Crypto Breaking

U.S. Bank has completed a live cross-border payment that uses its proprietary USBDC stablecoin on the Stellar blockchain, the bank announced this week. The pilot transferred funds between U.S. Bank entities in North America and Europe, with USBDC issued and moved on Stellar’s public network.
Beyond the transfer itself, U.S. Bank says the exercise also tested core stablecoin capabilities—minting, redemption, and administrative controls such as freezing and clawback—while connecting the process to the bank’s existing risk management, compliance, and operational systems. The goal is to validate whether a stablecoin-based rail can support regulated banking workflows for cross-border treasury and settlement activity.
Key takeaways
U.S. Bank executed a live cross-border payment using USBDC, a proprietary stablecoin issued and transferred on Stellar.
The pilot also covered operational features: minting, redemption, freezing, and clawback, integrated with the bank’s risk and compliance infrastructure.
The bank frames the test as proof of concept for its Digital Asset Platform, which is designed to bridge tokenized assets and traditional banking systems.
U.S. Bank is building toward additional use cases such as cross-border treasury operations, liquidity management, and onchain collateral movement.
A live test of stablecoin rails across regions
According to U.S. Bank, the transaction involved moving value between bank entities located in North America and Europe. Instead of relying solely on conventional payment systems, the pilot used USBDC on the public Stellar network to effect the transfer.
The significance here is less about the fact that stablecoins can move value—many demonstrations have done that in various contexts—and more about whether a major bank can operationalize that movement under regulated controls. U.S. Bank says it validated the stablecoin’s end-to-end lifecycle functions, including minting and redemption, and exercised administrative mechanisms tied to compliance and risk needs, such as freezing and clawback.
In practical terms, these controls are often central to how financial institutions manage tokenized assets. By testing them alongside risk, compliance, and internal operational systems, U.S. Bank is positioning the pilot as closer to a production-grade workflow than a purely technical experiment.
Digital Asset Platform becomes the bridge to banking systems
U.S. Bank linked the pilot to its internally developed Digital Asset Platform. The platform, the bank says, is intended to connect tokenized assets with its traditional banking infrastructure, allowing stablecoin activity to fit within established procedures rather than operating as an isolated blockchain application.
That integration matters because banks typically face constraints that don’t apply to consumer-oriented crypto services: auditability requirements, operational controls, and governance processes that must connect to legacy systems. U.S. Bank’s announcement also points to the platform as a foundation for future expansion, including cross-border treasury operations, liquidity management, and moving collateral onchain.
From organizational focus to ongoing Stellar testing
This announcement follows U.S. Bank’s broader institutional push into digital assets. In October 2025, the bank created a dedicated Digital Assets and Money Movement unit focused on stablecoin issuance, crypto custody, asset tokenization, and digital money movement, according to the bank’s prior disclosure.
Separately, U.S. Bank has been testing custom stablecoin issuance on Stellar since at least November 2025. The bank said it worked alongside PwC and the Stellar Development Foundation during this testing phase, indicating that the current live payment is part of a longer-running effort rather than a one-off trial.
For investors and market observers, continuity is an important signal. Testing custom issuance and then moving into a live cross-border transaction suggests the project is progressing from design and experimentation toward operational validation.
Broader banking momentum in stablecoins
U.S. Bank’s move sits within a wider industry trend. While some parts of the U.S. banking and crypto ecosystem have raised concerns—particularly around stablecoin issuers and crypto platforms offering yield or rewards—large financial institutions continue to pursue stablecoin strategies of their own.
In early September, reports highlighted an effort by 21 major financial institutions, including names such as Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, and UBS, to form a company intended to issue stablecoins. That initiative aimed to enable a U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027, with plans to expand to other G7 currencies afterward. The intended focus included wholesale, institutional, and retail use cases, such as cross-border payments and digital asset settlement.
Meanwhile, other mainstream financial firms have already launched token products aimed at specific market segments. Fidelity, for example, entered the stablecoin market in February with Fidelity Digital Dollar (FIDD), issued through Fidelity Digital Assets and available to both retail and institutional investors. Data cited at the time referenced FIDD’s circulating supply of about $50 million, according to DefiLlama.
Taken together, these developments suggest banks are pursuing stablecoin infrastructure not only for settlement efficiency, but also as a regulated extension of existing money movement capabilities. U.S. Bank’s emphasis on compliance-driven features—minting/redemption and freeze/clawback—aligns with what many institutions will likely consider essential before scaling any onchain dollar representation.
What to watch next for USBDC and institutional stablecoins
U.S. Bank’s next steps, as described in its announcement, center on additional applications like cross-border treasury, liquidity management, and moving collateral onchain. The key question for the market is how quickly the bank can translate pilot controls and integrations into repeatable volumes and broader operational coverage, especially as institutional stablecoin efforts across the industry move from planning into deployment.
This article was originally published as U.S. Bank Trials Proprietary Stablecoin for Cross-Border Stellar Payments on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto industry trade groups are asking a judge to halt Illinois’ upcoming 0.2% tax on cryptocurrency transactions, arguing the measure is unconstitutional and would force companies to incur substantial compliance costs before the rule even begins.
