binance is testing its own staff
Su said Binance runs phishing simulations “just so we understand if our security hygiene is improving,” framing the effort as a practical measurement exercise rather than a theoretical awareness campaign. The red team’s role, as described by Su, is to attempt intrusions and interactions that mirror real attack paths, then feed results back into training.
Binance is often described as a large-scale target in crypto due to its user base and market footprint. Su did not provide additional internal metrics in the interview, but the context underscores the stakes: Binance reports 323 million registered users, while DefiLlama estimates the exchange holds $137.7 billion in assets.
For investors and traders, the takeaway is that big exchanges treat human behavior as part of their threat model. The more a firm relies on operational processes—such as customer support, account access, identity verification, and internal tooling—the more social engineering becomes a risk factor that technical defenses alone can’t fully eliminate.
Social engineering remains a recurring breach pathway
Su’s comments land in the context of broader industry reporting on social engineering as a driver of crypto security incidents. In February, AMLBot estimated that 65% of crypto security incidents in 2025 were driven by social engineering. Later, in April, a long-term social engineering campaign preceded Drift Protocol’s $285 million hack, according to earlier coverage referenced by Cointelegraph.
Su also said the simulated attacks have been in place for three to four years. He suggested that security hygiene has improved substantially since the program began: “In the beginning, the security hygiene left a lot to be desired. But after this amount of time, the company has improved significantly,” he said.
This matters because it highlights a specific operational change: Binance is not treating awareness training as a one-time checkbox, but as an ongoing feedback loop. The key shift for organizations is moving from “teach and forget” to “test, measure, and enforce.”
What the simulations look like: recruiting lures and data-harvesting scenarios
One scenario Binance uses is impersonation of job recruiters. Su said the red team poses as recruiters—an approach that mirrors a common pattern seen in phishing incidents across industries, where “legitimate-sounding” contact becomes the entry point for further manipulation.
Su also described another lure: fake “free conference invites” aimed at collecting personal information and determining how many employees fall for it. He emphasized that the job interview process is only one of multiple scenarios used by Binance’s red team.
These details are important because social engineering attacks in crypto don’t always arrive as obvious “click this link” attempts. They can be structured like legitimate professional outreach, scheduling requests, or follow-ups—channels that can appear normal to staff who might otherwise be trained to recognize traditional phishing emails.
Another well-known technique referenced in the interview is the “Zoom meeting attack,” where attackers trick victims into installing malware disguised as a video conferencing update. Many such campaigns begin with a fake job opportunity, but they can also use other professional hooks like project funding or partnership proposals.
How failure is handled: remediation, reviews, and potential dismissal
Binance’s approach doesn’t end with simulated testing. Su said employees who fail the phishing simulations undergo remediation training. He also described incentives tied to the results, stating that performance reviews reflect test outcomes.
Su’s framing is direct: “If someone repeatedly fails the phishing-simulation attack, that will negatively impact their rating. That’s the incentive to be vigilant.”
He further said repeated severe failures could “bottom out” performance ratings, potentially leading to dismissal. While Su did not outline exact thresholds or timelines for dismissal in the interview, the principle is clear: Binance is treating repeated susceptibility to social engineering as a personnel risk, not just a training gap.
Outside centralized exchanges, similar social engineering dynamics have produced major losses in DeFi ecosystems as well. For example, Cointelegraph referenced a September 2025 incident in which a Venus Protocol user reportedly lost around $13 million after a malicious Zoom client compromised a computer and led the attacker to gain control over the victim’s account. Venus paused the protocol and used an emergency governance vote to recover assets, later returning positions worth $11.4 million to the victim, according to earlier coverage cited in the article.
Those examples reinforce the broader point behind Binance’s internal testing: even when attackers target individuals rather than systems, the outcome can still be catastrophic at scale.
What readers should watch next is whether Binance’s approach—monthly red-team phishing tests, remediation, and performance-linked consequences—becomes a more standard pattern across large crypto firms as regulators and stakeholders increasingly focus on operational security beyond code and infrastructure.
This article was originally published as Binance Runs Monthly “Red Team” Tests on Staff to Thwart Hackers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The CLARITY Act has lost momentum after Senate leaders ruled out passage before the August recess. Political disputes surrounding ethics rules and crypto oversight continue to dominate Senate discussions. As a result, attention has shifted toward a possible November window when election pressures may ease.
Election Politics Pushes Clarity Act Beyond August
The CLARITY Act has entered another period of uncertainty after Senate Majority Leader John Thune indicated that lawmakers will not pass it before the August recess. As a result, industry participants now expect the Senate to revisit the legislation later this year. Current discussions now point toward November as the next realistic opportunity for progress.
Wintermute Head of Policy and Advocacy Ron Hammond believes election politics now outweigh legislative momentum despite bipartisan backing. He maintains that the bill still has enough support across party lines to advance. However, political priorities continue to dominate Senate activity before the midterm elections.
The latest delay follows months of negotiations involving lawmakers, regulators, and crypto industry representatives. Supporters continue promoting the bill as a framework for digital asset market regulation. Meanwhile, political disagreements have slowed efforts to move the legislation toward a final Senate vote.
Ethics Debate Adds Pressure to Senate Negotiations
Ethics provisions involving President Donald Trump and other federal officials have become another major issue surrounding the CLARITY Act. Democratic lawmakers continue seeking stronger restrictions on elected officials participating in crypto business activities. Republicans have shown greater willingness to discuss additional safeguards during negotiations.
The latest draft includes Department of Justice oversight for ethics enforcement involving public officials and digital assets. However, several Democratic lawmakers argue that the proposal gives excessive authority to the Justice Department. Consequently, negotiations over governance standards continue without reaching broad agreement.
Political messaging before the elections has also increased pressure on bipartisan negotiations. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reportedly wants Democrats to emphasize corruption concerns during the campaign period. That strategy could reduce bipartisan cooperation until election-related political activity declines later this year.
The ethics debate has developed alongside wider discussions about regulatory transparency across the digital asset sector. Lawmakers continue balancing market oversight with concerns surrounding conflicts of interest. Therefore, ethics negotiations remain closely linked to the broader regulatory framework within the legislation.
Banking Opposition and Legislative Priorities Create More Obstacles
Hammond also identified banking organizations and other crypto opponents as contributors to the legislative slowdown. According to his assessment, those groups continue extending policy discussions during every negotiation stage. Their continued participation has increased the time required for lawmakers to address outstanding issues.
