Crypto Breaking

Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, plans to roll out crypto trading infrastructure by December 2026. The announcement comes ahead of new regulations for crypto trading, custody, and settlement that come into force from September 1, 2026.
Russia’s crypto push comes as the European Union readies new sanctions targeting the country over the ongoing Ukraine conflict.
Sberbank Plans Crypto Infrastructure Rollout
Sberbank plans to build and launch critical crypto trading infrastructure, including a digital depository, by December 1, 2026. The bank is leading Moscow’s efforts to bring cryptocurrency trading, custody, and settlement into the mainstream financial system. Sberbank’s announcement comes after Russia approved new rules for cryptocurrency exchanges, brokers, banks, and digital depositories. The new regulations come into force on September 1, 2026. Companies will also be given additional time to ensure compliance with the new requirements.
“Russia’s Largest Bank Sberbank Plans Crypto Trading Infrastructure: Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, plans to build cryptocurrency trading infrastructure and launch a digital custody system by Dec. 1 to support regulated crypto trading, custody and settlement.” – Wu Blockchain
The digital depository will record cryptocurrency ownership and process transactions outside the primary blockchain. Sberbank will also operate wallets for client deposits, withdrawals, and transfers. Alexander Vedyakhin, first deputy chairman of Sberbank’s management board, stated,
“One of the key elements of the new infrastructure will be a digital depository, which will maintain records of clients’ cryptocurrency rights and account for transactions outside the main blockchain. It will also facilitate transactions on active wallets to fulfill clients’ currency transfer orders.”
However, the bank is yet to disclose eligibility, fees, withdrawal limits, or which cryptocurrencies are supported by the framework.
Sberbank Expanding Crypto Services
Sberbank joined Russia’s register of information system operators in 2022, and has since issued several digital financial assets and products linked to Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and other assets. As mentioned earlier, the bank was already working on a digital asset depository and cryptocurrency wallet. It could also give customers access to foreign cryptocurrency exchanges depending on prevailing regulatory requirements. Sberbank has also dabbled in cryptocurrency-backed lending, completing a pilot loan with Bitcoin miner Intellion Data. According to reports, the bank has considered offering similar loans to corporate customers.
Russia’s Crypto Market Framework
Russian lawmakers concluded a final reading on a bill to regulate cryptocurrencies in the country. The bill gives the Bank of Russia oversight of the cryptocurrency market, including the authority to dictate which cryptocurrencies are offered through licensed intermediaries. The bill categorizes market participants, dictating which entities can buy, sell, hold, and exchange crypto assets once the framework comes into effect. The Bank of Russia has set an average market capitalization of over 5 trillion rubles (~$64 billion) and an average 24-hour volume of 1 trillion rubles (~$12.8 billion) over two years for cryptocurrencies offered under the framework.
Moscow’s push for a regulated crypto framework comes as the EU imposed another tranche of sanctions and also listed the HTX cryptocurrency exchange in the sanctions for “providing crypto asset services or payment services established outside of the Union that are significantly frustrating the purpose of the prohibitions against Russia.”
EU officials have also barred Belarusian nationals and residents from owning, controlling, or managing cryptocurrency exchanges in compliance with the Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) framework.
According to the Bank of Russia, the new framework allows investors to purchase crypto assets through regulated intermediaries. However, qualified and non-qualified investors are subject to different limits. Both qualified and non-qualified investors must pass a test to become eligible to purchase crypto assets. However, qualified investors can access more cryptocurrencies and are not subject to an annual limit when investing. On the other hand, non-qualified investors can access limited digital assets and can only purchase 300,000 rubles worth of crypto per year through a single intermediary.
Russian Companies Prepare For New Framework
Other entities are also preparing for the new framework. VTB and T-Bank are developing their own digital depository services, while the Moscow Exchange is considering offering regulated crypto operations. Alfa Bank has also tested custody tools and cryptocurrency services, a clear indicator that major players in Russia’s financial sector are preparing themselves before the licensing deadline.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Sberbank Plans Crypto Trading Infrastructure Launch By Year-End on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

As BitMart moves toward a planned wind-down, customer withdrawals are becoming the market’s most immediate stress test. Blockchain analytics account Lookonchain reported that withdrawals appeared to slow significantly after the exchange announced operational restrictions tied to its closure timetable.