According to the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI) and the Blockchain Association (BA), they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois, seeking to block enforcement ahead of the tax’s planned start in January 2027. The request comes after the groups previously sued to challenge the law itself.
Key takeaways
CCI and BA have moved for a preliminary injunction to stop Illinois’ 0.2% tax on crypto transaction volume from taking effect in January 2027.
The groups argue the tax would trigger irreparable harm, including major spending on systems and resources while key details remain unclear.
Illinois enacted the digital asset tax in June as part of the state’s FY 2027 budget, described as a “privilege tax.”
The challenge is part of a broader pattern of Illinois regulation targeting crypto-related activity, including prediction markets.
Trade groups seek to pause Illinois’ crypto transaction tax
CCI and BA said in a Wednesday filing that they are seeking immediate court intervention to prevent Illinois from enforcing its 0.2% levy on cryptocurrency transactions before it becomes effective in January 2027. The motion asks the court to block enforcement while the underlying legal dispute continues.
Ji Hun Kim, CEO of CCI, said the clock is forcing companies to act now without sufficient clarity. In his statement, he argued firms are being pressured to build systems for a tax he says violates constitutional rights, under the threat of criminal penalties, and that this diverts employees and other resources from other priorities.
The groups’ central contention in the injunction request is that the compliance burden and related operational disruption amount to “irreparable harm”—a standard courts often require before issuing emergency relief.
Illinois’ tax was enacted as a “privilege tax” in June
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed the digital asset tax into law in June, placing it in the state’s fiscal year 2027 budget. As described by related reporting, the measure is structured as a “privilege tax” and taxes crypto users based on transaction volume rather than income.
The timing is at the center of the legal and practical dispute: the tax is set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. CCI and BA argue that the state’s early enforcement timeline compels immediate spending even though the law is still contested in court.
Illinois’ approach is also notable for being among the first in the U.S. to single out cryptocurrency transactions for a transaction-based levy rather than treating them through more general tax frameworks.
Legal challenge argues constitutional and statutory violations
The motion for a preliminary injunction follows a lawsuit filed earlier by CCI and BA to challenge Illinois’ digital asset tax. In the complaint and accompanying arguments described in earlier coverage, the groups contend the law violates multiple legal protections, including the U.S. Constitution, the Illinois Constitution, federal and state due process laws, and the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act. (One component of the challenge is reflected in the complaint document published by the groups, linked in earlier reporting.)
Another trade group, the Digital Chamber, also filed a similar lawsuit days earlier. Together, the parallel suits suggest the dispute is not limited to a single industry representative, but rather a broader coalition concerned about how the tax is designed and implemented.
Summer Mersinger, CEO of the Blockchain Association, framed the issue as a wider regulatory risk. He said waiting costs the state little but moving forward could prompt other jurisdictions to adopt similar tactics, given the precedent that Illinois could set.
Illinois also targets prediction markets alongside crypto
While the crypto transaction tax is one of the most immediate issues facing digital asset firms in Illinois, it is not the only area where the state has moved to restrict or regulate activity tied to the broader crypto ecosystem.
Separately, Illinois has also pursued rules affecting prediction markets. Kalshi has filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials over a law that took effect July 1 and “expressly bans sports event contracts,” according to earlier reporting. Kalshi’s complaint argues the state action conflicts with federal law and requires licensing steps that it says it cannot comply with under federal constraints.
In addition, Pritzker signed an executive order in April that banned state employees from betting on platforms associated with prediction markets. The executive action was described as a measure intended to reduce insider trading risk amid the growth of online prediction markets and event-based gambling contracts.
Taken together, these moves illustrate how Illinois’ regulatory posture is extending beyond simple taxation and into conduct restrictions around crypto-adjacent markets.
What to watch next in the court fight
The immediate question for investors and operators is whether the court grants emergency relief—keeping the 0.2% tax from starting in January 2027—while the constitutional challenge proceeds. For firms doing business in Illinois, the outcome may determine whether they must begin large-scale compliance work on a short runway or can pause until the legal issues are resolved.
This article was originally published as Trade Groups Push to Stop Illinois Crypto Tax From Taking Effect in January on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitMart has appointed restructuring and turnaround firm Alvarez & Marsal as its financial adviser, a move it said it made ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 9 update deadline. However, the exchange has not yet published the restructuring and business resumption roadmap it previously said it was preparing.
In its announcement Wednesday, BitMart said Alvarez & Marsal will coordinate with the exchange’s legal advisers to review BitMart’s assets, financial position, stakeholder issues, and potential routes forward. The review will also assess proposals submitted by third parties, though BitMart did not identify them.
Key takeaways
BitMart named Alvarez & Marsal as financial adviser, but did not release an asset-and-recovery plan alongside the appointment.
The review is expected to cover assets, finances, stakeholder issues, and third-party proposals—details investors and claimants are currently seeking.
BitMart plans to launch a dedicated web portal within five working days to gather user feedback, with further updates rolling out over three weeks.
Echo Base, an ad hoc committee of claimholders, praised the step but criticized the lack of concrete disclosures tied to recovery and withdrawals.