At the same time, Congress faces an increasingly crowded legislative calendar during the remaining months of the year. Government funding measures require immediate attention before existing deadlines expire. Defense legislation also remains among the Senate’s highest priorities before lawmakers conclude the current session.
Prediction markets now reflect lower expectations for the CLARITY Act becoming law before year-end. Polymarket currently assigns a 37% probability to passage this year, compared with previous expectations above 80%. That decline reflects growing uncertainty surrounding the Senate timetable rather than changes in the bill itself.
The CLARITY Act previously gained bipartisan support after lawmakers sought clearer rules for digital asset markets. Supporters argue that the legislation would define regulatory responsibilities between federal agencies while establishing legal certainty for crypto businesses. Despite that objective, election politics, ethics negotiations, banking opposition, and competing legislative priorities continue delaying Senate action, leaving November as the most discussed period for renewed consideration.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Faces November Timeline as Election Politics Slow Senate Progress on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The European Union has expanded its sanctions against Russia by adding HTX to a new package targeting financial networks. The measures also include several other crypto service providers that allegedly supported sanctions evasion. The move marks another step in the EU’s broader effort to tighten restrictions on financial channels linked to Russia’s war economy.
EU Adds HTX to Latest Russia Sanctions Package
The European Union has included HTX among 18 crypto service providers in its latest sanctions package targeting Russia. The measures aim to disrupt financial networks that allegedly supported sanctions evasion through digital assets. The package also targets banks, oil traders, energy revenue channels, and vessels linked to Russia’s shadow fleet.
EU officials stated that the listed crypto firms allegedly helped Russian users bypass existing sanctions. Authorities expanded the restrictions as part of wider efforts to limit financial activity supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine. The updated sanctions package became public after officials announced the measures on Thursday.
HTX joined the sanctions list despite remaining one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges. The exchange began operations in China during 2013 before changing ownership in later years. Justin Sun assumed control of the platform in 2022, although HTX continues to describe him as an adviser.
HTX Faces Fresh Pressure Following Earlier UK Action
The latest EU action follows similar restrictions introduced by the United Kingdom several months ago. British authorities included HTX in a sanctions package targeting financial systems linked to Russia’s war economy. That decision attracted significant attention because it affected a major global cryptocurrency exchange.
However, the European Union adopted a different approach from the earlier UK measures. The latest sanctions do not amount to a full designation against HTX under the EU framework. They also do not impose an asset freeze or a complete prohibition on the exchange.
The different structure highlights varying enforcement methods between the European Union and the United Kingdom. Even so, both jurisdictions continue increasing pressure on financial networks connected to Russia. Crypto platforms now face stronger regulatory scrutiny across multiple international markets.
Regulatory Pressure on Crypto Exchanges Continues to Grow
HTX previously stated that regulatory compliance remains a priority across every jurisdiction where it operates. The exchange maintained that it follows applicable legal and regulatory requirements in global markets. It has not yet announced any specific response to the latest European Union measures.
The new sanctions arrive during a period of expanding crypto regulation across Europe. The Markets in Crypto-Assets framework recently completed another important implementation phase across the European Union. Regulators have also increased oversight of exchanges and digital asset service providers operating within the bloc.
The latest sanctions package adds another layer of pressure on cryptocurrency businesses with international operations. Authorities continue targeting financial channels that they believe could support sanctions evasion involving Russia. As a result, compliance expectations for global crypto exchanges continue rising across major regulatory jurisdictions.
The inclusion of HTX reflects the European Union’s broader strategy to strengthen financial restrictions beyond traditional banking institutions. Digital asset platforms have become an increasing focus as regulators address cross-border financial activity involving cryptocurrencies. Authorities believe stronger oversight can reduce opportunities for sanctions circumvention through decentralized financial networks.
HTX remains an established exchange serving users across multiple regions despite increasing regulatory attention. The platform has experienced several ownership and branding changes since its launch as Huobi. Its transformation into HTX followed broader restructuring efforts under Justin Sun’s leadership and advisory role.
The European Union continues expanding sanctions in response to Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine. Policymakers have repeatedly widened restrictions to include emerging financial technologies alongside conventional payment systems. Crypto service providers have therefore become part of wider enforcement strategies targeting international financial activity.
The latest package demonstrates that regulators now consider digital asset platforms an important element of sanctions enforcement. Authorities continue identifying entities they believe facilitated restricted financial transactions connected to Russia. Consequently, exchanges operating across multiple jurisdictions face growing compliance obligations and increased regulatory examination.
Market participants now expect further regulatory developments as European authorities continue implementing stricter oversight of cryptocurrency businesses. Additional enforcement measures could emerge if regulators identify new channels supporting prohibited financial activity. The latest sanctions therefore reinforce the European Union’s commitment to tightening restrictions across both traditional and digital financial sectors.
This article was originally published as EU Adds HTX to Russia Sanctions Package, Expands Crypto Crackdown on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Payments company Wise says it will revisit its application strategy with the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) after the regulator rejected its push to become a national trust bank. In a notice issued Thursday, Wise said it intends to reapply under a GENIUS Act framework—US legislation designed to create a regulated pathway for payment stablecoin activities.
The shift matters because Wise’s original charter plan has now been explicitly denied, and the GENIUS Act is meant to offer clarity for stablecoin issuers and payment providers once regulators finalize the rules. Wise’s next steps will therefore be closely watched by other fintechs weighing stablecoin-related business models in the US.
Key takeaways
Wise was rejected by the OCC for a national trust bank charter tied to its use of stablecoin-related rails.
The company plans to submit a new OCC application using a “GENIUS Act framework,” according to its Thursday notice.
William Blair said Wise is likely to remain “focused on lowering the cost of cross-border transactions” without changing its position on payment stablecoins.
The OCC cited gaps in Wise’s anti-money laundering (AML) and countering the financing of terrorism (CFT) program and other illicit-finance risks.
The GENIUS Act—signed in July 2025—provides a regulatory framework for payment stablecoin providers, but pending regulations and missed guidance deadlines leave implementation details uncertain.
Wise pivots toward GENIUS Act framing after OCC denial
Wise’s charter application was denied by the OCC on Tuesday. In its rejection, the agency said Wise failed to demonstrate that it had an effective AML/CFT compliance program and referenced “other illicit finance activity risks.” Those deficiencies formed the basis of the refusal to grant the national trust bank charter.
Rather than abandon the pursuit of a banking charter altogether, Wise now says it will change the way it approaches the application. According to a notice on Wise’s investor relations platform, the company plans to submit a new national trust bank charter application under a “GENIUS Act framework,” tying the filing more directly to the statute that regulates certain payment stablecoin activities in the US.