On Monday, Lookonchain said it observed 58 wallets withdrawing roughly $805,000 in more than 24 hours. It also claimed BitMart processed no withdrawals during the latest eight-hour window it tracked, while some users on X described delays and account warnings related to withdrawal processing.
Key takeaways
Lookonchain reported only 58 withdrawals totaling about $805,000 over 24+ hours, with no withdrawals during an eight-hour period tracked.
Some users on X claimed they received “completed” withdrawal emails despite on-chain withdrawal freezes or pending transactions.
BitMart has said withdrawals remain available, but requests may face additional compliance and security reviews.
BitMart’s wind-down includes ending trading services on Aug. 26 and ceasing operations entirely on Jan. 31, 2027.
On-chain data cited by Arkham suggests BitMart-linked wallets held about $69 million in crypto assets on Monday, down from roughly $102 million on July 6.
Withdrawal activity under scrutiny
The clearest measurable signal so far comes from Lookonchain, which framed Monday’s results as a slowdown in outflows from BitMart. In its report on X, it did not present a verified explanation for the pause, but the figures—58 withdrawing wallets totaling approximately $805,000 over 24 hours—highlight a stark contrast to the normal behavior many exchanges see during stable operating periods.
Lookonchain also added that BitMart did not process any withdrawals during the final eight hours of its tracking window. If the pattern holds, it would suggest that either fewer customers are attempting withdrawals or that outgoing transfers are being held back by internal checks.
That uncertainty is compounded by user reports. Two X posts described issues that could align with additional screening or operational constraints. One user said an email indicated a USDT withdrawal had been completed even though they claimed no transaction had appeared and their account displayed an “on-chain withdrawal freeze.” Another user said a $30 test withdrawal remained pending for more than 30 minutes.
These individual accounts have not been independently verified, but they are consistent with the kind of operational friction customers often expect when an exchange is preparing to wind down—particularly when withdrawals are still enabled but processing may be gated.
BitMart’s “orderly” wind-down and what it means for customers
BitMart has previously stated that withdrawals will remain available, while warning that requests may face additional compliance and security checks. According to the exchange’s published notice regarding the orderly cessation of operations, these reviews can include examinations of customer identities, login devices, withdrawal addresses, trading histories, and sources of funds.
The notice also indicates the exchange may request proof of identity, address, source of funds, or ownership of the receiving wallet. For customers, this matters because even when withdrawals are technically possible, the timing can vary depending on whether an account or transaction triggers enhanced verification.
In that context, the key question for users is not only whether withdrawals are enabled, but whether the promised “orderly” wind-down translates into predictable processing for the remaining volume. If withdrawal handling stays consistent, the episode could remain contained. If delays broaden—or appear uneven across customers—it could intensify confidence concerns.
Cointelegraph attempted to contact BitMart for comment, but did not receive a response before publication.
Trading shutdown dates and the broader market backdrop
BitMart’s wind-down plan has already been laid out. Earlier, the exchange announced it would stop accepting new registrations and deposits and would restrict new spot orders and futures positions. Trading services are scheduled to end on Aug. 26, with the platform expected to cease operations entirely on Jan. 31, 2027.
As that timeline approaches, analysts and investors typically watch for two related indicators: whether customer funds can exit efficiently, and whether the exchange’s remaining token ecosystem reflects mounting pressure.
Arkham-identified wallets attributed to BitMart held about $69 million in crypto assets on Monday, down from roughly $102 million on July 6, according to the entity’s on-chain listing. While this does not, by itself, prove the pace of customer withdrawals, it provides a snapshot of the scale of assets tied to BitMart-linked addresses as the wind-down progresses.
Meanwhile, BitMart’s BMX token continued to struggle. CoinGecko data cited in the underlying reporting put BMX near $0.057 on Monday, after falling about 81.5% over seven days. The token was trading around $0.31 late Friday before the exchange’s shutdown became widely public.