Advisor appointment comes without a published roadmap
BitMart’s Wednesday update framed the appointment as part of its effort to meet its own timetable for providing a clearer picture of what comes next. Yet readers looking for concrete information—such as an inventory of assets, a recovery estimate, or a customer withdrawal schedule—were left waiting.
Echo Base, which has been organizing an ad hoc committee of BitMart claimholders, characterized the decision as BitMart’s most encouraging move since July. Still, Echo Base’s CEO Roshan Dharia said the update amounted to “an advisor appointment and two new deadlines,” without accompanying disclosures that claimants have been requesting.
“What arrived was an advisor appointment and two new deadlines, with no reserve position, no asset inventory, no recovery estimate and no withdrawal timetable,” Roshan Dharia, CEO of Echo Base, told Cointelegraph.
What Alvarez & Marsal will assess
Under BitMart’s announcement, Alvarez & Marsal’s work will focus on evaluating BitMart’s situation from both a financial and strategic angle. According to the exchange, the adviser will partner with BitMart’s legal advisers to examine the company’s assets and financial position, consider stakeholder-related issues, and explore possible paths forward.
BitMart also said the process would consider proposals from unidentified third parties. For users and claimants, the practical implication is that the outcome may not be confined to a single restructuring approach; instead, it could incorporate alternatives submitted by external parties, pending the results of the adviser’s review.
The exchange did not provide additional detail on how quickly the assessment will translate into specific outcomes such as withdrawal prioritization, recovery targets, or a formal restructuring filing.
User feedback portal and rolling updates
In addition to the appointment, BitMart said it will create a dedicated web portal within five working days to collect user feedback on its action plan and future direction. BitMart indicated that updates on the feedback process and action plan would be delivered on a rolling basis over the following three weeks.
This signals an attempt to broaden input beyond claimholders and stakeholders already engaged with the exchange’s internal processes. But the sequence also raises the question of whether user feedback will directly inform the most critical next steps—such as timelines for access to funds—rather than serving as a consultative layer before detailed decisions are released.
Scrutiny since the July wind-down announcement
BitMart’s latest move comes after intense scrutiny of its financial position and handling of customer assets since it announced a wind-down on July 26. Coverage by Cointelegraph noted that users reported withdrawal delays following the wind-down announcement, which contributed to growing concern among traders, investors, and claimants.
Despite those mounting concerns, neither BitMart nor Alvarez & Marsal responded to Cointelegraph’s requests for comment on the story.
For market participants following the case, the key tension remains the gap between process updates and the operational information users need most—confirmation of reserves or asset inventory, an expectation for recovery, and an actionable withdrawal timetable. While appointing a well-known financial adviser can be part of a legitimate restructuring workflow, the credibility of that workflow depends on measurable progress and transparent disclosures, particularly when customer access to funds is at issue.
What to watch next
The immediate watch item is whether BitMart’s feedback portal and the announced rolling updates will culminate in concrete disclosures about assets, reserves, and timelines. With Alvarez & Marsal now involved, claimants and users should pay close attention to when the exchange moves from an assessment phase to publishing verifiable milestones—especially any withdrawal-related schedule or recovery estimate that addresses the concerns Echo Base highlighted.
This article was originally published as BitMart Misses Roadmap Deadline, Names Financial Adviser on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto often markets itself as an open ledger where everything can be checked—yet the industry’s history is also packed with missing identities, unresolved thefts, and disappearing funds. From Bitcoin’s origin myth to high-profile exchange collapses and personal stories tied to key loss, the biggest mysteries endure not because they’re unobservable, but because the answers remain incomplete.
A recent roundup highlights ten lingering questions that still lack definitive resolution—from “who” authored Bitcoin’s earliest work to “where” certain assets ultimately went. Even when investigators trace portions of movements, the full picture is often still out of reach.
Key takeaways
Satoshi Nakamoto remains unidentified despite major investigative claims, including a prominent 2026 New York Times report naming Adam Back as a leading candidate.
Early Bitcoin holdings are still partly unexplained, including the “Patoshi” miner theory and the unknown remainder of funds tied to Mt. Gox.
FTX’s alleged post-bankruptcy theft was reported at roughly $415 million, yet the perpetrator’s identity is still not established in the public record.
Several mysteries involve key access rather than lost chains: cases like James Howells show that Bitcoin can remain on-chain even when keys are unrecoverable.
Some stories intertwine with criminal allegations, such as QuadrigaCX, OneCoin’s Ruja Ignatova, and the unresolved circumstances around Nikolai Mushegian’s death.
Bitcoin’s origin stories still don’t add up
The most famous mystery—who created Bitcoin—dates back more than 17 years. The Bitcoin white paper was published in 2008, the genesis block was mined in January 2009, and the figure associated with the “Satoshi Nakamoto” name appeared active in early development before vanishing from public view around 2010.
Over the years, investigators and writers have circulated numerous candidates, ranging from cryptographers to early developers. In April 2026, The New York Times published an investigation that put British cryptographer Adam Back forward as its leading candidate, citing similarities in writing, shared cryptographic interests, Back’s work on Hashcash (which is referenced in the Bitcoin white paper), and other circumstantial connections. Back has denied the allegation.