Investment banking group William Blair indicated that this procedural change is not expected to alter Wise’s underlying stance on payment stablecoins. As reported by William Blair in connection with Wise’s move, Wise remains focused on reducing the cost of cross-border transfers, “agnostic of the rail.”
What the GENIUS Act is intended to do
The GENIUS Act, signed into law in July 2025, is intended to create a clearer regulatory pathway for payment stablecoin providers. The legislation provides a framework for how stablecoins used for payments should be overseen in the United States, with additional regulatory steps required before full implementation.
However, the timeline for operational certainty is not fully in place. Cointelegraph previously reported that federal agencies missed a key deadline to provide guidance on how the GENIUS Act should be implemented before its effective date in January 2027. As a result, even with the law now on the books, market participants may still face uncertainty about how regulators will interpret and apply the framework in practice.
Wise’s reapplication strategy therefore highlights a practical tension in the current US environment: companies are trying to position themselves in line with upcoming stablecoin-focused rules while still needing to satisfy established banking supervision expectations—particularly around AML/CFT controls.
Why the OCC’s AML/CFT reasoning is likely to remain central
Wise’s original denial pointed directly to compliance readiness. The OCC said Wise could not show it had an effective AML and CFT compliance program, and it also cited other illicit finance activity risks.
Even if Wise moves forward under the GENIUS Act framework, the OCC’s stated concerns underline a broader reality for any entity seeking a national trust bank charter: the regulatory bar for compliance programs does not disappear just because a stablecoin statute exists. In effect, Wise’s challenge is twofold—aligning with the GENIUS Act’s payment stablecoin posture while also meeting the OCC’s supervisory expectations around money laundering, terrorist financing, and risk management.
This is likely to be a key point for investors and partners assessing Wise’s prospects. The GENIUS Act framing may change how the application is structured, but it does not negate the OCC’s focus on effective compliance systems.
Stablecoin policy momentum is real—yet approvals have been selective
Following passage of the stablecoin legislation, the OCC has approved several applications for national trust charters from major digital asset firms, including Circle, Ripple Labs, Crypto.com, and Coinbase, according to earlier reporting referenced in the source material. Those approvals suggest that the OCC is actively working through charter requests in the post-stablecoin-bill environment.
At the same time, Wise’s rejection shows that not all applicants will clear the process on the first attempt, especially when regulators identify weaknesses in AML/CFT effectiveness. The differentiation between successful charter applicants and Wise’s denied bid may come down to the OCC’s assessment of risk controls and readiness.
For the broader market, this combination—policy momentum on one side, compliance scrutiny on the other—may influence how payment and stablecoin-adjacent businesses plan their US expansion. Companies may increasingly try to align product plans with GENIUS Act expectations while treating regulator-reviewed compliance architecture as a decisive factor.
As Wise prepares its next filing, the market will watch closely for how the company documents its AML/CFT program and addresses the specific “illicit finance activity risks” cited by the OCC. With final GENIUS Act regulations still pending and federal guidance arriving late relative to the law’s effective date, the coming months could determine how the framework is operationalized for applicants and what additional assurances regulators will require.
This article was originally published as Wisdom Group Advised to Refile US Charter Application Under GENIUS Act on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Layer-1 blockchain Dango has announced it will wind down operations, with trading on its perpetual decentralized exchange (DEX) set to stop on Wednesday and the network shutting down on Aug. 13.
In an X post, the team said the decision follows a conclusion that there is “no viable path to a lasting commercial success,” citing a mix of operational and external headwinds. Founder Larry Liu added that cash shortages, legal issues that slowed progress, staff losses, and broader market conditions all contributed to the outcome.
Key takeaways
Dango will halt perpetual DEX trading on Wednesday and complete a network shutdown on Aug. 13.
The team attributed the closure to lack of a sustainable path to commercial success, including cash constraints and legal delays.
After launching its perpetual DEX in April, Dango suffered a roughly $410,000 exploit shortly after release; the attacker later returned funds in a bug-bounty arrangement.
Competition in perp trading remains intense: DefiLlama shows Dango’s open interest far below larger platforms such as Hyperliquid and Aster.
Dango’s shutdown adds to a broader pattern of crypto platform closures reported in July, including BitMEX.
Trading halts first, network shutdown follows
According to Dango’s announcement on X, the process will unfold in two phases. First, perpetual trading on its DEX will stop on Wednesday. Then, the network itself will be shut down on Aug. 13.
This staging matters for users and liquidity providers because perpetual venues typically accumulate open positions and ongoing market activity. Halting trading first gives counterparties a clear time window, while the later network closure indicates the longer-term end of protocol availability.
Dango did not frame the decision as a temporary pause. Instead, both the team’s statement and Liu’s remarks emphasized that the project had reached a point where continuing operations was no longer viable.
What Dango cited: funding strain, legal friction, and team losses
The core reason given by Dango was the absence of a workable route to long-term commercial success. In a separate X post, founder Larry Liu pointed to multiple challenges that collectively undermined the project’s momentum.
Those factors included cash shortages, legal challenges that slowed progress, the loss of team members, and prevailing market conditions. Together, the comments suggest Dango’s runway and development schedule were constrained from more than one direction, making it harder to regain traction after early setbacks.
Launch timeline and the earlier exploit
Dango launched its mainnet in January after raising $3.6 million in a 2024 seed round, according to the team’s X posts—an effort reportedly led by Hack VC and Lemniscap.
The perpetual DEX was rolled out in April. However, the project experienced a significant security incident shortly after launch: an exploit worth roughly $410,000 reportedly occurred days after the venue began operating. The attacker later returned the funds in exchange for a bug bounty, according to Dango’s reporting.
For perp DEX operators, incidents like this can affect user trust and liquidity, particularly when competitors are already attracting traders at scale. While returned funds and a bug bounty can mitigate financial damage, reputational and operational disruption often persists longer than the immediate technical resolution.
Open interest shows how hard it is to compete in perps
Dango’s winding down comes amid a market where perpetual DEX trading is dominated by a small number of large venues.
DefiLlama data shows Dango’s total value locked (TVL) fell from a peak of roughly $4.5 million in early May to about $1.6 million before the shutdown announcement. That decline outlines how quickly liquidity can drain when a protocol fails to draw sustained demand.
Competition is even clearer in open interest. DefiLlama’s perp rankings, referenced in the reporting, indicate that Hyperliquid held more than $11 billion in open interest on Saturday—representing the value of outstanding perpetual futures contracts not yet closed. Only Aster and Variational were also reported as holding more than $1 billion in open interest.