The decline has also kept an eye on a separate but related issue: whether stronger exchanges might absorb smaller competitors during closures. Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao previously commented that acquiring a centralized exchange can be more complicated than purchasing other types of businesses, because buyers could inherit security vulnerabilities left behind by previous teams, including potential backdoors. He said acquisitions remain possible but require greater scrutiny.
What to watch next for BitMart customers
For customers and observers, the next datapoints to track are straightforward: whether Lookonchain continues to show a near-total slowdown in withdrawals, whether pending and “freeze” reports on X persist across more accounts, and whether BitMart’s compliance checks translate into consistent processing times for approved requests. As trading winds down ahead of Aug. 26 and the cessation date approaches in 2027, withdrawal reliability will likely remain the single most important signal of whether confidence erosion stays contained or escalates into a broader exit narrative.
This article was originally published as BitMart Withdrawals Slow After Wind-Down Announcement on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Garden Finance is investigating an exploit that reportedly involved its cross-chain bridge and atomic swap infrastructure after an attacker drained roughly $450,000 worth of USDT from Garden-linked hash time-locked contracts (HTLCs) across multiple networks, according to Blockaid. The incident has also triggered a temporary pause in Garden’s services while the affected systems are isolated and reviewed.
Garden’s position differs from the initial description of the breach: the company says its protocol and on-chain HTLC smart contracts were not compromised. Instead, Garden attributes the event to an intrusion into the off-chain database of an independent solver, where fraudulent transaction records were allegedly inserted—leading to incorrect swap releases.
Key takeaways
Blockaid reported an attacker drained about $450,000 in USDT from Garden HTLCs on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and BNB Smart Chain.
Garden says the protocol and HTLC smart contracts were not altered or hacked; the compromise was limited to an off-chain database belonging to one independent solver.
Garden stated no user funds were lost or placed at risk, and that only solver-owned assets were affected.
Services were paused as a precaution while Garden, and multiple security firms, trace and recover the funds.
What Blockaid says happened
Earlier Sunday, Blockaid said the exploit was ongoing and involved Ethereum-based HTLCs used by Garden to coordinate atomic swaps. In its public update, Blockaid described the attacker draining approximately $450,000 in USDT from Garden’s HTLCs deployed across Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, and BNB Smart Chain.
HTLCs function as time-bound escrow contracts that help ensure assets are released only under the correct conditions—an essential mechanism for atomic swaps spanning different chains. Blockaid also published addresses it linked to the attacker and the contracts believed to be affected.
Garden’s rebuttal: off-chain solver database breach
Garden Finance disputed the implication that its core contracts were compromised. A spokesperson told Cointelegraph that neither the Garden protocol nor its HTLC smart contracts were breached.
According to Garden, the attacker accessed the off-chain database of an independent solver and inserted falsified transaction records. In Garden’s account, those incorrect records led the solver to release funds for swaps that were not actually funded by the intended counterparty.
Garden added that the incident did not place user funds at risk and that no funds belonging to users were lost. Instead, the company said the impact was confined to solver-owned assets. Garden also indicated that it is still confirming the full extent of the event—total amount, assets, and the precise networks involved.
Why an off-chain compromise can matter
While HTLCs are executed on-chain, cross-chain swap systems often rely on off-chain infrastructure to coordinate actions, track swap state, and trigger settlement steps. Garden’s explanation centers on this split: the protocol’s on-chain components were allegedly left intact, but the solver’s off-chain data was manipulated in a way that caused settlement to occur incorrectly.
For market participants, this distinction is important. If the core smart contracts remain secure, the long-term trust impact may be smaller than in a scenario involving altered HTLC logic or compromised protocol contracts. Still, the incident highlights a persistent vulnerability class for cross-chain systems: even with audited or well-designed on-chain escrow logic, operational processes and off-chain databases can become critical attack surfaces.