Other notable claims have included Peter Todd and Hal Finney among historical suspects, and Craig Wright as a self-proclaimed creator who was reportedly ruled by a UK court not to be Satoshi. There are also fringe theories, including online speculation tied to newly released Epstein files; however, the article notes there is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Jeffrey Epstein was Satoshi.
From “Patoshi” to Mt. Gox: missing coins and partial answers
Another early-epoch Bitcoin mystery focuses on who mined a large stash attributed to a single operator. In 2013, blockchain researcher Sergio Lerner reportedly discovered a pattern in how the earliest blocks were mined and linked it to a miner he later dubbed “Patoshi.” Lerner estimated the holder controlled about 1.1 million BTC across roughly 22,000 blocks, making the entity—if the theory is correct—one of the largest Bitcoin holders. The account remains unproven, but it is presented as one of the strongest analytical links connecting early mining behavior to the era’s most influential identity, whether or not that identity is actually Satoshi.
Mt. Gox’s collapse remains another unresolved case with real-world consequences. When the exchange failed in February 2014, it initially claimed around 850,000 BTC had disappeared. Later, Mt. Gox reportedly found about 200,000 BTC in wallets it previously believed were empty. What happened to the rest is still unclear.
Even after more than a decade, creditors have begun receiving some returns, but the “missing” portion hasn’t been completely accounted for. The article references investigative claims and allegations tied to hacking and laundering, including US prosecutors’ assertions that Russian nationals stole and laundered about 647,000 BTC. Yet the broader question—who took the coins, how and when it occurred end-to-end, and where all remaining funds ended up—remains unanswered in full.
Exchange collapses and “missing keys” shape modern crypto mysteries
Some mysteries are about crime; others are about custody and control. The QuadrigaCX story, for example, turned on the claim that founder Gerald Cotten died in December 2018 and left the exchange unable to access customer crypto because private keys were allegedly unrecoverable. A later investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission reportedly concluded that Cotten transferred millions of client funds to personal accounts and used client assets to cover trading losses and expenses.
That finding reframed the mystery from “lost keys at the bottom of a grave” to an account of internal misuse—though it still leaves room for questions about the exact mechanics of the transfers and what, if anything, could have been recovered earlier.
Similarly, the disappearance of large sums after the FTX bankruptcy filing continues to be discussed as an open question of responsibility. After FTX filed for bankruptcy, digital assets began leaving the company’s wallets. According to reporting cited in the piece, about $415 million in crypto was reported stolen. US authorities later seized hundreds of millions in assets linked to the case, and investigators have traced parts of the movements. However, the article emphasizes that the attacker’s identity has not been publicly resolved.
Personal disappearances and “forever on-chain” losses
Not every mystery involves purely technical puzzles. The FBI still lists Ruja Ignatova, founder of OneCoin, as a top fugitive. According to the article, the FBI says the scheme defrauded victims worldwide of more than $4 billion and offers a reward of up to $5 million for information leading to arrest and conviction. Ignatova disappeared after traveling in October 2017, was added to the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list in 2022, and the FBI maintains she remains at large, describing her as “well-funded” and “well-connected” in a later update.
Other cases show how crypto can make mistakes permanent in a different way. Welsh IT worker James Howells is tied to a long-running attempt to recover a hard drive containing Bitcoin keys. The article says Howells insists the drive ended up in a landfill and that he pursued excavation plans for years, though a High Court judge ruled in January 2025 that he had no realistic prospect of succeeding. The Bitcoin itself, importantly, is still present on the blockchain—accessible only if the keys can be found—illustrating a central tension in self-custody: the ledger may be transparent, but the ability to spend depends on the private keys.
In the DeFi era, the DAO hack from 2016 also remains unresolved. The article describes how an attacker exploited a vulnerability in The DAO’s smart contract to siphon more than 3.6 million ETH into a child DAO before the attack stopped. The attacker was never identified. A later claim by Laura Shin connected the attacker to Austrian programmer Toby Hoenisch, but he denied it and reportedly was never charged. The event reshaped Ethereum’s development and helped set the stage for Ethereum Classic, underscoring how disputes about immutability and governance remain practical—not just philosophical.
Finally, the piece includes a mystery tied to the death of early MakerDAO developer and Balancer co-founder Nikolai Mushegian. He was found dead off Condado Beach in Puerto Rico in October 2022, and local police said strong currents were responsible. But the article highlights that Mushegian had posted alarming messages on Twitter shortly before his death, warning of a possible assassination and alleging involvement by intelligence agencies and others. The Puerto Rico Justice Department reportedly investigated for almost a year and determined no criminal involvement. Still, his online warnings leave unanswered questions about what happened in his final hours.
When funds move to “burn” addresses, the trail can still go cold
Some mysteries are deliberately designed to end the path to recovery. In May 2026, the article says someone sent 107 BTC (reported as worth about $8.5 million at the time referenced) to a Bitcoin address from which the coins were rendered unspendable—effectively destroying them. It also notes that the coins had been acquired around 2014 when Bitcoin traded below $600, making the timing especially unusual given later price appreciation.
