Crypto Breaking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds extended their inflow run this week, adding $203.1 million over six consecutive trading days—its longest streak since April. At the same time, crypto-linked equities rose as investors leaned into improving US regulatory prospects and a possible cooling of the AI-driven “speculative capital” trade.
Beyond crypto’s own momentum, the market narrative is starting to shift: after powering rally after rally for nearly two years, AI stock enthusiasm appears to be becoming more selective. Analysts point to a pullback in semiconductor sentiment—measured by the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index (SOX)—as investors differentiate between companies with durable earnings and those still priced primarily on growth promises.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in $203.1 million during six straight sessions, totaling roughly $930 million since the streak began.
The ETF demand rebound coincided with broader sentiment improvement, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index moving from “extreme fear” to “fear.”
Rising hopes for US crypto regulation and a cooling AI equity narrative helped lift crypto-linked stocks.
Bitcoin mining equities benefited from disclosures tied to AI infrastructure—cloud and data-center deals that signal a diversification of revenue models.
Bernstein expects Robinhood’s next growth phase to be driven more by tokenization and prediction markets than by traditional crypto trading.
Spot Bitcoin ETF inflows revive a key institutional signal
According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, US spot Bitcoin ETFs extended their inflow streak to six consecutive trading days. The most recent additions brought fresh capital of $203.1 million, with the six-day total reaching about $930 million. The renewed bid came as Bitcoin briefly moved above $67,000 and overall market mood improved.
Separately, the Crypto Fear & Greed Index reportedly recovered from “extreme fear” to “fear,” suggesting less pervasive risk-off behavior among retail and sentiment-driven participants. While the inflow streak is still not a full reversal of earlier weakness, it marks the funds’ longest positive run since April—an important benchmark for traders watching whether institutional demand is stabilizing.
Data cited from the source notes that, since launching in January 2024, US spot Bitcoin ETFs have accumulated $51.8 billion in cumulative net inflows and hold $80.9 billion in net assets. However, they still show a $4.84 billion year-to-date net flow deficit, underscoring that the recovery remains uneven and could quickly fade if inflows stop.
Analysts quoted in the article also highlighted a level traders are watching: Bitcoin likely needs to sustain trading above the $65,000 to $65,500 zone to strengthen the case for a durable bullish move rather than another short-lived bounce.
Crypto rallies alongside regulatory optimism and a selective AI bid
The broader digital asset rally reportedly tracked two themes: progress toward clearer US regulation and signs that the AI trade may be cooling. Cointelegraph coverage linked the move to optimism around US crypto legislation, including remarks from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that lawmakers were at the “1-yard line” on the CLARITY Act—a bill intended to establish a regulatory framework for digital assets.
In the equities space, the article points to double-digit gains among crypto-adjacent stocks, including Coinbase, American Bitcoin, and Cipher Digital. This matters because equity participation often reflects how quickly investors are willing to extend risk beyond pure crypto exposure—suggesting they see a credible path for continued participation in the sector rather than treating it as a one-off momentum event.
At the same time, the source argues that the AI narrative is becoming more discriminating. FRNT Financial CEO Stephane Ouellette attributed part of the potential opportunity to slowing enthusiasm for AI stocks and improving confidence around interest-rate expectations. These conditions can matter for crypto because it often competes for the same pool of speculative and risk capital, especially when markets are rewarding “growth at any price” themes.
The SOX index decline illustrates the point. The article notes SOX has slipped into a technical bear market, falling more than 20% from a recent high, even though it remains above year-ago levels. The implication for investors: when AI infrastructure sentiment softens, capital may look for alternative narratives—including crypto—where expectations and valuations may be less stretched or closer to improving fundamental demand signals.
Miners lean into AI infrastructure as deal flow changes the sector’s story
While Bitcoin’s spot-market performance is often treated as the dominant driver of mining equities, the source emphasizes that deal announcements are becoming central to investor attention in this cycle. Bitcoin mining stocks reportedly surged after Hut 8 and IREN disclosed large AI infrastructure agreements.
Cointelegraph coverage cited several movers: Hut 8, IREN, Cipher Digital, CleanSpark, and MARA Holdings all gained after Hut 8 announced a 15-year, $9.8 billion lease for its AI data center campus. The article also states that IREN disclosed $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers.
These announcements reinforce a broader market shift: miners are increasingly framing themselves not just as Bitcoin production businesses, but as compute and data-center operators positioned for demand tied to AI workloads. The source further notes that IREN is projecting more than $4 billion in annual recurring AI cloud revenue by the end of 2026, highlighting how the sector is trying to translate infrastructure buildouts into longer-term cash-flow expectations.
Still, the pivot introduces a new set of concerns. The article reports Blocksbridge Consulting’s estimate that the sector may require roughly $50 billion in additional capital to carry out its AI ambitions. It also mentions increased scrutiny around insider stock sales—an angle that can influence investor confidence when companies are simultaneously expanding balance-sheet exposure and asking the market to value future AI-linked revenue streams.
Robinhood’s next phase: tokenization and prediction markets, Bernstein says
Outside direct spot Bitcoin and equities, the source also highlights a separate institutional view of how crypto-related business models may evolve. Bernstein reportedly raised its price target on Robinhood shares to $160 from $130 while keeping an Outperform rating, arguing that the brokerage’s longer-term growth could be driven by tokenized assets and prediction markets rather than traditional crypto trading alone.
According to the article, Bernstein expects prediction markets to become Robinhood’s fastest-growing business line, projecting $1.7 billion in revenue by 2028. It also pointed to tokenized equities as a major opportunity, citing Robinhood’s Arbitrum-based layer-2 infrastructure as an enabling component for bringing real-world assets on chain.
The bullish framing aligns with a broader push across Wall Street toward tokenization infrastructure, as the source notes expanding blockchain-based securities efforts by companies such as Broadridge, Alpaca, Securitize, and Cantor Fitzgerald. While these initiatives are not the same as spot-market adoption, they represent another pathway through which regulated digital finance use cases may expand—potentially broadening demand for crypto-adjacent services even if retail trading enthusiasm fluctuates.
For the next few weeks, investors will likely watch whether the ETF inflow streak extends beyond six days and whether Bitcoin can hold the $65,000–$65,500 area consistently. At the same time, traders may track whether the rotation away from the most crowded AI expressions continues—because a sustained easing in AI equity sentiment could keep loosening the speculative grip that has previously crowded out other risk assets.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETF Inflows Spark Talk of AI-to-Crypto Capital Rotation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

India’s Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) has condemned a government order requiring GitHub to remove repositories linked to Jack Dorsey’s decentralized messaging app, BitChat, calling the action unconstitutional and a threat to both free speech and open-source development.
The dispute centers on how the Indian government justified the takedown. According to IFF, the order used Section 79(3)(b) of India’s Information Technology Act rather than the country’s formal website-blocking route, a process IFF says includes procedural safeguards. The group urged authorities to withdraw the notice and disclose all takedown orders issued under the same provision.
Key takeaways
IFF says the BitChat-related GitHub removal order should have followed India’s formal website-blocking process rather than Section 79(3)(b).
The cybercrime agency’s directive reportedly demanded GitHub disable access to three BitChat repositories within three hours.
Iff argues the order fails to identify unlawful content, instead targeting BitChat’s decentralized design as the basis for removal.
BitChat routes encrypted messages between nearby devices via Bluetooth without relying on internet connectivity or centralized servers.
Adoption of BitChat has reportedly increased during internet shutdowns and unrest in multiple countries since its release in July 2025.
GitHub repositories ordered removed over “internet shutdown” concerns
A day before IFF’s public response, India’s cybercrime agency ordered GitHub to disable access to three BitChat repositories within a three-hour window. The rationale provided, according to IFF’s account, was that the decentralized messaging app could be used to circumvent internet shutdowns, evade lawful surveillance, and enable unlawful activity.
BitChat’s core design is meant to reduce dependence on the public internet. Instead of routing messages through centralized servers or requiring continuous connectivity, the app can relay encrypted communications between nearby devices over Bluetooth. In practical terms, that means it can function even when mobile networks or internet service are disrupted—an attribute that has historically drawn both interest from users in restrictive environments and scrutiny from authorities concerned about oversight.
IFF challenges the legal route and the lack of identified unlawful content
In its statement posted on X, IFF argued that the government’s approach exceeded its legal authority. The group said the order was issued under Section 79(3)(b) of India’s Information Technology Act, rather than through India’s formal website-blocking mechanism, which IFF says includes procedural safeguards.