By comparison, Dango’s open interest was just under $391,000. In other words, even before the closure, Dango was operating at a scale far smaller than the main liquidity hubs.
CoinGecko’s second-quarter industry report, as cited in the article, also noted that Hyperliquid became the second-largest perpetual exchange by open interest on July 1, behind only Binance. That context helps explain why mid-sized venues can struggle to attract both traders and market depth necessary for efficient execution.
A wider shutdown trend in July
Dango’s closure is not an isolated event. The announcement arrives during a stretch in which other crypto businesses have shut down or restructured, including BitMEX, which the article described as a perpetual futures pioneer that announced its shutdown in July.
In commentary shared with Cointelegraph, restructuring adviser Roshan Dharia linked BitMEX’s exit to broader structural pressures on mid-sized centralized exchanges. He pointed to liquidity concentration among the largest players and rising regulatory compliance costs. Dharia also argued that the top platforms control a large share of global spot volume, leaving less room for smaller operators to scale or maintain healthy margins.
Other closures mentioned alongside Dango include DEX aggregator Odos Protocol and perp DEX Satori Finance. While each case has its own drivers, the clustering of shutdowns suggests a tougher environment for scaling crypto platforms—especially those competing for liquidity and trading activity against dominant incumbents.
For Dango users and liquidity providers, the next key milestones are the Wednesday trading halt and the Aug. 13 network shutdown. Beyond that, investors and builders should watch whether Dango’s exit accelerates further consolidation in perpetual trading—and whether remaining perp platforms with smaller open interest can sustain liquidity as competition intensifies and operational costs rise.
This article was originally published as Dango’s Perp DEX Shuts Down After Nearly Four Months in Operation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Ethereum exchange-traded funds (ETFs) pulled back after a run of steady demand, recording $70.62 million in net outflows on Friday and ending a five-day inflow streak.
SoSoValue data shows US Ether funds brought in $211.25 million over the prior five sessions from July 17 through Thursday. Despite Friday’s reversal, the funds also logged $103.9 million in net inflows for the week ended Friday. Overall, Ethereum spot ETFs have now extended their weekly inflow streak to three straight weeks and have attracted $337.74 million in net inflows so far in July.
Key takeaways
Ethereum spot ETFs saw $70.62 million in net outflows on Friday after five consecutive inflow sessions.
SoSoValue reports $211.25 million of net inflows from July 17 through Thursday, with $103.9 million added for the week ended Friday.
ETH ETFs still maintain a three-week weekly inflow streak and have pulled in $337.74 million net so far in July.
Bitcoin spot ETFs followed a similar pattern, ending a seven-day inflow streak and posting $240.08 million in net outflows on Friday.
Japan’s evolving crypto framework has renewed discussion about the potential size of a future Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF market, with one estimate placing it around $18.4 billion.
Ethereum ETF flows pause after a strong mid-July stretch
Ethereum’s ETF flow picture remains constructive even with Friday’s outflows. According to SoSoValue, the funds accumulated $211.25 million in net inflows across five sessions leading into Thursday, suggesting that the demand seen earlier in the week was not immediately erased. For the week ended Friday, net inflows still totaled $103.9 million, meaning the reversal did not translate into a weekly loss for product flows.
That distinction matters for investors tracking ETF demand as a relatively timely signal of how traditional market participants are positioning in Ether. While daily outflows can reflect routine rebalancing, profit-taking, or broader risk-off moves, the persistence of weekly inflows over three consecutive weeks points to continued interest rather than a one-off event.
Ethereum ETFs have also drawn $337.74 million in net inflows so far in July, reinforcing that the overall monthly trend remains positive despite Friday’s dip.
Bitcoin ETFs also reverse, ending another inflow run
Friday’s turn in Ethereum flows came alongside weakness in US spot Bitcoin ETFs. Coin-telemetry on demand indicators shows that Bitcoin funds ended a seven-day inflow streak on Thursday and recorded another $240.08 million in net outflows on Friday, according to the same weekly flow tracking referenced in this report.
Even with the Friday reversal, Bitcoin ETFs are still showing a multi-week accumulation trend. The week ended Friday added $103.90 million in net inflows, bringing the total net inflow so far in July to $233.96 million. The funds also extended their net inflow streak to three consecutive weeks.
The report also highlights how sharply sentiment shifted earlier in the cycle: after a record June in which $4.5 billion flowed out of the funds, July’s inflows suggest investors are gradually rebuilding exposure through these regulated products.
Crypto ETF demand remains a key proxy for institutional access
Spot crypto ETFs have become one of the most closely watched gauges for market demand through traditional channels. In the US, ETFs are especially influential because they represent the overwhelming majority of assets and trading activity compared with similar products in other jurisdictions.
While other markets, including Hong Kong, have moved toward ETF-style products, the US remains the primary venue where flow data is both abundant and liquid. As a result, daily net inflow and outflow figures can quickly influence how traders interpret near-term positioning, even when they don’t fully dictate price direction.
At the time of writing, the report notes that Bitcoin was trading just under $64,000, down from Tuesday’s week high of $66,892, and Ether was around $1,837, below the weekly high of $1,954. These snapshot levels illustrate that ETF flow reversals can coincide with broader market volatility, even if the longer weekly pattern still looks supportive.
Japan reforms revive estimates for a future spot Bitcoin ETF market
Beyond ETF flow numbers in the US, attention is also shifting to regulatory groundwork elsewhere. Following Japan’s recent overhaul of its crypto regulations—seen by the market as laying the groundwork for future spot Bitcoin ETFs—crypto management platform XWIN estimated what a “mature” Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF market could look like.
In an analysis referenced via CryptoQuant, XWIN projected an upper-end scenario of about $18.4 billion for a Japanese spot Bitcoin ETF market. The figure is framed as roughly 0.13% of Japan’s reported $14.6 trillion in household financial assets.
The estimate also defines assumptions about where demand would originate: existing crypto holders, new retail investors entering through brokerage accounts, and institutional allocators. XWIN’s reasoning suggests that regulated ETF structures—paired with familiar brokerage access and custody arrangements—could reduce friction for investors who want exposure without handling assets directly.
To make the case, the analysis points to the US market as an example of how spot Bitcoin ETFs can translate into meaningful accumulated exposure over time, noting that spot Bitcoin ETFs excluding Grayscale’s GBTC have accumulated roughly 1 million Bitcoin. XWIN characterized the $18.4 billion number as an “achievable upper-end market scenario,” emphasizing it is not a guaranteed outcome.