Garden’s immediate response—pausing services and isolating the suspected infrastructure—reflects how quickly operational compromises can cascade into on-chain fund movements. The difference between a contract-level exploit and a solver-level data breach may affect remediation timelines, too, because recovery depends not only on stopping the bleeding but also on validating swap states and ensuring incorrect releases do not recur.
Security response and previous incident
Garden said it is working with zeroShadow, Quantstamp, and Blockaid to trace and recover the funds. The protocol expects to restore services shortly, contingent on completing security checks, but it did not provide a specific timetable.
Garden also pointed to its SOC 2 Type II attestation as evidence of security and operational controls, framing the incident as isolated to one solver’s off-chain infrastructure within its network of independent solvers. The company emphasized that its priorities are securing the affected systems, tracing the solver’s funds, and resuming services only after relevant reviews are completed.
The reported event follows an earlier pattern. In October 2025, Garden reported a breach in which an attacker stole about $11.4 million after compromising the operating environment of one of its solvers. Garden said that earlier incident similarly did not compromise its protocol contracts or put user funds at risk.
Taken together, the two episodes suggest that Garden’s risk exposure may be closely tied to the security posture and isolation of third-party solver environments rather than flaws in its HTLC contract code. That shifts where investors and integrators should focus their monitoring: operational security, access controls, and off-chain data integrity across the solver ecosystem.
As Garden continues tracing the funds and validating affected swap records, the key question for users and builders will be whether the investigation confirms a consistent “solver off-chain” failure mode or reveals broader compromise indicators. Readers should watch for Garden’s updated totals, the specific networks and assets involved, and the results of the security checks that will determine when services fully resume.
This article was originally published as Garden Finance Halts App After Blockaid Finds $450K Exploit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMart’s planned wind-down is starting to show up in customer withdrawal behavior, according to blockchain monitoring and ongoing user reports. While withdrawals remain available, analytics tracking suggests activity has slowed sharply after the exchange moved toward ending services.
On Monday, Lookonchain reported that only 58 wallets withdrew roughly $805,000 over more than 24 hours, and that BitMart had not processed any withdrawals during the most recent eight-hour window the firm tracked. Separately, multiple users on X described delays or inconsistencies with withdrawal processing, though the claims could not be independently verified.
Key takeaways
Lookonchain data indicates withdrawal activity from BitMart slowed to near-zero during at least one tracked eight-hour period.
Users on X reported withdrawal freezes and transactions marked as completed without clear on-chain processing, but these reports were not verified.
BitMart has said withdrawals will continue, though requests may undergo additional compliance and security checks.
BitMart’s closure schedule remains under focus: trading is set to end Aug. 26, with full cessation expected by Jan. 31, 2027.
BitMart’s token (BMX) continued to fall after the shutdown announcement, reflecting deteriorating market sentiment.
Withdrawal activity appears to stall as wind-down proceeds
Lookonchain’s Monday update framed the slowdown through wallet-level monitoring, with 58 wallets withdrawing about $805,000 over a little more than a day. The same report said BitMart did not process withdrawals during the latest eight-hour segment it analyzed, suggesting operational throttling or slower throughput during the wind-down transition.
Beyond the analytics snapshot, social media users continued to post about withdrawal issues. One X user said they received an email claiming a USDT withdrawal had been completed, while their account still showed an “on-chain withdrawal freeze” and the transaction was not processed on-chain. Another user claimed a $30 test withdrawal remained pending for more than 30 minutes. These accounts were presented as individual experiences and were not confirmed by independent evidence in the reporting.
For customers, the practical question is whether BitMart can convert “orderly wind-down” promises into consistently processed outflows. Even when withdrawals remain technically enabled, delays can intensify concern—especially if customers suspect internal holds, address checks, or longer verification queues than before.
BitMart says withdrawals remain available, but checks may tighten
BitMart previously told customers that withdrawals would still be supported while operations unwind. However, it warned that withdrawal requests could face additional compliance and security controls. The exchange’s notice indicated that review processes may include checks of customer identity details, login devices, withdrawal addresses, trading history, and sources of funds.