IFF’s position is that this difference in process matters, because the method chosen can affect transparency and the ability to contest a removal. The organization also asked the government to withdraw the notice and to publish all takedown orders made under the provision, framing the request as a transparency measure rather than a technical objection.
Just as importantly, IFF disputed the substance of the justification. The group said the order did not point to specific unlawful content inside the repositories. Instead, IFF claimed the government’s case treated BitChat’s decentralized architecture itself—particularly its ability to support peer-to-peer communication over Bluetooth without internet access—as grounds for removal.
That framing has wide implications for open-source ecosystems. When takedowns are based on functionality rather than identifiable prohibited material, developers and maintainers may face broader uncertainty about what features are permissible to publish.
Why decentralized messaging has become a flashpoint during shutdowns
Since its release in July 2025, BitChat has reportedly seen rising adoption during periods of unrest, natural disasters, and internet outages. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described how the app’s Bluetooth-relay approach can help communities communicate without relying on internet infrastructure. According to Cointelegraph’s reporting cited in the original coverage, adoption surged in countries including Madagascar, Nepal, Uganda, Jamaica, and Iran.
That pattern is notable because it illustrates the tension between emergency communications and state control. In scenarios where networks fail or governments restrict connectivity, tools that operate without centralized infrastructure can become valuable—especially for coordination when traditional channels are unreliable. At the same time, governments often view the same resilience as a way for users to evade monitoring and shutdown measures.
For investors and builders in crypto-adjacent infrastructure—particularly those focused on privacy, censorship resistance, and decentralized networking—the BitChat dispute underscores a broader regulatory reality: decentralization can increase both technical robustness and legal risk, depending on how authorities interpret existing cyber and communications laws.
While this case concerns GitHub repositories rather than a blockchain protocol directly, it sits within a familiar policy theme affecting the wider decentralized tech stack: when software can keep working despite shutdown attempts, regulators may treat the code as part of the threat model.
What to watch next after the GitHub order
For now, the immediate question is whether GitHub access to the affected repositories remains disabled and whether the government provides further specificity on what it considers unlawful. IFF’s demands for withdrawal and transparency—especially publication of all takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b)—could determine how quickly this dispute escalates into a wider debate about constitutional limits and administrative procedure.
Beyond the legal arguments, readers should watch for how this case influences developer practices—particularly how open-source teams decide what to publish, document, or mirror when their tools may be interpreted by regulators as enabling circumvention during shutdowns.
Earlier reporting on BitChat’s launch and design is available via Cointelegraph, and context on adoption during protests and outages was also covered by Cointelegraph in articles including Nepal-related coverage, Jamaica-related coverage, and global unrest adoption coverage.
This article was originally published as India’s BitChat GitHub Takedown: IFF Challenges Order as Unconstitutional on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Three major crypto advocacy groups have urged U.S. Senate leaders to allow the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act to receive “floor consideration,” pushing for a full vote before the chamber departs for state work periods in August. In a joint letter sent Friday to Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the organizations said bipartisan negotiations are still underway and asked senators to keep discussions moving.
The appeal lands as the bill has cleared the Senate Banking and Agriculture committees, but the political math and remaining policy disputes have left uncertainty around timing. With Republicans holding a 52–47 majority over Democrats in the Senate, passage would require 60 votes—meaning cross-party support remains essential.
Key takeaways
Crypto advocacy groups are requesting Senate leadership schedule the CLARITY Act for a floor vote (“floor consideration”) before August recess.
The bill has progressed through the Senate Banking and Agriculture committees, but some lawmakers plan to delay voting until specific provisions are addressed.
Republicans released the CLARITY market structure text earlier this week, including ethics provisions aimed at public corruption concerns.
Democrats have criticized the ethics package as insufficient, raising the odds of stalled negotiations and a delayed vote.
Markets are already pricing in uncertainty: Kalshi event contracts showed about a 40.3% chance of a Senate vote before the August recess as of Friday.
Advocates press for a floor vote amid legislative uncertainty
In their letter, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the Digital Chamber, and the Blockchain Association urged senators to prioritize bringing CLARITY to the floor. The groups acknowledged that “constructive bipartisan negotiations remain underway” and encouraged lawmakers to continue good-faith discussions between both parties.
Committee progress does not guarantee that the bill reaches the chamber in time. While the legislation has advanced through Senate banking and agriculture panels, the letter suggests that political leaders are still weighing whether the final language will satisfy key concerns. The timing matters: if senators fail to vote before the August recess, the debate could spill into the weeks leading up to the 2026 U.S. midterms, potentially reshaping the incentive structure for lawmakers on both sides.
Ethics and market structure provisions become the sticking point
CLARITY is widely framed as one of the most consequential U.S. bills for the crypto sector, in part because it aims to provide clearer rules for digital asset markets. The latest Republican effort included ethics provisions designed to bar public officials from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies, according to reporting that referenced the bill text released earlier this week.
However, those measures appear to be at the center of Democratic skepticism. Politico reported that Senator Ruben Gallego criticized the GOP’s counterproposal as not matching what Democrats said had been promised during negotiations. Gallego said, according to Politico, that after extensive work with Republican colleagues, the new offer did not reflect a serious attempt to address concerns raised during earlier bargaining.
“[…] After all the work that we’ve done with our Republican colleagues, that they would take the months and months of work and somehow interpret that and turn around and think what they offered was even remotely close.”
That criticism underscores a central tension: even as the bill’s broader market-structure goals gain traction, lawmakers may be reluctant to move without stronger agreement on ethics and enforcement-related safeguards.
Industry groups argue CLARITY matters for both compliance and innovation
While the legislative fight focuses heavily on ethics provisions, industry leaders are also emphasizing what they see as CLARITY’s practical impact on how the U.S. regulates digital assets—especially outside traditional custody models.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong argued that the U.S. still lacks a comprehensive federal framework and that the absence of such rules has allowed harmful behavior to reach customers while business activity migrates beyond U.S. oversight. In a Wednesday X post, Armstrong said the bill would provide consumer protections, tools for law enforcement, and a path for the country to lead in the industry.
Orest Gavryliak, chief legal officer of DeFi platform 1inch, discussed the bill on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast on Friday. He said CLARITY would help recognize a legal framework for non-custodial protocols, contrasting that approach with what he described as regulators trying to fit decentralized systems into custodial frameworks. Gavryliak’s argument was that rules designed for custodial models do not translate cleanly to non-custodial protocols—an issue he said makes passage “very important.”
What markets are signaling about timing—and what to watch next
Even with committee approvals, reaching the 60-vote threshold remains the main challenge. That requirement creates a built-in incentive for lawmakers to negotiate hard on unresolved provisions rather than accept a narrow coalition. The result is that procedural timing—whether leadership can secure enough alignment to schedule a floor vote—may become as consequential as the final bill text itself.
As of Friday, Kalshi’s event contracts offered users a 40.3% chance that the Senate would vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess, reflecting a market view that passage may not be immediate even if the bill is moving.
For investors, traders, and developers, the next key question is not simply whether the CLARITY Act survives procedural hurdles, but what changes—if any—are made as senators try to reconcile ethics-related disagreements. If the ethics language remains the primary point of contention, negotiations could continue to expand rather than converge. Conversely, if the Senate leadership finds a pathway to unify enough support for floor consideration, CLARITY could become a central reference point for U.S. crypto compliance planning well before lawmakers turn to the broader midterm political cycle.
This article was originally published as Crypto Advocacy Groups Back CLARITY Passage Amid Ethics Rule Pushback on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill aimed at tightening trading rules for lawmakers by restricting their ability to buy publicly traded stocks. The legislation, dubbed the Stop Insider Trading Act, passed the chamber on a 232-198 vote on Wednesday and now moves to the Senate for consideration.
The sponsor, Republican Representative Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, argues the measure would reduce incentives to profit from nonpublic information. Speaking on the House floor after the vote, Steil said the bill would “ensure no lawmaker can profit off of insider information” and would introduce “strict penalties” for violations.
Key takeaways
The House approved the Stop Insider Trading Act by a 232-198 vote, sending it to the Senate after Wednesday’s passage.
Under the bill, members of Congress, along with their spouses and dependent children, would be prohibited from purchasing publicly traded stocks.
Steil outlined penalties including fines equal to $2,000 or 10% of the transaction value, plus disgorgement of profits.