The article adds a further complication: one of five wallets reportedly sent about 20 BTC—around $1 million—to what appeared to be a large crypto custodian in March, with roughly the same amount returning three weeks later before the 107 BTC were ultimately burned. The sequence suggests interaction between multiple entities, but without a verified explanation, the motive remains speculative.
For readers, the common thread is that crypto’s transparency doesn’t automatically produce certainty: transactions are visible, but identities, intent, and final custody often remain obscure. The next developments to watch are the cases where authorities, auditors, or on-chain investigators can connect partial traces into complete narratives—especially for large losses where public reporting ends before accountability does.
This article was originally published as Top 10 Unresolved Crypto Mysteries Still Without Answers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ninth edition proceeds as planned, bringing the industry together as the sector moves through a period of rapid platform and technology change.
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Dubai’s business calendar picks up pace after the summer lull, and this September, the global trading and fintech community comes together at Forex Expo Dubai, taking place 22-23 September 2026 at Dubai World Trade Centre, Halls 1-5.
What Attendees Can Expect
Across the five halls, the event brings together more than 250 exhibitors and 150 speakers, traders, introducing brokers, investors, brokerages, liquidity providers, payment providers and trading-technology firms — building on an edition that already holds a Guinness World Record for attendance at a forex exhibition.
“Preparations for this year’s event are on track, and the dates and venue remain unchanged,” said Niyaz Mohammed, Commercial Director at HQMENA. “Sponsors and exhibitors who’ve been with us before are back this year, and we’re seeing new brands join alongside them. Everything is moving as scheduled, and we’re excited for what this edition has in store.”
Beyond the exhibition floor, conference sessions will cover affiliate models built around client quality over deposit volume, portfolios designed to hold up across shifting policy and commodity regimes, and what trader behaviour data reveals about platform and risk design.
An Expo Built for Different Goals
The event introduces dedicated experiences for Verified Traders, Introducing Brokers and Affiliates, helping exhibitors connect with audiences based on their role and interests. Eligible attendees also have a shot at winning a share of 160 grams of 24-karat gold in the Gold Lucky Draw.* Private meeting zones, live product demonstrations and side events before and after the expo extend the experience further.
*T&Cs apply.
Dubai’s business and events calendar continues to run through September without disruption, and exhibitors, sponsors and attendees will be kept updated through official channels in the lead-up to the event.
About Forex Expo Dubai
Forex Expo Dubai is one of the region’s leading gatherings for the global online trading and fintech industry, bringing together brokerages, fintech innovators, institutional traders, investors, payment solution providers, IBs, affiliates and online trading technology companies under one roof. The expo serves as a platform for industry dialogue, business networking, technology showcases, and market-focused conversations shaping the future of modern finance.
This article was originally published as Forex Expo Dubai to Take Place as Scheduled on 22–23 September 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy, the largest corporate holder of Bitcoin, did not add to its BTC treasury this week. Instead, the company used part of its capital to repurchase $176.3 million worth of its preferred STRC stock, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
At the same time, Strategy said it has expanded a separate Digital Credit Securities repurchase program to a total of $2 billion—an adjustment that signals continued emphasis on capital management even as its Bitcoin buying pauses.
Key takeaways
Strategy repurchased 1.8 million shares of STRC preferred stock for $176.3 million between Aug. 31 and Sept. 7, per an SEC Form 8-K.
During the same period, Strategy reported no new Bitcoin purchases; its treasury remains at 845,050 BTC purchased for $63.6 billion at an average cost of $75,412 per BTC.
The company doubled its Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program to $2 billion.
STRC trades below its $100 par value, which can affect Strategy’s ability to raise capital via STRC sales—potentially influencing dividend pressure.
While Strategy paused buys, other corporate treasuries—such as Strive and Capital B—announced sizable Bitcoin acquisitions.
Strategy pauses BTC buying and turns to STRC repurchases
In an SEC filing released Tuesday, Strategy disclosed that it repurchased its STRC preferred shares instead of conducting fresh Bitcoin spot purchases. The company said it bought back 1.8 million STRC shares for an aggregate of $176.3 million over the period from Aug. 31 through Sept. 7.
Strategy’s Bitcoin treasury currently totals 845,050 BTC, acquired for $63.6 billion and reported at an average purchase price of $75,412 per BTC. The absence of new BTC purchases marks a shift from the prior activity noted in earlier reporting: Cointelegraph previously described Strategy’s first Bitcoin acquisition since mid-June, including a $370 million purchase.
For investors tracking corporate Bitcoin strategies, this kind of “pause with repurchase” dynamic matters because it reflects how management balances three competing needs: maintaining BTC exposure, supporting dividend obligations, and managing liquidity. When acquisitions slow, the spotlight often moves to how the company funds distributions and whether it can keep financing its treasury through preferred-share structures.
Why STRC’s discount could tighten funding options
Alongside the repurchase details, market pricing provides additional context for Strategy’s capital approach. The STRC preferred stock was trading around $97.70 in premarket activity on Tuesday, the report notes—about a 2.3% discount to its intended $100 par value. In contrast, Strategy’s Nasdaq-listed MSTR common stock was down more than 3% at last look, according to Yahoo Finance.