In that framing, the key variable is access—how easily Japanese investors can reach Bitcoin exposure through institutions they already use. That focus aligns with why ETF demand in the US has remained closely tracked: flows can reflect the conversion of investor intent into a product wrapper that fits mainstream portfolio practices.
For investors, the immediate question is whether Friday’s outflows in both Ethereum and Bitcoin ETFs mark the start of a more sustained pullback or simply a brief rebalancing pause. Watching subsequent daily flow prints—and whether weekly inflow streaks hold—will help clarify how much of the recent strength persists, while regulatory developments in Japan could reshape longer-term expectations for where ETF-style demand might expand next.
This article was originally published as Ethereum ETFs Break 5-Day Inflow Streak With Weekly Outflows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The European Union is tightening crypto-related sanctions tied to Belarus, effectively barring Belarusian nationals and residents from taking controlling roles in certain EU-regulated crypto businesses. The restriction will apply to crypto exchange and custody-related providers that fall under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework, starting Aug. 25.
The change is contained in Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847, adopted Thursday. According to the text, the decision amends the EU’s existing sanctions structure targeting Belarus over its involvement in Russia’s war against Ukraine, broadening an earlier limitation that had been limited to wallet, account, or custody services.
Key takeaways
Belarusian nationals and residents will be prohibited from owning, controlling, or managing certain MiCA-regulated EU crypto service providers starting Aug. 25.
The update in Council Decision (CFSP) 2026/1847 expands the scope beyond prior restrictions that covered only wallet/account/custody services.
The prohibition includes not only ownership and control, but also holding a role on a company’s governing body.
MiCA service categories covered by the amendment include trading platforms, exchanges, order execution/transmission, transfers, and investment advice or portfolio management.
What the EU sanctions change covers
The Council Decision states that Belarusian nationals and residents may not own or control an EU-based entity that provides “any other crypto-asset services” as defined by MiCA, nor may they hold positions on that entity’s governing body. This effectively targets governance influence as well as economic control.
MiCA’s scope of “crypto-asset services” is broad. It includes operating trading platforms and exchanging crypto assets, executing and transmitting clients’ orders, placing crypto assets, and providing transfers. The framework also covers advisory and portfolio management activities, meaning the sanctions expansion can reach multiple lines of business beyond straightforward custody.
Although the decision was adopted on Thursday and enters into force immediately, the expanded crypto-related restriction is scheduled to begin on Aug. 25—leaving regulated firms a limited window to assess whether current ownership, management arrangements, or board composition could be impacted.
Timing matters after MiCA’s transition period ended
The EU’s move arrives shortly after the end of MiCA’s transition period on July 1, when crypto companies without the required authorizations were directed to wind down operations or face enforcement action. In that context, the new sanctions restriction adds another compliance dimension for firms working within the post-transition MiCA landscape.
Instead of focusing only on licensing and operational rules, the EU is combining MiCA market regulation with sanctions screening—especially concerning personnel and governance structures. For compliance teams, that means ownership, board seats, and day-to-day control arrangements now need to be reviewed with both MiCA requirements and the sanctions framework in mind.
MiCA licensing is meant to standardize crypto services across the EU, but sanctions can independently restrict who may participate in certain roles regardless of regulatory approval. This creates a dual gate: a firm may be authorized under MiCA rules while still being required to restructure if it falls within the sanctions constraints.
Part of a wider EU effort to limit crypto access tied to Russia
The Belarus update aligns with broader EU actions aimed at crypto platforms and financial networks allegedly used to route around sanctions imposed over Russia’s war in Ukraine. The EU has been expanding its approach through successive sanctions packages and transaction bans covering crypto-related entities.
Earlier this week, the EU, as part of its 21st sanctions package against Russia, extended a transaction ban to 14 crypto-related service platforms outside the bloc. It also introduced a mechanism that would allow the EU to prohibit dealings with any foreign crypto provider that it identifies as being used by Russia to evade sanctions.
The latest package builds on a June 11 proposal that targeted 11 crypto platforms. Taken together, the EU’s direction is clear: rather than focusing solely on traditional banking channels, it is attempting to reach crypto infrastructure that may facilitate sanctioned activity.
Beyond the EU’s own actions, the sanctions tightening has also been influenced by allied measures. The proposal was reported to follow the United Kingdom’s May 26 sanctions against Huobi Global S.A., the Panamanian company behind HTX, over alleged support for Russia-linked financial networks involving sanctioned entities A7 and Garantex. In that case, HTX denied wrongdoing, telling Cointelegraph that regulatory compliance remains a priority and that it adheres to regulatory frameworks in the jurisdictions where it operates.
Implications for operators and boards across the EU
Because the amendment explicitly covers governance, EU-facing crypto firms cannot treat sanctions compliance as purely an onboarding or customer-screening task. The wording targets who can own, control, manage, or sit on governing bodies—meaning internal corporate structure becomes part of sanctions risk management.
For businesses offering MiCA-listed services—ranging from trading and exchange operations to transfer services and portfolio management—this likely requires reviewing shareholder registers, controlling persons, executive roles, and board appointments tied to Belarusian nationality or residency.
It is also notable that the measure expands an existing Belarus-related restriction. By broadening from wallet/account/custody into “any other crypto-asset services” under MiCA, the EU is signalling that it views the crypto sector as a set of connected services rather than isolated product lines. Firms that previously believed they were outside the sanctions line due to service type may need to reassess.
For investors and counterparties, these restrictions also affect operational continuity and due diligence. Business partners may increasingly factor sanctions-driven corporate eligibility into counterparty risk assessments, especially where controlling persons or board members could become restricted under future amendments.
Going forward, the critical watchpoints are the Aug. 25 applicability date and the practical steps firms take to remain compliant—particularly any changes to ownership structures or governance appointments. The EU’s broader pattern of expanding crypto sanctions suggests that additional service categories, geographies, or transaction rules could follow, even as MiCA continues to roll out its licensing and enforcement regime across member states.
This article was originally published as EU Extends Belarus Crypto Ownership Ban to All MiCA Firms From Aug. 25 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Poolin, the Singapore-based Bitcoin mining pool operator, and two US affiliates have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New Jersey, according to a court filing reviewed via PACER Monitor. The move arrives as mining businesses continue to grapple with cost pressures—particularly electricity—while some operators look for new revenue streams beyond block production.
Alongside the restructuring process, Poolin is asking the court for permission to sell two West Texas mining sites to Thor CALAP LLC through a proposed stalking-horse bid valued at $52 million. A court-supervised auction would follow, with a bid deadline set for Sept. 8 under the proposed procedures.