Critics— including Senator Elizabeth Warren—argue the bill is insufficient because lawmakers could still keep and sell stocks they already own.
The vote comes as Senate discussions continue over a separate crypto-focused bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which addresses broader restrictions on public officials.
What the Stop Insider Trading Act would change
According to the bill’s sponsor, the Stop Insider Trading Act targets the core conflict that arises when public officials participate in markets while possessing information that is not available to the general public. In Steil’s remarks, he emphasized that the legislation is designed to block new stock purchases by lawmakers and their immediate family members.
Steil also described the enforcement approach for alleged violations. As he stated on the House floor, the bill includes a fine equal to $2,000 or 10% of the transaction, along with disgorgement of profits. He further indicated that violators could forfeit any gain realized if they fail to comply.
One operational feature highlighted by Steil is a notice requirement tied to pre-existing holdings. While the bill would prohibit stock purchases, Steil said members of Congress would have to give seven days’ notice before selling stocks they already own, a rule he presented as a deterrent against insider trading.
Where Democrats say the bill falls short
Even with the House’s approval, some Democrats argue the legislation does not fully solve the problem of conflicts of interest. The main critique is that the measure would not require lawmakers to divest current holdings, potentially leaving room for market-sensitive actions based on nonpublic developments.
Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday that the bill contains “major loopholes.” In her view, because lawmakers could continue owning and selling stocks already held, it “won’t solve the problem,” and she said the approach is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate. Warren’s position, as summarized in her comments, is that members of Congress should not own, buy, or sell stocks at all.
How it compares with broader Senate ethics proposals
The Stop Insider Trading Act is narrower than other policy efforts currently discussed in Congress. Unlike the proposed text for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—a Senate consideration focusing on cryptocurrency market structure—Steil’s bill is limited to investment restrictions for members of Congress. It does not extend the same coverage to the president or vice president and their families.
In earlier coverage of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, the discussion has included restrictions on public officials’ token activity. As described in connection with that measure, it would bar U.S. public officials from issuing or sponsoring tokens until 2029.
For crypto investors and builders, the difference matters because it reflects how lawmakers are calibrating ethics and restrictions across sectors. While the insider trading bill targets traditional markets and elected officials’ stock activity, the parallel crypto legislation is framed around market structure and digital-asset involvement by officials. Observers will be watching whether ethics-style restrictions expand beyond stocks—or remain compartmentalized by policy area—as the Senate considers each track.
From Congress trading to prediction markets
The House vote on the Stop Insider Trading Act followed Steil’s sponsorship of related legislation aimed at trading behavior on prediction market platforms. As noted in earlier developments, Steil previously backed the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act, introduced in June to prevent certain public officials, their spouses, and children from “wagering on public policy issues and political outcomes.”
Prediction markets have drawn renewed attention after high-profile reports of individuals allegedly placing large bets tied to real-world political events. Cointelegraph previously covered an incident involving a soldier accused of placing more than $400,000 in bets on Kalshi and Polymarket outcomes related to Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro, who was removed by U.S. forces in January. Earlier reporting also described claims that Donald Trump’s teleprompter operator made more than $100,000 in bets on Kalshi event contracts connected to phrases used in the president’s speeches.
Steil’s prediction-market legislation proposed a penalty structure similar to the stock trading proposal: violators would pay a $2,000 fee or 10% of the value of prohibited bets placed on the platforms. The similarity suggests a consistent legislative framework in Steil’s approach—using fines and disgorgement mechanics to reduce incentives for wagering or trading based on privileged information.
What happens next in the Senate
With the Stop Insider Trading Act now in the Senate, the immediate question is whether lawmakers will narrow the enforcement focus or widen the restrictions to address the objections raised by critics. For readers following the intersection of governance and markets—whether traditional equities or crypto-related policy—attention should shift to whether the Senate modifies the House bill to limit not only new purchases, but also ownership and sales of existing holdings.
This article was originally published as House Passes Bill to Curb Lawmakers’ Insider Trading in Stocks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strive’s variable-rate perpetual preferred shares, SATA, have rebounded sharply after hitting a June low of $83.30, rising to around $97 and recovering most of the selloff, according to Yahoo Finance data. The improvement has placed the shares within roughly 3% of their $100 par value.
The price recovery matters because SATA is part of a broader, fast-growing approach among Bitcoin-treasury companies: using preferred equity designed to trade close to par. The objective is to raise capital for a corporate Bitcoin (BTC) treasury without issuing more common stock, while dividends adjust to support the shares’ pricing.
Key takeaways
SATA has climbed from a June low of $83.30 to roughly $97, putting it about 3% below its $100 par value, per Yahoo Finance.
Strive introduced SATA in November 2025 to fund expansion of its Bitcoin treasury through preferred equity rather than additional common share issuance.
Preferred-share “digital credit” strategies are increasingly being used by Bitcoin-treasury firms to structure financing around dividends that can adjust over time.
Strategy’s STRC experienced a similar late-June decline but has partially recovered, trading around $87—still below par.
How SATA is structured and why it exists
Strive introduced SATA in November 2025 as part of its effort to finance expansion of its Bitcoin treasury through preferred equity. In Strive’s announcement about the Nasdaq listing and the related closing of an oversubscribed upsized IPO, the company described SATA as a variable-rate perpetual preferred designed to trade near $100 par by adjusting its dividend rate.
That structure is intended to offer investors a mechanism to “anchor” valuation around par without requiring Strive to repeatedly issue common shares. For the company, it creates a financing channel that is directly tied to the treasury-building thesis—supporting Bitcoin accumulation while attempting to manage the equity dilution burden that comes with selling additional common stock.
Strive’s approach also reflects a wider market trend. The article notes that SATA is one of several preferred-share products linked to Bitcoin treasury strategies, a segment some market participants describe as “digital credit.”
June selloff: SATA recovered, STRC remains below par
The key datapoint for traders is the swing back toward par. Yahoo Finance data shows SATA fell to $83.30 in June before recovering to about $97. While that still leaves room for improvement, the rebound suggests that the market is rewarding the shares’ par-focused design after periods of heightened stress.
Strive’s preferred structure sits within a peer set that includes Strategy’s STRC. Strategy’s preferred-like product was launched in 2025 with a similar objective—maintaining a $100 share price through a variable dividend. According to Yahoo Finance, STRC fell sharply during the late-June selloff as well, before recovering. However, STRC continues to trade below par at around $87.
As a practical matter, the divergence between SATA’s relative recovery and STRC’s remaining discount may shape near-term investor expectations for how quickly these instruments can reprice after market-wide pressure. It also highlights an important asymmetry: even when products share similar structural goals, their outcomes can differ based on investor sentiment, capital market conditions, and the companies’ execution over time.
Bitcoin treasury scale and the preferred-share thesis
Preferred-share strategies are ultimately tied to the broader credibility of the treasury-building plan. In that context, the article points to BitcoinTreasuries.NET for rankings of public Bitcoin treasury companies.
Strategy remains the largest public corporate Bitcoin holder, with 843,775 BTC, according to BitcoinTreasuries.NET. Strive, meanwhile, has risen to seventh place with 19,921 BTC. While Strive is smaller than Strategy by BTC holdings, the company’s positioning indicates it is still participating meaningfully in the treasury race.
This ranking dynamic matters for preferred shareholders because treasury scale can influence expectations about dividend sustainability and overall business resilience—especially in a market where equity instruments are often priced around confidence in both operations and long-term balance-sheet strength.
Samson Mow: preferred-share confidence is “restoring”
Samson Mow, founder and CEO of Jan3, told Cointelegraph that recent adjustments by Bitcoin treasury companies are beginning to restore confidence in preferred-share products and support his broader view that Bitcoin has already found its bottom.
In the same conversation, Mow pointed to actions by Strategy that encourage STRC to return to par. He said that SATA’s return toward par could reinforce market confidence in the overall model, adding that the products are capitalized for multiple years of dividend payments and that there was “no reason to panic” during the selloff.
Mow also connected the improved trajectory of preferred-share instruments to ongoing refinement across the Bitcoin treasury sector. In his view, newer entrants and alternative structures can further validate the approach—citing Lyn Alden’s Orange Juice treasury company, which launched on July 15 with plans to operate a Bitcoin treasury and an intention to use a different approach, including a lower Bitcoin cost basis.
What to watch from an investor’s perspective is whether these dynamics translate into sustained repricing toward par across the peer set. SATA’s movement back toward $100 is a signal, but the market will likely continue to judge each issuer based on how quickly its preferred instrument stabilizes and how resilient its dividend profile appears under changing conditions.