STRC is one of the main instruments Strategy uses to raise funds that ultimately support its Bitcoin accumulation. Because the preferred shares trade below par value, selling them may not generate as much capital per share as Strategy would receive if the shares traded at or above par. That pricing dynamic can constrain the company’s ability to raise incremental liquidity through STRC issuance and may increase pressure to maintain—or potentially raise—dividend rates through other means.
Strategy previously laid out a capital framework intended to preserve Bitcoin exposure while allowing Bitcoin sales to fund dividends. In June 29 coverage, Cointelegraph reported that Strategy unveiled this “capital framework” and increased the annual dividend rate on its STRC preferred stock to 12%. The current repurchase activity, combined with the reported discount to par, highlights the balancing act between funding dividends and maintaining the BTC treasury.
Digital Credit Securities repurchase program expands to $2 billion
Beyond STRC, Strategy also updated its capital return strategy. The company said it doubled the size of its Digital Credit Securities Repurchase Program to $2 billion.
While Bitcoin buying and preferred-share repurchases are typically the headline items for Strategy, programmatic repurchases of other securities can influence how much cash remains available for acquisitions, how debt or credit exposure is managed, and how quickly the company can respond to market conditions. For shareholders, these repurchase programs are often viewed as part of a broader approach: keeping capital flexible enough to act when Bitcoin buying opportunities align with financing and dividend needs.
Other corporate treasuries keep adding BTC
Strategy’s pause in new Bitcoin purchases came as other public corporate buyers continued accumulating. The contrast underscores a key feature of the corporate BTC landscape: even when one major player slows down, the broader sector may still be active.
According to CEO Matt Cole, Strive—described in the report as the fifth-largest corporate Bitcoin treasury—acquired 1,375 BTC for $109 million. That purchase brought Strive’s total holdings to 24,531 BTC, with an average cost of $79,281 per BTC. Cole shared the information via X on Monday, as referenced by the report.
France-listed Bitcoin treasury Capital B also revealed a new purchase. The report states that Capital B bought $25 million worth of Bitcoin on Monday—its largest acquisition in nearly a year—lifting its holdings and helping it move ahead of H100 Group among publicly traded BTC holders, based on the framing of the original coverage.
For traders and long-term holders, these parallel moves matter for sentiment and for measuring how concentrated corporate demand may be. If Strategy momentarily steps back, investors may look to competitors for confirmation that institutional-style Bitcoin buying remains steady across the category.
What to watch next is whether Strategy resumes BTC acquisitions after this repurchase-focused week, and how the discount-to-par behavior of STRC influences future funding capacity and dividend decisions—especially if market pricing makes STRC issuance less effective.
This article was originally published as Strategy Passes Bitcoin Purchase to Reacquire $176M STRC Preferred Shares on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

For many crypto believers, retirement planning isn’t about giving up Bitcoin—it’s about deciding whether staking a meaningful portion of future spending power on a volatile asset is actually prudent. A growing debate is emerging at the intersection of personal finance and crypto’s place in mainstream portfolios, with retirement researchers and market participants increasingly focused on the same question: how much (if any) should belong in a long-term retirement allocation?
While some retirement industry professionals argue there is a “sweet spot” near minimal exposure—or even none at all—others say Bitcoin can be integrated more thoughtfully, including as a potential replacement for part of equity risk. The practical challenge is not only whether crypto can deliver returns, but whether investors can survive large drawdowns at the exact moment they need stability most.
Key takeaways
Public sentiment remains cautious: a National Institute on Retirement Security survey found 77% of Americans view cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans as risky.
Industry views diverge sharply, ranging from MIT finance professor Jonathan Parker’s “yes, zero” stance to portfolio designers who suggest small Bitcoin allocations for risk-tolerant investors.
Financial planners often frame crypto as a small, controllable risk sleeve—commonly capped around 5%—rather than a core retirement holding.
Retirement timelines change the math: volatility that can be absorbed during earning years may become difficult for those near retirement.
Institutions appear to be gaining exposure through regulated vehicles and crypto-adjacent public equities, even when direct participation is limited.
Americans see retirement crypto as risky—so why is exposure growing?
Despite crypto’s increasing visibility in finance, trust is not universal. According to a survey by the National Institute on Retirement Security, 77% of Americans consider cryptocurrency in workplace retirement plans risky. That skepticism exists even as regulators, asset managers, and major institutions have gradually expanded access to crypto-related products over recent years.
BlackRock has argued that a modest Bitcoin allocation—on the order of 1% to 2%—can be reasonable in a diversified portfolio for investors who can tolerate volatility, while Fidelity has suggested higher ranges (2% to 5%) may improve outcomes. The underlying premise in both cases is similar: the position is not meant to dominate retirement planning, but to introduce upside potential while constraining downside.
For investors, the key issue is that these proposals depend on behavior as much as math. A small allocation may be manageable in theory, but retirement is when emotions and cash-flow needs often become least forgiving.
“Yes, zero” versus a capped allocation approach
MIT finance professor Jonathan Parker, whose work spans portfolio choice and retirement finance, is notably blunt about where crypto fits. In the reporting, Parker argues the answer is “Yes, zero,” emphasizing that crypto is not an instrument that naturally serves the role many retirement portfolios are designed to fulfill.