BitMart also suggested it might request further proof, including identity verification, confirmation of address details, evidence relating to the source of funds, and—where relevant—ownership of the receiving wallet. That framework matters because it points to a mechanism for why withdrawals could appear slower even if the exchange intends to process them eventually.
Cointelegraph attempted to obtain comments from BitMart but did not receive a response before publication. That leaves customers and observers reliant on the exchange’s published guidance, third-party tracking, and user reports to gauge whether checks are running normally or becoming a bottleneck.
Trading ends in stages; platform closure timetable remains the same
The withdrawal scrutiny comes after BitMart announced a staged exit from its business. In its Sunday update, the exchange said it would stop accepting new registrations and deposits, while restricting new spot orders and futures positions.
According to the schedule outlined at the time, trading services are expected to end on Aug. 26. The exchange also stated that the platform will cease operations entirely on Jan. 31, 2027. This longer runway means BitMart’s ability to keep customer exits working—especially during the period leading up to Aug. 26—may be one of the clearest near-term signals of how smoothly it intends to handle assets.
As the wind-down progresses, blockchain visibility adds another layer to the story. Arkham, via its entity explorer, attributed about $69 million in crypto assets to BitMart-linked wallets on Monday, down from roughly $102 million on July 6. While wallet attribution does not automatically confirm which assets remain available to customers at any given moment, the trend is consistent with gradual movements and reallocations during the closure process.
BMX token slumps; acquisition questions return
BitMart’s token performance has also reflected mounting concerns around exchange risk. CoinGecko data showed BMX trading near $0.057 on Monday and down about 81.5% over seven days. Earlier in the week, the token was reportedly around $0.31 late Friday after BitMart’s shutdown plans became public.
Token declines during an exchange wind-down are common, but the magnitude can indicate how aggressively traders are repricing uncertainty around liquidity, support, and distribution mechanics during cessation. For tokenholders and observers, it also underscores the market’s expectation that the transition will not be smooth for all participants.
The closure has revived questions about consolidation in centralized exchanges. Changpeng Zhao, Binance co-founder, commented on X that acquiring a centralized exchange can be more complicated than buying other businesses. He argued that buyers could inherit security vulnerabilities, including backdoors left by prior teams, adding that acquisitions are possible but require greater scrutiny.
In that context, BitMart’s winding down may affect how potential acquirers evaluate operational continuity, customer asset handling processes, and technical risk. Even where an acquisition is feasible on paper, the practical challenges of verifying controls and safeguarding assets can be substantial—especially for platforms already reducing activity and limiting new access.
Looking ahead, customers and market participants should watch whether withdrawal processing returns to steady throughput as checks are completed and whether third-party monitoring shows sustained transaction activity rather than intermittent gaps. Until BitMart demonstrates consistent outflows across different assets and user reports, uncertainty around the final stages of the wind-down is likely to remain a central issue.
This article was originally published as BitMart Withdrawal Speeds Drop After Wind-Down Announcement on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Decentralized cloud storage provider Storj Labs has filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States, opening a restructuring process that could test how—if at all—utility-token holders might participate in the equity of a company that emerges from bankruptcy. The filing was made in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, according to a statement published by Storj.
Storj says the restructuring is aimed at addressing legacy liabilities that it argues can’t be resolved through growth alone, while keeping its network running and preserving the token’s core utility. At the time of writing, STORJ appeared to have reacted mutedly to the news, trading around $0.072 based on CoinGecko data.
Key takeaways
Storj Labs entered voluntary Chapter 11 in the Northern District of West Virginia while stating that ordinary operations and customer services will continue under court oversight.
The company says its liabilities largely predate its current strategy and are too large to clear solely through business expansion.
Storj management plans to propose a pathway for STORJ token holders to participate in the equity of a reorganized company, subject to bankruptcy priorities and court approval.
Storj has not yet detailed how tokenholder eligibility would work, including whether a token snapshot, lockup, or other criteria would be used.
STORJ’s market reaction to the filing was limited in the immediate term, with CoinGecko showing trading near $0.072 at publication time.