For traders and long-term investors, the next checkpoint is whether SATA’s recovery holds as other preferred-share offerings—particularly Strategy’s STRC—continue to find their footing. The broader unanswered question is how durable “near-par” performance remains across full market cycles, especially if Bitcoin volatility increases and treasury companies face new capital and balance-sheet decisions.
This article was originally published as Strive’s SATA Rebounds, Recovers June Losses to Near Par on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strive’s SATA preferred shares have rebounded sharply after a late-June selloff, according to Yahoo Finance. The variable-rate perpetual preferred stock rose from a June low of $83.30 to roughly $97, recovering most of its declines and trading within about 3% of its $100 par value.
The rebound matters because SATA is part of a growing slate of Bitcoin-treasury-linked preferred-share products designed to keep their share price near par by dynamically adjusting dividend rates. For investors watching whether this “preferred equity for Bitcoin treasuries” model can hold up during market stress, the way SATA and peers respond to volatility may be the clearest near-term signal.
Key takeaways
Yahoo Finance shows Strive’s SATA preferred shares recovered from a June low of $83.30 to around $97, nearing the $100 par value.
SATA was introduced in November 2025 as Strive’s mechanism to fund expansion of its Bitcoin treasury through preferred equity rather than issuing more common shares.
Similar products are emerging in the Bitcoin corporate sector; Strategy’s STRC launched in 2025 with a related “variable dividend near par” concept.
Samson Mow argues that improvements across Bitcoin treasury balance sheets—and SATA’s return toward par—can help restore confidence in the broader preferred-share category.
Data from BitcoinTreasuries.NET places Strive as the seventh-largest public Bitcoin treasury holder, with 19,921 BTC.
SATA’s move back toward par
Strive launched SATA in November 2025, framing it as a preferred-equity tool to support its Bitcoin treasury strategy. The company’s approach centers on a variable-rate perpetual preferred share: instead of relying on a fixed coupon, the dividend rate is designed to adjust so the security trades close to its $100 par value.
In practice, that structure gives the market a built-in adjustment lever during changing conditions. When investors re-price the expected dividend stream—whether due to interest-rate moves, crypto sentiment, or company balance-sheet expectations—SATA’s performance can reflect how well the variable dividend mechanism is restoring equilibrium.
After falling to $83.30 in June, the stock’s subsequent recovery to around $97 suggests sellers have largely faded and that the market may be recalibrating its view of the product’s stability.
Why preferred equity is gaining attention in Bitcoin treasuries
SATA is not an isolated concept. The same general idea—linking corporate capital-raising to Bitcoin treasury objectives while using preferred equity to manage dilution—has become a recognizable segment among companies that describe such structures as “digital credit,” an emerging framing that Cointelegraph has discussed previously in connection with Bitcoin-focused financing products.
Strive’s stated goal is straightforward: raise capital for its Bitcoin treasury without issuing additional common shares. For public equity holders, that can be a significant difference. Common-stock issuance can be dilutive in the near term, while preferred structures are often marketed as a way to finance growth while keeping the common share count stable.
That said, the market still has to price risk: preferred shares can be sensitive to how investors assess dividend durability, treasury management, and credit-like features tied to corporate performance. The question investors are effectively testing is whether the “variable dividend to par” design meaningfully limits downside during periods of broader risk-off sentiment.
Strategy’s STRC as a reference point
Strategy’s STRC provides a direct comparison point. Introduced in 2025 with a similar objective of maintaining a $100 share price through a variable dividend framework, STRC also fell sharply during the late-June selloff. However, it has not fully returned to par; Yahoo Finance shows STRC trading at about $87.
The divergence between SATA nearing par while STRC remains below it highlights an important reality: even products built on similar mechanics can experience different market trajectories depending on timing, investor expectations, and how quickly confidence returns.
Still, both examples appear to be rooted in the same investor promise—mechanical dividend adjustments supported by a treasury-focused balance sheet. If that promise continues to be validated, it could reduce the “model break” fear that emerges during drawdowns.
Market confidence and sector refinements
Speaking to Cointelegraph, Jan3 founder and CEO Samson Mow suggested that adjustments by Bitcoin treasury companies are starting to restore confidence in preferred-share products. He linked the broader improvement in this niche to ongoing efforts to strengthen balance sheets and encourage securities like STRC to move back toward par.
Mow’s core point was that market participants are looking for evidence that these structures can withstand volatility rather than requiring panic-driven repricing. In his view, when SATA returns to par, it could reinforce the argument that the overall model is functioning as intended—potentially supporting STRC’s path as well.
He also pointed to new entrants refining approaches to treasury management. As an example, Mow cited Lyn Alden’s Orange Juice treasury company, which launched on July 15 with plans to operate a Bitcoin treasury and with an explicit intent of running a lower Bitcoin cost basis through its own strategy.
For investors, the practical takeaway is not just that more products are appearing, but that the sector is iterating. The preferred-share idea is still young, and each cycle of stress tests can determine which variations earn durability in the eyes of the market.
Meanwhile, the underlying Bitcoin treasury competition remains a key backdrop. BitcoinTreasuries.NET data places Strive at seventh among public Bitcoin treasury companies, holding 19,921 BTC, while Strategy remains the largest with 843,775 BTC.
Going forward, traders and investors should watch whether SATA’s move near par translates into broader confidence for comparable products like STRC, and whether further treasury-linked preferred issuances continue to attract stable bids during risk-off periods. The durability of the variable-dividend-to-par mechanism—and investors’ belief in dividend resilience—will likely remain the central question.
This article was originally published as Strive’s SATA Rebounds, Recovers Most of June Drop and Holds Near Par on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The US House of Representatives has passed the Stop Insider Trading Act, a bill aimed at preventing members of Congress and their immediate families from buying publicly traded stocks. The measure cleared the House on Wednesday by a vote of 232–198 and now heads to the Senate for consideration.
Sponsoring Republican Representative Bryan Steil said the legislation is designed to stop lawmakers from profiting from potential insider information and to set penalties for violations. The bill would next be reviewed by the Senate, where key critics argue it still leaves room for conflicts of interest.
Key takeaways
The House approved the Stop Insider Trading Act in a 232–198 vote, moving the proposal to the Senate.
Under the bill, Congress members and their spouses and dependent children would be barred from purchasing publicly traded stocks.
Penalties described by the bill sponsor include a $2,000 fine or 10% of the transaction, plus disgorgement of profits.
Democratic lawmakers have criticized the bill for allowing members to keep and sell stocks already owned, arguing it does not fully solve the underlying conflict risk.
Separate from the insider-trading effort, Steil is also linked to legislation addressing prediction market trading by public officials.
House passage and the bill’s penalty structure
According to the House vote results, the legislation advanced on Wednesday after the chamber approved Steil’s bill HB 7008, according to the official Congress.gov record. Steil, speaking on the House floor, framed the measure as a first for the current House on the specific issue and emphasized enforcement.
In describing how violations would be punished, Steil highlighted a penalty that includes a fine of $2,000 or 10% of the transaction, along with disgorgement of profits. He also stated that violators would forfeit gains if they failed to comply with the legislation’s requirements.
The bill’s practical aim is to reduce the possibility that lawmakers could benefit from non-public information gained through their roles. That intention is central to why supporters see the act as a meaningful guardrail against insider trading.
Criticism over “loopholes” and stock ownership rules
Even as the bill cleared the House, criticism emerged quickly from Democrats who argue it does not go far enough to eliminate conflict-of-interest concerns.
Representative and Senate critic Senator Elizabeth Warren said on Thursday that the legislation contains major loopholes because lawmakers could still own and sell stocks. Warren’s concern is that allowing ongoing ownership and sale—rather than an outright ban—may not sufficiently address the risk that creates incentives around insider information.
Steil responded to part of that critique by describing a compliance mechanism for members who already hold stocks. He said the bill would require a seven days’ notice before selling assets that lawmakers already own, arguing the notice requirement would deter trading driven by private information.
It remains to be seen how the Senate will treat these competing positions. In practice, the question will likely be whether the seven-day notice and penalties are viewed as adequate deterrence or whether senators will push for a stricter model—such as extending the restrictions beyond purchases to broader ownership rules.
What’s next in the Senate
After House passage, the Stop Insider Trading Act was received in the Senate for consideration on Thursday. The outcome in the upper chamber may hinge on whether enough senators support the bill’s narrower scope—aimed at members of Congress rather than other senior federal officials.