Key takeaways
Poolin and two US affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in New Jersey, with liabilities estimated between $100 million and $500 million.
The company is pursuing a $52 million stalking-horse sale of two West Texas mining sites to Thor CALAP LLC.
Under the proposed terms, $37 million would cover Tarbush assets (including assumed liabilities) and $15 million would cover the Pyote site (including power rights and equipment).
The filing suggests a highly constrained balance sheet for a once-dominant pool, now operating at a much smaller share of network hashrate.
The restructuring fits a broader trend: miners seeking survival via liquidation or diversification into AI/data-center infrastructure.
Chapter 11 filing outlines Poolin’s financial position
Poolin’s Chapter 11 court filing, available through PACER Monitor, provides a snapshot of the company’s estimated financial scale. The petition estimates liabilities in the range of $100 million to $500 million, while assets are estimated between $1 million and $10 million. The filing also lists 10,001 to 25,000 creditors.
For investors and industry observers, the wide liability and asset bands underscore the uncertainty that often accompanies mining restructurings—especially for operators with volatile operating expenses, variable energy costs, and exposure to the economics of mining difficulty and Bitcoin prices. While the filing does not provide a definitive balance sheet, the magnitude difference between liabilities and assets signals that creditors may be evaluating a realistic path toward partial recoveries, rather than a straightforward reorganization.
A proposed sale of West Texas capacity is central to the process
Poolin’s bankruptcy filing also centers on a targeted asset sale designed to preserve value while the case proceeds. The company is seeking court approval to sell two mining sites in West Texas to Thor CALAP LLC as a stalking-horse bid totaling $52 million.
The proposed transaction breaks down as follows:
Tarbush assets: $37 million, including assumed liabilities.
Pyote site: $15 million, including power rights, equipment, and other assets tied to the mining facilities.
As proposed, the sale would be subject to a court-supervised auction, with a bid deadline of Sept. 8 under the bidding procedures. For parties watching the case, the auction step is crucial: it can reveal whether other bidders are willing to pay more than the stalking-horse floor, particularly for assets that may include power arrangements and installed infrastructure.
From top pool to smaller hashrate share
Poolin was once described as the world’s largest Bitcoin mining pool. In 2019, it held that position, but the filing-era context reflects a significant shift in the industry landscape. According to Hashrate Index, Poolin currently ranks as the 17th largest mining pool operator by hashrate, with a 0.2% market share.
This matters because a pool operator’s economics are closely linked to volume—both in terms of how much hashing power it attracts and the ability to retain miners during periods of margin compression. When network conditions and operating costs become unfavorable, smaller pools can lose market share faster, which in turn can pressure revenue tied to pooled mining participation.
Restructuring and an AI pivot reshape the mining playbook
Poolin’s filing sits within a wider pattern in the Bitcoin mining sector. Rising electricity costs have pressured mining operations, pushing some companies to shut down and others to seek restructuring to reduce obligations or reallocate resources.
Earlier this year, NFN8 Group and two affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Western District of Texas in February, according to a separate report linked in the original coverage. That case illustrates how energy expenses and fixed infrastructure commitments can become difficult to sustain—particularly when mining economics deteriorate.
At the same time, some publicly traded miners have attempted a different approach: converting their power, facilities, and data-center experience into AI- and high-performance computing-oriented ventures. The original reporting noted that in November 2025, Bitfarms initiated a full wind-down of its Bitcoin mining operations as it pivoted toward AI and high-performance computing data centers.
More recently, deals tied to AI infrastructure were highlighted across the sector. Hut 8 and IREN announced large-scale AI infrastructure plans, with Hut 8 moving forward on a 15-year lease for an AI data center campus and IREN disclosing $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers. Earlier coverage also pointed to MARA Holdings pursuing plans to acquire a Texas site with up to 2 gigawatts of capacity to expand AI and digital infrastructure.
Industry observers have framed these shifts around a key constraint: the challenge of securing compute resources and the infrastructure needed to support them. In the coverage referenced, Bernstein reportedly said that deals with third-party providers—including Bitcoin miners—will be necessary for AI companies seeking to address computing power limits at AI data centers.
What comes next for creditors and miners watching the auction
Poolin’s Chapter 11 process and proposed West Texas sale will likely become a bellwether for how much value is still attached to mining infrastructure, especially when assets are paired with power rights and installed equipment. Readers should watch the court-approved bidding process leading up to the Sept. 8 deadline and look for updates on whether the auction produces competing offers that change the valuation outlook for Poolin’s remaining operations.
This article was originally published as Poolin Files for Chapter 11 as $52M Plan Moves Ahead for Texas Mining Sites on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ripple has rolled out Ripple Mint, a new institutional platform designed to make it easier for regulated organizations to interact with the company’s US dollar-pegged stablecoin, Ripple USD (RLUSD). The release centers on a single workflow layer for tasks like minting, redeeming, and managing RLUSD—either through a web interface or through direct API integrations.
Ripple Mint was announced on Thursday, with the company presenting the product as a “unified platform” that can support both manual operations and automated connections. The emphasis reflects a broader shift in stablecoin adoption: beyond experimentation, more institutions are seeking stablecoin rails for payments, trading execution, and treasury functions.
Key takeaways
Ripple Mint is intended to streamline institutional access to RLUSD for minting, redemption, and ongoing management.
The platform supports access via web workflows as well as API integrations for automation.
Ripple launched RLUSD in December 2024 with an institutional focus, while later adoption has also included retail usage.
RLUSD has grown into a major USD-pegged stablecoin by market cap, with CoinGecko data cited by earlier reporting.
A unified workflow for RLUSD
According to Ripple’s announcement, Ripple Mint is built to fit different operational needs within financial institutions. The company says the platform offers flexible access to “digital dollars through the workflows that fit their needs,” allowing organizations to manage RLUSD either by using a web interface or by connecting through APIs.
That distinction matters for how institutions typically deploy blockchain-based infrastructure. Manual workflows can be useful for smaller-scale operations, testing, or internal controls. API-based integration, by contrast, is generally required for high-throughput environments where stablecoin actions need to be connected to broader systems such as trading platforms, payment engines, or treasury management tools.
From RLUSD launch to institutional tooling
RLUSD itself was launched in December 2024, and earlier coverage described the stablecoin as initially geared toward institutional use. Over time, reports also indicated that RLUSD has seen some retail traction, suggesting the product is not limited purely to enterprise channels—even if its infrastructure direction remains institutional.