Chapter 11 filing framed as a legacy-liability fix
On Sunday, Storj announced that it filed for voluntary Chapter 11 “to resolve legacy liabilities and position the business for growth,” according to a post on its own website. The company indicated that day-to-day operations would not stop, and that customer services would continue during the process, but under supervision by the bankruptcy court.
Storj also said its parent company, Inveniam, would continue to support the business throughout the restructuring. That support, along with Storj’s insistence that the underlying network remains functional, is central to the company’s message to token holders: the technology and the token’s intended role should not be treated as collateral to be sidelined while legal obligations are worked through.
A proposal for tokenholder equity—without the mechanics yet
Storj’s open letter to its community argues that the restructuring need is driven by obligations from earlier stages of the company, rather than issues stemming from the present network model. The letter also states that the network is operating normally and that the token’s utility is unchanged.
Crucially, Storj said management intends to submit a plan that would create a mechanism for token holders to participate in the reorganized company’s equity. However, the company has not disclosed essential details, including how eligibility would be determined (for example, whether participation would depend on token ownership at a particular time), whether any tokens would be locked up, or what portion of equity might be offered.
Storj acknowledged that any proposal must align with bankruptcy requirements—meaning the reorganization plan has to follow established priority rules and receive court approval. That constraint matters because Chapter 11 restructurings typically involve complex treatment of different classes of creditors, equity holders, and other stakeholders. In this case, token holders are not automatically treated as equity holders, so Storj’s approach will likely hinge on how the court-approved plan defines who receives value and under what conditions.
Cointelegraph contacted Storj for additional comment but did not receive a response before publication.
Why the Storj case is a test for utility-token ownership
Storj’s bankruptcy filing is likely to draw attention beyond its community because it sits at the intersection of two unresolved questions in crypto: how regulators and courts may interpret token-related claims in insolvency, and whether “utility” token holders can convert their economic exposure into equity-like rights during a restructuring.
The company described the restructuring as a potential “ownership pathway” for STORJ token holders, which—if it moves from proposal to approved plan—could become a reference point for other projects with token distributions and decentralized networks. At the same time, uncertainties remain. Storj has not provided a framework for how a tokenholder-to-equity mechanism would be structured, and bankruptcy priorities could limit what any token holder pathway ultimately looks like.
For market participants and builders, this is also a reminder that decentralized infrastructure tokens can still carry company-level legal and financial risk. Even when networks continue operating, restructuring plans can reshape governance expectations, economic arrangements, and the distribution of future upside.
Part of a broader Chapter 11 wave in crypto
Storj’s filing comes amid a month in which multiple crypto-related businesses sought Chapter 11 protection. Earlier coverage highlighted Movement Labs filing under Subchapter V on July 15 after turmoil connected to its MOVE token, and a separate filing by Bitcoin mining pool Poolin on July 22 as it pursued a court-supervised sale of two Texas mining sites.
Meanwhile, other exchanges faced operational endpoints without filing for bankruptcy. BitMEX announced in July that it would shut down after 11 years, following announcements connected to legal action, while BitMart said it would end trading on Aug. 26 before fully ceasing operations on Jan. 31, 2027. Storj’s case differs in that it is explicitly pursuing a court-supervised reorganization with potential equity-related outcomes for token holders.
Storj itself traces its origins to 2014, when it began as an open-source peer-to-peer cloud storage concept designed to let users rent storage from network participants rather than rely on centralized providers, according to earlier reporting. That longer history may help explain why the company emphasizes continuity: the network has market credibility and operational history, and Storj is positioning Chapter 11 as a legal course-correction rather than a shutdown.
As the bankruptcy process develops, investors and token holders will be watching for what Storj’s eventual reorganization plan actually proposes—particularly the eligibility criteria for tokenholder participation and how (or whether) any proposed equity allocation can comply with Chapter 11 priorities and court approval. The next phase will also reveal whether the network’s stated “normal operation” stance can be maintained through the litigation and settlement decisions that typically follow a major restructuring filing.
This article was originally published as Storj Files for Bankruptcy, Outlines Equity Route for Tokenholders on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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.