As described in the source, Steil’s measure is limited to restricting investments for members of Congress and does not cover the president or vice president and their families. That distinction matters for how this proposal fits into a broader debate about public official ethics and whether restrictions should be uniform across top executive and legislative roles.
In contrast, the source notes that a separate Senate proposal—associated with the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—has included restrictions reaching public officials more broadly, including language that would bar certain officials from issuing or sponsoring tokens until 2029. While that crypto-market structure bill is distinct from the stock-trading measure, it illustrates how ethics and market-related restrictions are being considered across different legislative packages.
Link to prediction market trading legislation
The House action on insider stock trading arrives after Steil sponsored another related effort focused on prediction markets. The source reports that Steil previously backed the Stop Lawmakers from Predicting Act, introduced in June to prevent certain public officials, their spouses, and children from “wagering on public policy issues and political outcomes.”
That proposal drew attention amid real-world incidents highlighted in earlier coverage. The source points to an alleged episode involving a soldier who reportedly placed more than $400,000 betting on Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro on Polymarket, as well as reports that a teleprompter operator for former President Donald Trump allegedly made more than $100,000 betting on Kalshi event contracts connected to words and phrases in speeches.
While these examples are not about Congress members trading on stocks, they reflect the same underlying theme: lawmakers and political insiders face special scrutiny when bets can appear tied to information advantage or influence. In that context, the prediction markets proposal mirrors the stock bill’s penalty framing, including a $2,000 fee or 10% of the value of prohibited bets on the relevant platforms.
Investors and builders in crypto markets may see this as part of a wider regulatory pattern: legislators are increasingly testing whether restrictions should reach political actors using financial rails that operate outside traditional stock exchanges, even when the mechanism is “betting” rather than buying equities.
As the Stop Insider Trading Act moves through the Senate, the key uncertainty is whether senators will accept the bill’s approach—bans on new purchases with notice requirements for existing holdings—or push for stricter rules that would go further on ownership and trading.
This article was originally published as House Passes Bill to Curb Lawmakers’ Insider Trading via Stocks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

World Foundation, the nonprofit behind the World protocol, has raised an initial $52.5 million by selling locked WLD tokens to strategic investors, with Pantera Capital leading the round. The fundraising—announced on Friday and shared with Cointelegraph—adds fresh capital to World’s push to scale World ID, its biometric-based system for helping platforms verify whether an online user is a real person.
According to the announcement, the WLD tokens sold in the round are subject to a 12-month lockup. Other participants reportedly include Bain Capital Crypto, Eightco Holdings, Selini Capital, and Susquehanna Crypto, alongside additional investors.
Key takeaways
$52.5 million raised through a sale of locked WLD tokens, with Pantera Capital leading.
The sold tokens come with a 12-month lockup, limiting immediate liquidity from the strategic investors.
World Foundation says new funding will go toward expanding World ID, its biometric credential system for distinguishing humans from AI agents.
World ID relies on users completing biometric verification at a World Orb device to generate a digital credential.
The broader market context reflects intensified investor focus on AI infrastructure and agent-era tooling, including security and verification solutions.
Locked token sale funds World ID expansion
World Foundation’s fundraising centers on WLD, the token ecosystem associated with the World protocol. In its announcement, the organization said the initial $52.5 million proceeds from the locked token sale will be used to expand World ID—a system meant to verify online identities in an era where synthetic content and automated agents are becoming more prevalent.
World describes World ID as a credential that can be issued after users complete biometric verification at a hardware point called a World Orb. Once verified, users receive a digital credential intended to help services determine that the account engaging with them is tied to a real person rather than an automated agent.
The stated motivation is practical: the nonprofit argues that demand for verification infrastructure is rising as AI-generated content and autonomous agents increase. Instead of trying to detect bots purely through behavior, the approach aims to anchor identity claims to a biometric verification step completed through the World Orb workflow.
Why verification matters as AI agents proliferate
World’s fundraising lands amid a broader shift in crypto and adjacent investment toward AI-related infrastructure and agent-first applications. That shift has been visible across multiple recent deals highlighted in Cointelegraph coverage.
For example, brokerage infrastructure provider Alpaca raised $135 million in equity financing earlier this month and reportedly secured access to up to $300 million in debt financing. The company said the funding would support infrastructure for AI-powered financial applications—an indication that agent-driven workflows are moving from experimentation toward more robust system-building.
Similarly, Cointelegraph previously reported that Coinbase introduced tools enabling businesses to accept USDC payments from autonomous AI agents. That update was framed in the context of AI-generated activity growing on its Base developer ecosystem, including a claim that AI-generated traffic exceeded human traffic on its Base developer documentation for the first time last month.
In this environment, identity and trust layers become more than a niche tooling problem. As more commerce, messaging, and platform interactions become automatable, the ability to verify whether an interaction represents a human user becomes increasingly relevant to everything from onboarding to fraud prevention to resource allocation.
Regulatory sensitivity remains part of the World ID story
World’s identity approach is not without controversy. The organization was originally conceived by Sam Altman, Max Novendstern, and Alex Blania, with World protocol efforts later drawing regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions over its biometric identity verification system.
While the current fundraising announcement focuses on scaling World ID, the mention of regulatory pressure underscores a critical uncertainty investors and builders should consider: biometric verification often intersects with privacy expectations, data protection requirements, and consent frameworks that can vary widely by jurisdiction. That reality can influence rollout speed, compliance costs, and the design of how credentials are issued and used.
For market participants, the token lockup may offer some near-term stability, but it does not resolve the core question of how World ID will navigate legal and regulatory constraints as it expands.
AI investment momentum extends to security and frontier tech
The investment climate around AI is also showing up in broader funding patterns, including cybersecurity. Cointelegraph notes that capital is increasingly flowing into AI-adjacent security efforts, with one example being AegisAI, a cybersecurity startup that raised $36 million in Series A funding to expand AI-powered email security. The company said the financing is intended to improve defenses against more sophisticated AI-generated phishing attacks.
Meanwhile, large crypto investment vehicles have been repositioning toward AI and frontier technologies. According to Cointelegraph reporting, Paradigm raised a $1.2 billion fund in July to invest across crypto, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other frontier technologies. Framework Ventures also reportedly closed a $400 million fund in June with a mandate spanning crypto, AI, robotics, and energy.
Taken together, these moves suggest a sector-wide bet: in an agent-driven future, infrastructure, trust, and security will be treated as interconnected components rather than separate silos. World ID’s biometric verification pitch fits into this larger landscape as one possible “human verification” layer for systems confronting rising automation.
Looking ahead, the key question for readers is how quickly World Foundation can scale World ID beyond its initial verification workflow while maintaining compliance in the jurisdictions that have already scrutinized biometric identity verification. With AI agents becoming more common—and platforms increasingly adapting payment and interaction tools for them—investors and builders should watch for concrete adoption milestones for World ID and any updates on regulatory posture as World expands.
This article was originally published as Pantera Leads $52.5M Round for World Foundation to Scale World ID Infrastructure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Once again, Litecoin has become an area of focus as the crypto nears a crucial technical resistance level that will dictate whether it moves on a fresh trend direction. For months, Litecoin has been consolidating inside a descending channel, but recently, the crypto has started signaling growing strength amid continued support from buyers at key levels.
While the breakout is yet to be confirmed, positive developments in terms of price structure, derivatives positioning, and increasing buying activity have shifted the market’s interest to the prospect of a breakout move.
Descending Channel Set for a Tough Test
As per technical analysis provided by ZAYK Charts, Litecoin faces a critical test against the upper boundary of the well-established descending channel that has been constraining price moves upwards for many months. Sellers repeatedly defended resistance during the course of the correction and created lower highs and lows along the way.
In recent weeks, though, the market structure has improved. The buyers managed to defend the support level of the descending channel in June and since then formed a pattern of higher swing lows. Instead of making sharp retracements after rallies, Litecoin trades close to resistance, indicating increasing buying pressure.
This sort of price action is frequently indicative of improving market sentiment, although most technical analysts would consider a daily close above resistance to be necessary to confirm a breakout. Should that be seen, the measured move from the descending channel is estimated at around 31% upside. Chart projections do not guarantee anything about future performance but give technical targets based on the completed price action patterns.