The position contrasts with guidance from some financial planners who treat Bitcoin as an adjustable component within an otherwise conventional asset mix. Ryan Firth, founder of Mercer Street Personal Financial Services and a planner specializing in digital assets, describes Bitcoin not as a stand-alone retirement bet, but as something that could potentially replace a portion of stock exposure rather than simply adding another layer of risk.
Firth tells the magazine that Bitcoin may offer “higher return potential than stocks but with more volatility.” His rule of thumb is that crypto should not exceed 5% of an investor’s investable assets, with a conservative framing: invest only what you could realistically afford to lose.
That advice highlights the difference between “conviction” and “concentration.” Even if someone believes Bitcoin is important to the future of money, retirement planning still requires controlling how much of their lifestyle depends on a single, hard-to-predict market outcome.
Institutions look beyond Bitcoin as a core retirement asset
One reason this debate is moving from academic to practical is that institutional investors are increasingly finding ways to gain exposure. Public filings show pension funds and other large investors holding regulated spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Others seek exposure through publicly traded companies tied closely to the crypto ecosystem.
CalPERS, described as the largest public pension fund in the United States, has disclosed an investment in Strategy—identified in the reporting as a major corporate Bitcoin treasury holder—within an index-oriented public equity portfolio. CalSTRS, the largest educator-only pension fund, tells the magazine it has not made direct cryptocurrency investments, but it has invested in firms “some might consider crypto companies,” including Coinbase, a publicly traded company that operates a cryptocurrency exchange platform.
As presented in the article, the nuance is significant: institutional interest may not always be about making Bitcoin a central retirement asset. Instead, some investors may be positioning their portfolios to participate in crypto industry growth or to capture returns through regulated structures and publicly traded equities.
Why timing and withdrawals matter more than long-run belief
Bitcoin’s risk profile is not only about whether prices rise over time, but about whether investors can remain invested through severe drawdowns. The reporting draws a clear line between long investment horizons and the vulnerability created when retirement withdrawals begin.
Bill Bengen—credited for research behind the widely cited 4% retirement withdrawal rule—argues that capital preservation should be the primary priority for retirement portfolios. In the piece, Bengen recommends limiting volatile assets like Bitcoin to no more than 5% in order to “help prevent a disaster.”
Firth also emphasizes that the real question is not simply if Bitcoin recovers, but whether investors have the capacity to tolerate waiting. His concern, as quoted, centers on whether people will stay disciplined when prices inevitably fall, and what happens if the asset’s long-term outcome diverges from expectations.
That “behavioral resilience” point is often overlooked in purely theoretical allocation debates. Retirement planning introduces a new constraint: spending needs can force investors to sell at the worst possible moment, turning a temporary drawdown into permanent damage to future purchasing power.
What if the investment thesis is wrong?
Even among committed holders, a common stress test is unavoidable: what happens if the core thesis fails. The reporting highlights the concern that retirement savings could become too dependent on one idea being correct—whether that means Bitcoin declining under future risks or another technology displacing it.
Parker’s broader critique aligns with that stress test. He suggests investors in retirement should not treat crypto as cash-like peer-to-peer currency, and should not treat it like a substitute for holding cash either. In the article, Parker argues that currencies are for transacting rather than investing, and that investors should prefer assets tied to economic activity that pay interest, coupons, or dividends.
Importantly, Parker’s alternative is not a demand that investors avoid crypto-related exposure altogether. He proposes that those who want exposure to crypto industry success or failure should consider owning equity or debt of companies generating revenue from the sector, rather than holding Bitcoin directly.
Belief and bet don’t have to be the same thing
The underlying message across the different perspectives is that belief in crypto’s long-term role does not automatically translate into a justified retirement allocation. As Firth frames it, crypto does not have to be “all-or-nothing.” Investors may still support the broader thesis for technology or market structure without letting one volatile asset determine whether they can fund decades of spending.
What to watch next is how retirement-focused guidance continues to evolve as more regulated crypto vehicles become familiar to institutions and as lawmakers and regulators weigh in on how (and where) digital asset exposure can fit within retirement accounts—especially during the moments when withdrawals turn portfolio volatility into real-life risk.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Volatility Raises Questions for Retirement Planning on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hunter Biden says he is preparing to launch a new memecoin called LAPTOP, using as its namesake the laptop that has been a long-running subject of political and legal controversy.
In a post on X on Monday, Hunter Biden shared the token ticker and indicated a Wednesday launch for the memecoin. The move comes as U.S. crypto legislation and high-profile political crypto projects continue to draw public attention.
Key takeaways
LAPTOP is scheduled to launch on Wednesday, after Hunter Biden posted its ticker on X.
Reporting from The Wall Street Journal says 20% of the one-billion token supply would be directed to substack subscribers, mailing-list members, and investors in Donald Trump’s memecoin Official Trump (TRUMP).
The memecoin is tied to the “infamous laptop” story—an issue that has been widely revisited in U.S. politics and has been subject to legal action involving privacy claims.
According to the same reporting, founders would hold 30% of the supply and could burn up to 30% depending on future conditions.
Any launch would land amid renewed congressional momentum toward the CLARITY Act, with a Senate cloture vote set for Sept. 15.