Market capitalization has followed that scaling narrative. Earlier reporting from Cointelegraph noted RLUSD moving into the ranks of the larger US dollar-backed stablecoins by market cap, and reaching the top 10 less than one year after launch. CoinGecko charts cited in that prior coverage show the token’s market cap growth culminating in a peak on June 1, 2026, when it reportedly surpassed $1.8 billion.
That timing is particularly relevant in the context of Ripple Mint. A stablecoin’s market size can influence the perceived readiness of a given ecosystem for broader institutional deployment. While market cap alone doesn’t determine adoption quality, it can reflect liquidity and accessibility—two factors institutions frequently consider when integrating stablecoins into operational workflows.
What the rollout could change for enterprise adoption
Stablecoin infrastructure for institutions is often defined by friction: onboarding processes, integration complexity, reconciliation requirements, and operational tooling. Ripple Mint’s pitch targets that friction by providing what Ripple describes as a single management layer for RLUSD, with multiple access modes (web and API).
For institutions, this kind of consolidation can reduce time-to-integration by limiting the number of bespoke systems required to mint, redeem, or manage stablecoin balances. It can also support internal compliance workflows by giving teams a consistent interface for operational actions—especially when stablecoin use expands into treasury and trading settlement activities.
At the time of publication, earlier data referenced by Cointelegraph indicated that RLUSD was ranked ninth among USD-pegged stablecoins by market capitalization. Prior coverage also cited a short-lived market cap rise around the Ripple Mint launch window, when RLUSD’s market cap reportedly moved from about $1.54 billion to $1.64 billion before settling closer to $1.59 billion, using CoinGecko figures.
Even if price movements around announcements are not a direct measure of enterprise traction, they can signal market attention. The more meaningful indicator will be whether Ripple Mint translates into new institutional integrations, increased transaction activity, and recurring usage patterns through automated API connections.
Where RLUSD sits in the broader stablecoin landscape
RLUSD is part of the competitive set of USD-pegged stablecoins, where adoption is shaped by trust, liquidity, and the usability of the surrounding infrastructure. Cointelegraph previously reported on RLUSD’s progress into the top tiers by market cap and highlighted its positioning as a US dollar-based stablecoin with an evolving user base.
Ripple Mint adds another layer to that positioning by focusing on the operational side of stablecoin access. Instead of treating stablecoin minting and redemption as separate, fragmented processes, the platform frames RLUSD management as a unified workflow—an approach that may appeal to institutions seeking predictable processes and smoother integration into existing systems.
Importantly, this does not eliminate the need for due diligence. Institutions still need to evaluate issuer and platform controls, counterparty and custody arrangements, and compliance alignment. But tooling that reduces integration overhead is often a prerequisite for stablecoins to move from pilot programs into routine usage.
Going forward, the key question for RLUSD users and potential institutional partners is whether Ripple Mint leads to measurable increases in automated adoption—especially through API-based integrations—and how quickly the platform’s capabilities expand beyond basic mint/redeem management into deeper payment and treasury workflows.
This article was originally published as Ripple Starts RLUSD Mint for Institutional Access on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hyperliquid’s decentralized perpetuals market has hit a notable milestone as trading in tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) started to dominate the platform’s week-over-week activity. According to Blockworks analytics, RWAs generated $25.1 billion in trading volume from July 13 to July 19—first time they have exceeded the combined volume of Hyperliquid’s other asset categories.
That $25.1 billion accounted for 52% of Hyperliquid’s total weekly trading volume of $48.2 billion, based on Blockworks data. ARK Invest research director Lorenzo Valente highlighted the scale in an X post, saying Hyperliquid’s RWA market alone was larger than the combined crypto perpetual volume of every other DEX.
Key takeaways
RWA trading on Hyperliquid reached $25.1B in a single week (July 13–July 19), surpassing all other asset categories combined on the platform.
RWAs represented 52% of Hyperliquid’s weekly total volume of $48.2B, per Blockworks.
RWA adoption appears to be accelerating: RWA holder users rose 32% to 1.25 million, while tokenized RWA value increased to $36.7B (+3.5%) according to RWA.xyz.
Revenue signals remain strong: Hyperliquid generated $7.6M in weekly revenue, placing it third among crypto apps by that metric (behind Tether and Circle).
Executives increasingly frame perps on-chain as infrastructure: Circle CEO Jeremy Allaire called the shift a “major structural shift” toward RWA-driven trading.
RWA volume surpasses every other asset category on Hyperliquid
The shift is specific to Hyperliquid’s perpetual exchange (perps) activity, where traders transact continuously rather than relying on dated contract expirations. Blockworks’ weekly figures show that, for July 13–July 19, tokenized RWAs became the largest driver of Hyperliquid’s marketplace by volume—an inflection point for a category that has been steadily gaining attention across crypto.
Valente’s comparison—RWA volume on Hyperliquid exceeding the combined crypto perpetual volume of other DEXs—underscores how concentrated the activity is becoming around tokenized, off-chain-linked instruments on a perps venue. While DEX perps are not new, this particular weighting toward RWAs suggests that capital and liquidity are being pulled toward tokenized claims on real assets rather than limiting trading interest to native crypto commodities.
Adoption metrics point to a broader RWA pull
The volume milestone is occurring alongside growth in the underlying RWA market. RWA.xyz data cited in the report indicates that RWA holders expanded by 32% over the past month to 1.25 million users. Over the same period, the total value of tokenized RWAs rose by 3.5% to $36.7 billion.
For investors and market participants, the key question is whether Hyperliquid’s RWA outperformance reflects a one-week anomaly or a sustained change in liquidity preferences. The combination of weekly trading dominance and month-over-month growth in both holders and total RWA value makes the case for sustained demand—at least in the near term.
Revenue and relative standing among crypto applications
Volume growth often attracts scrutiny, but revenue helps clarify whether activity is translating into sustainable economic impact. DefiLlama data indicates Hyperliquid generated $7.6 million in revenue over the past week.
DefiLlama also places Hyperliquid third among crypto applications by weekly revenue, behind stablecoin issuers Tether and Circle, which generated $112 million and $45 million respectively. That ranking matters because it places an RWA-focused perps venue in direct competition for economic relevance with the dominant parts of the stablecoin ecosystem—segments that many market observers view as foundational to on-chain trading.
In practical terms, the implication is that traders are not just moving around capital for speculation: the perps market is producing measurable platform earnings at a time when RWAs are becoming a majority share of activity.