Price Action Stays Positive
As of writing, Litecoin is currently priced at about $47.10, marking a 1.39% price gain in the current trading session. The session kicked off near the $46.40 level, where buyers formed a consolidation area, then slowly moved prices above the psychologically important level of $47.00.
The momentum continued to build throughout the session and allowed Litecoin to touch an intraday high near the $47.55 level. After some profit-taking took place, buyers still managed to hold on to the $47 mark, which allowed prices to move sideways between about $47.10 and $47.30, without much selling pressure.
A slow upward movement is perceived as better compared to a quick spike, as it could indicate real buying interest rather than speculation momentum.
However, there is one crucial element that is missing from the equation so far. Daily trading volume fell by about 12.8% to around $187.46 million, suggesting that there is not enough participation in the rally from the whole market yet.
Liquidations Point to a Healthy Market
In addition to the price movement, Litecoin’s derivative market also shows some positive signs. The recent liquidation figures indicate that excess leverage has gradually been stripped away from the market after two major corrections.
The biggest surge of long liquidations was recorded at the end of January and beginning of February, where leveraged positions incurred losses of around $10.86 million. This led to a further decline of prices due to traders being squeezed out of their positions.
The other liquidation instance was observed in late May to early June, during which the price of Litecoin moved down from around $49 to about $42-$43 range. After the correction, the volume of liquidations began to normalize, implying that most of the speculative leverage had been stripped away.
The short-side liquidations have been relatively low during the same period, indicating that the bull traders had mostly covered themselves in the market’s forced changes.
Reduced liquidation activity makes the market a healthier one as the price changes will not be driven by excess leverage but market demand.
Breakout Confirmation Remains The Critical Indicator
The Litecoin technical picture continues to show signs of improvement, with buyers defending important levels of support amid continued resistance from the long-term descending resistance. As the technicals continue to favor buyers, with reduced risks of leverage, the emphasis has been on confirmation of the breakout.
However, despite the positive technicals mentioned above, there has not yet been an outright daily close above the channel resistance. Until that happens, that will be the important resistance for the moment. If buyers succeed in breaking that level with conviction, it would signal a move towards more bullish levels for Litecoin.
This article was originally published as Litecoin Breakout Setup Forming on Strong Momentum Above Crucial Resistance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) extended their streak of inflows into a sixth consecutive session, signaling renewed institutional interest at a time when broader market sentiment is improving. At the same time, crypto-linked equities are posting gains amid expectations that US regulatory progress could help clarify the playing field—and that speculative appetite for AI-related stocks may be starting to cool.
Beyond digital assets, investors are increasingly separating “AI winners” from companies still priced primarily on optimism. That shift matters because money often moves in clusters: when one high-beta trade loses momentum, capital can search for the next opportunity—sometimes back in crypto.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs logged six straight days of inflows, bringing total fresh capital to about $203.1 million for the latest session and roughly $930 million across the streak, according to the linked Cointelegraph update.
Market sentiment improved as the Crypto Fear & Greed Index rebounded from “extreme fear” to “fear,” while Bitcoin’s price briefly moved above $67,000.
The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index (SOX) moved into technical bear-market territory after a drop of more than 20% from its recent peak, reflecting cooling enthusiasm for parts of the AI trade.
Analysts pointed to US momentum on the CLARITY Act and commentary from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent as a factor supporting risk appetite across crypto and crypto-adjacent stocks.
Bitcoin mining stocks rose on news of major AI-focused data center and cloud infrastructure deals from Hut 8 and IREN.
Bitcoin ETFs extend inflows as sentiment steadies
Spot Bitcoin ETFs in the US continued receiving net inflows, extending a winning run to six consecutive trading days and attracting $203.1 million in fresh capital on the day highlighted by Cointelegraph: Bitcoin ETFs extended their inflow streak.
The inflow sequence adds up to roughly $930 million over six sessions—described in the report as the funds’ longest streak since April—occurring alongside a move in Bitcoin that briefly pushed above $67,000. The timing also overlaps with a notable improvement in broader risk sentiment, with the Crypto Fear & Greed Index recovering from “extreme fear” to “fear.”
Even so, the bigger picture remains mixed. Since the launch of the US spot Bitcoin ETFs in January 2024, the funds have accumulated $51.8 billion in cumulative net inflows and hold $80.9 billion in net assets, but they are still down $4.84 billion on a year-to-date net flow basis, per the figures included in the source article. Analysts cited in the report argue that Bitcoin likely needs to sustain trading above the $65,000–$65,500 area to strengthen the case for a durable bullish breakout.
For investors, the usefulness of an inflow streak isn’t just the day-to-day headline—it’s the pattern. A multi-day bid from institutions can reduce the likelihood that any bounce is purely retail-driven, though it doesn’t guarantee follow-through.
AI trade cools while crypto expects regulatory clarity
The crypto market rally referenced by Cointelegraph is linked to two overlapping themes: progress toward US crypto regulation and signs that the AI trade may be losing some of its momentum. The report ties the broader digital asset move to the cooling of the AI trade, with crypto-related equities joining the bid.
Cointelegraph notes that Coinbase, American Bitcoin and Cipher Digital posted double-digit percentage gains as sentiment improved. One cited catalyst was a statement from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggesting lawmakers were near the “1-yard line” on the CLARITY Act, a legislative effort intended to establish a regulatory framework for digital assets. While investor expectations don’t replace legislation, signals about legislative progress can still shift positioning—especially for firms that have spent long periods waiting for clearer rules.
On the AI side, analysts framed the change more as rotation than collapse. The source points to cooling enthusiasm in AI equities and growing confidence around the interest-rate outlook as supportive inputs for Bitcoin. A concrete proxy for this is the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index (SOX), which fell more than 20% from a recent high and recently slid into a technical bear market. Although SOX remains above year-ago levels, the magnitude of the pullback suggests that some speculative capital is less willing to pay whatever it takes for future AI monetization.
For crypto traders, that distinction matters: when AI-related liquidity tightens, some capital that was “parked” in semiconductors and high-multiple tech can become more willing to chase asymmetric upside elsewhere—provided the regulatory outlook and market structure remain supportive.
Miners ride AI data center and cloud contracts
Another strand of strength showed up in Bitcoin mining stocks, which surged on the back of major AI infrastructure deals highlighted by Cointelegraph: Hut 8 and IREN unveiled multibillion-dollar AI infrastructure agreements.
The source reports gains across Hut 8, IREN, Cipher Digital, CleanSpark and MARA Holdings after Hut 8 disclosed a 15-year, $9.8 billion lease for its AI data center campus. It also notes that IREN shared details of $2.8 billion in cloud services contracts with AI developers. The broader implication is that miners are continuing to diversify away from relying solely on Bitcoin production as mining economics become more challenging.
Alongside the deal headlines, the report emphasizes that the AI pivot is now large enough to shape how markets value parts of the mining sector. It states that IREN projects more than $4 billion in annual recurring AI cloud revenue by the end of 2026. That kind of forecast—especially when paired with long-term infrastructure arrangements—can attract investors who prefer visibility over purely cycle-driven earnings.
Still, the source also flags execution and funding risk. Blocksbridge Consulting, cited in the report, estimates the sector could require roughly $50 billion in additional capital to pursue its AI ambitions, while insider stock sales have drawn increased scrutiny. Taken together, the message is clear: investors may reward the pivot to AI-enabled infrastructure, but they are also watching for whether capital needs remain manageable and whether corporate actions align with long-term delivery.
Robinhood spotlight shifts to tokenization and prediction markets
Outside the immediate crypto market tape, Bernstein updated its view of Robinhood, arguing the brokerage’s next growth phase is likely tied more to tokenized products and prediction markets than traditional crypto trading. The report points to Bernstein raising its price target on Robinhood, lifting it to $160 from $130 while maintaining an Outperform rating.
Bernstein’s forecast in the source includes an expectation that prediction markets could become Robinhood’s fastest-growing segment, generating $1.7 billion in revenue by 2028. It also identifies tokenized equities as a major growth opportunity, citing Robinhood’s Arbitrum-based layer-2 network as infrastructure for bringing real-world assets on chain.
The thesis is reinforced by what the source describes as an acceleration of Wall Street’s tokenization push, naming companies such as Broadridge, Alpaca, Securitize and Cantor Fitzgerald as expanding blockchain-based securities infrastructure. For industry watchers, that matters because tokenization is a bridge concept: it can attract institutional interest by mapping blockchain capabilities onto familiar asset structures, potentially broadening demand for compliant onchain rails.
For readers, the next key question is whether the improving ETF inflow pattern persists while AI equities continue losing speculative steam. Watch for continued multi-day ETF demand, further signals on US regulatory progress around the CLARITY Act, and whether miner-led AI infrastructure narratives translate into measurable financial milestones rather than only headline-driven momentum.
This article was originally published as AI Crypto Rotation: Are Funds Shifting Toward AI Tokens? on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Three major U.S. crypto advocacy groups have urged Senate leaders to move the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act forward on the chamber floor, arguing that the legislation remains a rare chance to establish a clearer federal framework for digital assets. In a joint letter sent Friday to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Crypto Council for Innovation, the Digital Chamber, and the Blockchain Association asked lawmakers to prioritize “floor consideration” before the Senate pauses for state work periods in August.
The push comes as the bill has already advanced through the Senate banking and agriculture committees, but uncertainty remains over whether it can secure the 60 votes needed for passage. Republicans hold a 52–47 edge over Democrats, yet several Democrats have signaled they may withhold support until the bill’s ethics-related provisions are adjusted—particularly rules intended to address conflicts of interest involving public officials and cryptocurrencies.
Key takeaways
Crypto industry groups are pressing Senate leadership to schedule a floor vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess.
The bill cleared the Senate banking and agriculture committees, but lawmakers have indicated votes could be delayed pending unresolved ethics concerns.
Democrats argue the ethics provisions in the GOP’s market structure text are insufficient to prevent corruption, according to reporting from Politico.
Industry leaders including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong and 1inch’s legal chief Orest Gavryliak have argued the bill is necessary to provide a workable framework—especially for non-custodial systems.
Market-based polling via Kalshi as of Friday implied a roughly 40.3% chance of passage before the Senate’s August break.
Advocacy groups push for early floor action
In the Friday letter, the three organizations framed floor consideration as an immediate next step following committee progress. They acknowledged bipartisan discussions are ongoing and encouraged negotiations to continue, indicating they are not asking for a “take it or leave it” decision—just that the bill be brought to the Senate floor without further delay.
The groups’ request aligns with a broader push from Republicans who have been working to secure a vote before the Senate breaks for state work periods in August. However, even with committee advancement, floor timelines in the Senate often depend on whether parties can close gaps on contentious provisions—especially those involving ethics and enforcement boundaries.
Ethics provisions remain the sticking point
CLARITY is widely described as one of the most consequential U.S. bills for crypto regulation, and its path in the Senate reflects the difficulty of reaching consensus across the aisle. The bill requires 60 votes to pass, and while Republicans currently hold a 52–47 majority over Democrats, Democratic support is not guaranteed.
Earlier this week, Republicans released the text of the market structure bill, including ethics provisions that would bar public officials from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies. Democrats who oppose or question these measures have argued they do not go far enough to address corruption risks, according to reporting from Cointelegraph and Politico.
Senator Ruben Gallego, who criticized the ethics counterproposal, said in comments reported by Politico that the latest GOP response did not reflect a serious effort. He argued that after months of work with Republican colleagues, the bill’s updated approach did not match what Democrats believe is needed to meaningfully tighten safeguards.
“[…] After all the work that we’ve done with our Republican colleagues, that they would take the months and months of work and somehow interpret that and turn around and think what they offered was even remotely close.”
For investors and crypto companies, this disagreement matters because ethics provisions and conflict-of-interest rules can influence how politicians, regulators, and politically connected actors engage with crypto-related activity. If those provisions remain contested, the practical outcome could be delayed scheduling—or amended text that changes how compliance obligations are framed.
Industry leaders argue CLARITY is a needed framework
Beyond the Senate arithmetic and ethics provisions, industry participants have focused on what the bill could mean for how crypto products are treated in the U.S. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said in a Wednesday post on X that the U.S. lacks a federal framework and that the absence of clarity allows harmful behavior to reach customers while much of the industry operates offshore.
Armstrong’s argument, as presented in his post, is that CLARITY would create consumer protections, provide law enforcement with tools, and establish a path for U.S. leadership in the sector. That perspective echoes what many businesses have sought in recent regulatory cycles: rules that are designed for digital assets rather than forced into legacy financial categories.
DeFi-focused legal leadership also weighed in. Orest Gavryliak, chief legal officer of 1inch, discussed the bill on Cointelegraph’s Chain Reaction podcast on Friday. He said CLARITY could help create a structure that recognizes non-custodial protocols rather than “regulating with enforcement,” and he criticized approaches that might try to fit non-custodial systems into custodial frameworks.
In his remarks, Gavryliak suggested that if regulators insist on treating non-custodial projects as if they must adopt custodial models, the resulting obligations could misalign with how decentralized protocols actually operate. For protocol developers, trading venues, and tooling providers, that distinction can affect everything from risk disclosures to compliance strategies.
Timing risks: August recess and the midterm calendar
Legislative timing may be as important as legislative content. The source notes that if lawmakers fail to hold a vote before the Senate breaks in August, consideration could shift into the weeks leading up to the 2026 U.S. midterms. That prospect could complicate negotiations, since election-year incentives often reshape how quickly contentious measures move.
As of Friday, Kalshi listed event contracts related to whether the Senate would vote on CLARITY before the August recess. The market-implied probability stood at 40.3%, suggesting that traders viewed a pre-recess floor vote as uncertain.
While event markets are not official forecasts, they can still reflect how participants interpret political momentum—especially when the bill’s core milestones (committee approval) have occurred but the votes to reach the 60 threshold appear harder to secure.
For readers tracking CLARITY, the next question is straightforward: whether Senate leadership can translate committee progress into floor scheduling while resolving the ethics provisions Democrats say are inadequate. If those disputes intensify or timelines slip past August, the bill’s eventual shape—and the compliance burden for non-custodial and consumer-facing parts of the ecosystem—may become clearer only later than many industry participants were hoping for.
This article was originally published as Crypto Advocacy Groups Back CLARITY as Ethics Rules Face Pushback on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The European Central Bank’s proposed digital euro is drawing intense debate across Europe, with supporters framing it as a tool to preserve the euro’s monetary sovereignty in an increasingly online payments economy, while critics warn it could expand surveillance and give authorities new powers over consumer spending.
In remarks reported by the ECB, executive board member Piero Cipollone said the project aims to reduce dependence on non-European payment providers and ensure Europeans can transact with sovereign central bank money in digital form. The controversy, however, persists as privacy advocates, consumer groups, and even parts of the traditional banking sector weigh the implications for personal autonomy and financial stability.
Key takeaways
The ECB positions the digital euro as a sovereign, central-bank-issued payment option intended to complement cash, not replace it.
Privacy and civil-liberties concerns remain central, with regulators and watchdogs emphasizing the need for strong safeguards before public trust can be secured.
Policymakers are motivated partly by concerns that Europe lacks control over parts of its critical retail payments infrastructure.
Banking-industry critics worry that limited digital-euro wallet holdings could still shift deposit flows and affect how banks fund lending.
Legislation negotiations are underway in the EU, with officials aiming to finalize the text by the end of the year and decisions on issuance potentially following later.
What the digital euro would be
The digital euro is a proposed European Central Bank project for a digital form of euro issued by the ECB—meaning it would function as central bank money in an online-ready format. The ECB describes it as a way for people in the euro area to use sovereign money for everyday payments as commerce and payments continue to move toward digital channels.
Supporters argue that the digital euro would preserve core advantages people associate with cash while enabling “cash-like” payments over electronic networks. Critics, by contrast, see the same architecture as a potential pathway to “programmable” money—an arrangement they fear could enable authorities to control or restrict how individuals spend.
The dispute is not abstract: the digital euro debate mirrors broader questions raised by central bank digital currencies globally, particularly around privacy, data handling, and the degree of oversight that could accompany a state-issued payment rail.
Why Europe wants central bank money online
Beyond sovereignty, the ECB’s argument centers on reducing Europe’s reliance on non-European payment infrastructure. The ECB has warned that declining cash use could leave the euro area increasingly dependent on private or overseas-operated systems such as card networks, creating a strategic vulnerability.
In 2025, ECB President Christine Lagarde said the payment-credit-debit infrastructure is “not a European solution,” and argued that Europe needs a European alternative “just in case.” The underlying concern is that without a native digital euro option, European consumers and merchants could face higher systemic risk if foreign-controlled payment services become unavailable or less favorable.