Industry executives link the trend to a “structural shift”
Beyond raw market statistics, prominent crypto and traditional finance figures are increasingly framing RWA growth on-chain as an ecosystem-level change rather than a niche experiment. Circle co-founder and CEO Jeremy Allaire said growing RWA trading on Hyperliquid marks a “major structural shift” in crypto markets. In a Friday X post, he characterized the move as departing from “speculating on endogenous digital commodities” toward trading linked to external real-world assets.
Other industry commentary supports a similar direction of travel for perpetual futures as an instrument. Earlier in July, Pantera Capital suggested that perpetual futures could become a dominant trading tool beyond crypto. The argument emphasized structural advantages of perps versus traditional derivatives, including 24/7 trading, the absence of contract expiries, simpler position management, and continuous price discovery.
Regulatory and competitive pressure is also emerging. The report references NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and its chief executive Jeffrey Sprecher urging regulators to establish a “level playing field” for launching 24/7 on-chain perpetual futures contracts. The underlying tension is clear: if on-chain perps continue to attract mainstream liquidity, market participants will want consistent rules across venues that provide continuous trading and automated settlement.
At the same time, broader tokenization efforts are already integrating traditional market infrastructure concepts into blockchain settings. The report notes that in March, the NYSE partnered with tokenization platform Securitize to develop blockchain-based stock trading infrastructure aimed at 24/7 trading and settlement.
While these initiatives are not the same as Hyperliquid’s perps market, together they show a pattern: tokenized assets are moving from “possible future use” toward active trading and infrastructure design across both crypto-native and legacy finance channels.
Traders and builders should watch whether Hyperliquid’s RWA share holds beyond the July 13–July 19 window and whether revenue continues to scale as RWA holders and total tokenized value rise. The sustainability of the shift—and how regulators respond to 24/7 on-chain derivative trading—will likely determine whether this becomes a durable market structure or a temporary liquidity rotation.
This article was originally published as Hyperliquid RWA Trading Volume Overtakes Other Asset Categories on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Thailand’s crypto market is facing renewed regulatory pressure after the country’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a criminal complaint against Bitkub and two former directors over allegations of inaccurate disclosures tied to a 2021 cyberattack.
In a report released Thursday, the Thai SEC said it has brought the case against Bitkub Online along with former executives Sakolkorn Sakavee and Thaweesap Rawan, accusing them of submitting company reports that misrepresented the impact of the hack during the period under investigation. The matter comes at a sensitive time for Bitkub, as its parent company has been weighing a potential public listing—an issue that typically brings stricter expectations around transparency and governance.
Key takeaways
The Thai SEC filed a criminal complaint against Bitkub Online and two former directors for alleged false reporting connected to a May 2021 cyberattack.
The SEC claims Bitkub failed to reflect the full impact of the theft in daily net liquid capital reports between May 10 and Oct. 30, 2021.
The regulator estimates the stolen crypto assets at 16 types worth about 1.7 billion baht (around $50 million).
Bitkub disputes the SEC’s allegations, saying disclosures were delayed to avoid a bank-run and that it later covered the stolen assets with equivalent holdings.
The case will proceed through Thailand’s investigation and possible prosecution process, while Bitkub’s broader corporate plans remain in focus.
SEC alleges Bitkub understated losses in capital reporting
At the center of the complaint is the SEC’s contention that Bitkub did not accurately disclose the consequences of the May 2021 hack. According to the SEC, the incident led to the theft of 16 categories of digital assets from the exchange, with a stated value of approximately 1.7 billion baht (about $50 million).
The SEC further alleged that Bitkub replaced the stolen assets by Oct. 31, 2021. However, it said the exchange’s daily net liquid capital reports did not show a significant reduction in assets during the period from May 10 through Oct. 30, 2021.
In the SEC’s view, this reporting gap could have created the impression that customer assets remained effectively unchanged and that the exchange had not suffered meaningful losses from the attack.
The complaint accuses Bitkub and the former directors of violating multiple provisions of Thailand’s digital asset regulations in connection with the alleged false disclosures. The SEC said the matter will move forward through investigation and, if warranted, prosecution and court proceedings.
Bitkub counters: disclosure timing aimed to prevent a bank run
Bitkub rejected the SEC’s claims in a post on X, describing the complaint as stemming from disclosure decisions made after the May 2021 cyberattack rather than from fraudulent intent.
The exchange said it delayed disclosing the wallet compromise to help prevent a bank run while it worked to address the loss. Bitkub also stated that its co-founders later purchased digital assets equivalent to the stolen funds, arguing that neither the company nor its customers ultimately experienced financial losses.
Alongside the rebuttal, Bitkub said it has since strengthened governance, compliance, and security systems. The exchange did not indicate that it will change or reverse its position, but its response frames the controversy as a risk-management dispute over timing and communication rather than a concealment of ongoing damage.
Why this case matters as Bitkub eyes a listing
Beyond the immediate legal process, the SEC complaint arrives as Bitkub’s ownership group considers a potential public listing. In December 2025, Bitkub confirmed to Cointelegraph that it was considering an initial public offering, with a potential listing in Hong Kong.
That context matters because public-market pathways generally increase pressure on disclosure quality, internal controls, and auditability—particularly for regulated exchanges. Even if Bitkub’s parent company proceeds with fundraising or an IPO plan, regulatory scrutiny of past reporting practices can influence investor sentiment, due-diligence findings, and the scrutiny applied by prospective underwriters or listing authorities.
At the same time, the case highlights an underlying tension that has appeared in crypto regulation across multiple jurisdictions: whether a firm’s attempts to stabilize conditions after an incident justify delayed or incomplete public disclosures, and what regulators consider “accurate” reporting in the interim.
Bitkub’s scale in Thailand and what to watch next
Founded in 2018, Bitkub has become one of Thailand’s best-known crypto exchanges. According to CoinGecko, it ranks first among Thai exchanges by trust score and had about $712 million in daily trading volume at the time of publication for the referenced data.
For market participants, the SEC complaint may affect how counterparties and users evaluate compliance and reporting standards—especially for an exchange that already holds significant market share. While Bitkub disputes the allegations, the next phase will be driven by Thailand’s investigation process and any subsequent prosecution decisions.
Readers should watch for whether regulators can show that the disputed reports materially misled stakeholders, how Bitkub substantiates its claim of later compensation, and whether additional documents surface regarding the timeline of disclosures around the May 2021 hack. As the legal process develops—and with IPO plans still part of the background—clarity around internal controls and incident communications could become a defining factor in how Bitkub is judged by both regulators and investors.
This article was originally published as Thailand SEC Files Complaint Against Bitkub Over 2021 Hack Reporting on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.