Consumer advocates have also entered the discussion. According to comments shared with Cointelegraph by Andrew Canning, deputy head of communications at the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC), the digital euro could provide a “secure and inclusive” option that complements existing payment solutions—particularly for users who encounter barriers to accessing digital payments.
Safeguards, privacy, and what the ECB says it will do
Regulatory oversight is a key point in the digital euro debate. The EU’s privacy watchdogs have stressed that the project must include robust protections to earn public confidence. In a joint stance, the European Data Protection Board and the European Data Protection Supervisor said privacy and data protection at a high level are essential for the digital euro’s legitimacy, citing a need to ensure that fundamental rights are respected.
The ECB’s own materials argue that privacy protections are built into the design, including the existence of offline payments to enable “cash-like” privacy. The ECB also states it will not see personal transaction data—an assurance that the ECB uses to address concerns that a digital central-bank payment system could become a surveillance channel.
Still, critics contend that even a system designed to protect privacy could make payments more trackable in practice, depending on implementation choices and operational controls. The core issue for skeptics is whether “privacy” statements can meaningfully constrain the downstream ability to monitor activity once money is transferred through programmable rails.
How it would work—and why banks are worried
Unlike dollar-denominated stablecoins such as Tether or USDC, the digital euro would be denominated in euros and issued by the central bank. Users would not hold it directly in the same way they hold physical banknotes; instead, they would access it through electronic wallets and use it for payments in stores, online, or via wallet-to-wallet transfers.
Supporters say the underlying money would remain an ECB liability rather than a claim on a commercial bank’s deposits, which they argue would align digital euro holdings more closely with the public backing associated with cash.
Banking industry concerns focus on funding and financial stability. Several critics argue that a shift toward central bank digital euros could reduce bank deposits, potentially forcing banks to adjust how they finance lending. Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, an Italian economist and banker who served on the ECB executive board from 2005 to 2011, warned of “a high risk of financial instability” and “strong repercussions for the real economy,” according to the report’s inclusion of his remarks.
The ECB counters that its design choices aim to minimize risks to the banking sector. The ECB has said users would be limited to holding only a small amount of digital euros in their wallets at any time to prevent “excessive outflows of bank deposits.” It also indicates that, similarly to cash in a wallet, digital euro holdings would not earn interest—another measure intended to reduce incentives for users to move large sums into central bank money.
Costs, timelines, and lessons from other CBDC efforts
Cost and implementation burden have become an additional flashpoint. The ECB estimates that developing and implementing the digital euro would require approximately €1.3 billion in investment, alongside ongoing operating expenses of around €320 million annually. Reuters reported that the ECB expects banking sector implementation costs between $4.6 billion and $6.9 billion over four years, underscoring how integration work may fall partly on commercial institutions and payment providers.
On timing, negotiations across EU institutions have progressed to the stage where policymakers are working on final legislation. According to the article’s referenced reporting, lawmakers are aiming to reach agreement within the next six months. Cipollone also said, in an ECB interview on July 13, that officials hope the text will be finalized by the end of the year, after which the ECB would be positioned to decide whether to move forward with issuing the digital euro.
If legislation is approved, the decision would then be taken by the ECB’s Governing Council, with issuance considered sometime in 2027. The cited reporting also suggests everyday use would likely not arrive until 2029 at the earliest, assuming the project proceeds.
Europe is not operating in a vacuum. The broader international experience with retail CBDCs has been mixed, with many countries shifting away from direct retail models or abandoning proposals. According to Reuters, China began piloting its digital yuan in 2019 and expanded rollout nationally, yet most consumers still rely heavily on familiar apps such as Alipay and WeChat Pay. The Bahamas launched the Sand Dollar in 2020 as one of the first nationwide retail CBDCs, but adoption was slower than hoped, leading authorities to push for broader distribution through commercial banks.
Elsewhere, Nigeria’s eNaira reportedly struggled to gain traction after its 2021 launch despite government support, while Brazil’s central bank shut down its Drex CBDC platform in 2025, citing cost and privacy concerns. The Bank for International Settlements concluded in 2023 that a retail CBDC is a complex undertaking, not only for central banks but also for the broader ecosystem involved in implementation and governance.
As EU legislators negotiate the final framework, the decisive questions for investors, builders, and users will likely center on the practical strength of privacy safeguards, the wallet-holding and deposit-stability design choices, and the real timeline risk between legislation approval and any eventual issuance—areas where past CBDC efforts suggest implementation details can matter as much as the concept.
This article was originally published as Digital Euro Raises Privacy Questions as Cash Use Declines on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

London, 6–7 October 2026: Digital Assets Week will return to London, the only forum where capital markets transformation through tokenisation is examined in depth, from issuance and market structure to settlement, custody, liquidity and regulatory alignment.
The underlying foundation of Digital Assets Week is Global Asset Digitisation Projects, making it the only venue where the commercialisation of tokenising assets is discussed comprehensively and at scale.
Digital Assets Week is institution-led and designed to support substantive dialogue between market participants, regulators and infrastructure providers on implementation, risk management and market structure as digital assets increasingly intersect with traditional capital markets.
The 2026 edition will focus on how digital assets and tokenisation are moving from experimentation towards practical implementation across traditional financial markets.
Discussions will examine the evolution of tokenised private and public markets, 24/7 trading, atomic settlement, fund administration, digital asset custody, stablecoins, payments infrastructure, regulation, liquidity and institutional blockchain adoption.
Key speakers confirmed to join the 2026 agenda include:
● Rachel Blake MP, The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, HM Treasury
● Sasha Mills, Executive Director, Financial Market Infrastructure, Bank of England
● Sumeera Younis, Chief of Operations – Crypto Task Force, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
● Anthony Clark-Jones, Head of Digital Assets (Products & Services), UBS Investment Bank
● Sean Mullins, Head of Digital Assets Product, Securities Services, HSBC
● Emma Lovett, Executive Director, Markets Digital Assets, J.P. Morgan
● Anna Matson, Senior Vice President, Head of Digital Assets & Innovation EMEA, Northern Trust
● Waqar Chaudry, Executive Director; Head, Digital Assets. Financing and Securities Services; Corporate & Investment Banking, Standard Chartered Bank
● Sabih Behzad, Head of Digital Assets & Currencies Transformation, Managing Director, Deutsche Bank
● Emilio Anting, VP of Digital Asset Partnerships, Franklin Templeton
● Previn Singh, Digital Assets – Head of Tokenisation Strategy, Fidelity International
● Doug Bambrick, Head of Custody Product – UK and Middle East, BNP Paribas
● David Reed, Director – Digital Assets Product, Invesco
● Deepa Raja Carbon, Managing Director and Vice Chairperson, VARA
● Christoph Hock, Head of Tokenisation and Digital Assets, Union Investment
● Kelly Moffatt, Head of Digital Assets Compliance, Citi
● Rosemary Hanna, Head of Division, Markets and Funds Policy, Central Bank of Ireland
● Ryan Hayward, Head of Digital Assets and Strategic Investments, Barclays
● Christian Lawrence, Chief Cross-Asset Strategist, Head of Americas & Energy Markets Research, Managing Director, Rabobank
● Antoine Scalia, Founder and CEO, Cryptio
● Cameron Drinkwater, Chief Product & Operations Officer, S&P Dow Jones Indices
● Myles Wright, CEO, Fnality Services
and many more.
This year’s event is already seeing the strongest level of financial institution and regulator registrations at this stage of any previous edition.
Financial institutions and regulators confirmed to participate include representatives from Aberdeen, ABN AMRO Bank, AllianceBernstein, ANZ Banking Group, Aviva Investors, Baillie Gifford, Bank of America, Bank of England, Barclays, BlackRock, BNP Paribas, Citi, Deutsche Bank, Fidelity International, Franklin Templeton, Goldman Sachs, HM Treasury, HSBC, Intesa Sanpaolo, J.P. Morgan, Lloyds Bank, M&G Investments, MUFG Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura, Northern Trust, Rabobank, Société Générale, Standard Chartered, State Street, T Rowe Price, TSB Bank, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, UBS, Union Investment, VARA, WisdomTree and many more.
Registration for Digital Assets Week London is now open.
Tickets can be accessed here:
https://www.universe.com/events/digital-assets-week-london-2026-tickets-LGVXZ7
15% off discount code, valid from 1st August: CRYPBREAK15
For sponsorship or speaking enquiries please contact: christina@julietmedia.com
This article was originally published as Digital Assets Week London Returns with Record Institutional Involvement on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.