How Hunter Biden frames the memecoin launch
Hunter Biden’s announcement points to a deliberate blend of crypto marketing and political narrative. The token’s ticker—$LAPTOP—signals that the memecoin’s central theme is the computer associated with allegations surrounding his family during the 2020 election cycle.
That laptop story has remained prominent in parts of the media ecosystem, and its existence and contents have been discussed repeatedly in connection with privacy-related disputes. Biden, according to the article’s background, has pursued two lawsuits tied to privacy laws connected to the laptop narrative.
While the memecoin announcement itself does not resolve the underlying political controversy, it does show how persistent those narratives remain—and how they can be repackaged into tokenized communities.
Token distribution, supply plan, and conditions for potential burns
Coverage from The Wall Street Journal reports additional details about how the token supply may be allocated. The outlet said Biden plans to allocate 20% of the total one-billion token supply to:
substack subscribers
members of a mailing list
investors in President Donald Trump’s memecoin, Official Trump (TRUMP)
TRUMP’s market performance has been under scrutiny as well; the same report states its value is down roughly 97% from its all-time high reached in January 2025.
The article also notes that the LAPTOP founders hold 30% of the token supply and that they could burn up to 30% of the memecoin supply depending on outcomes that include political and market milestones—such as a Democrat winning the presidency in 2028, Bitcoin reaching a new all-time high, and LAPTOP’s fully diluted value exceeding TRUMP.
For investors and traders, these kinds of conditional supply mechanics matter because they can influence perceived scarcity narratives—even when they depend on future events rather than immediate tokenomics. What remains unclear is how these conditions would be measured in practice, and how transparently they would be implemented once the token is live.
Why this timing could resonate with lawmakers
The announcement also arrives during a period when lawmakers are actively working on broader digital asset rules. The article points to U.S. Senate consideration of a comprehensive market structure bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, known as the CLARITY Act.
According to the provided information, the Senate is scheduled to hold a cloture vote on Sept. 15. A cloture vote is a procedural step that can be used to limit debate and move legislation toward a final vote.
Memecoins that are tied to major political figures and prominent political narratives can quickly become a stress test for regulators: they often combine marketing-driven community incentives with token distribution structures that resemble traditional fundraising dynamics, but without the same level of clarity investors may expect from regulated products.
Earlier coverage in the same ecosystem has also highlighted how politicians’ crypto projects continue to draw scrutiny and controversy, suggesting that legislators may face pressure to define how these tokens should be treated—especially when they appear to be aligned with political stakeholders.
Hunter Biden’s crypto posture and the contrast with World Liberty
Beyond the memecoin itself, the launch fits into a broader pattern described in the article: since Joe Biden left office in January 2025, Hunter Biden has increased his public rhetoric on crypto and blockchain.
The piece highlights criticism from Biden aimed at the Trump family’s involvement with the industry through World Liberty Financial. It cites Biden calling World Liberty “corruption at a scale we’ve never seen,” drawing comparisons to the defunct exchange FTX, and pointing to alleged ties to foreign governments such as the UAE.
It also references comments from June where Biden said “decentralized digital currency and the blockchain are the inevitable future.” In the context of a memecoin launch, those statements underscore an apparent tension: Biden can be both an outspoken critic of certain crypto-linked political enterprises and a promoter of the idea that blockchain networks will continue to expand.
What remains to be seen is how LAPTOP will be positioned once it launches—whether it remains primarily an attention-driven cultural token or evolves into something with more operational transparency that would better satisfy the standards lawmakers may be considering during the CLARITY Act process.
As Wednesday’s release approaches, readers should watch closely for whether the announced distribution and any proposed supply burns are documented clearly on-chain, and how the project’s mechanics are communicated—especially as U.S. regulators move toward potential market-structure rules in the coming weeks.
This article was originally published as WSJ: Biden’s Son Plans Memecoin Launch, to Reward Trump Holders on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Hunter Biden’s newly launched “LAPTOP” memecoin started trading on Wednesday with sharp losses, dropping 86.5% within the first 30 minutes. The token—issued on Ethereum layer-2 network Base—was trading at $26.88 at 12:30 pm UTC after opening at $199.50, according to CoinGecko, with the rollout accompanied by more than $2.5 million in early trading volume.
In response to backlash, Biden posted on X that the symbol used in an earlier attempt to “end” him had become one of “resilience, redemption and recovery.” He also urged skepticism toward memecoins and described President Donald Trump’s token as a “grift,” warning buyers not to expect him—or anyone else—to make LAPTOP more valuable.
Key takeaways
LAPTOP’s early price action was extremely volatile, falling 86.5% in its first 30 minutes after opening at $199.50.
The token is deployed on Base and, per CoinGecko, drew over $2.5 million in trading volume during the initial window.
Project disclosures describe LAPTOP as a digital collectible with no utility, voting rights, yield, or profit-sharing.
Tokenomics allocate 2% of the total supply to wallets that lost money on Trump-related tokens, with additional allocations tied to subscribers and future foundation discretion.
Base founder Jesse Pollak said Base made a “conscious decision” not to assist with the token’s design or promotion.
Launch chaos and a direct response to critics
The LAPTOP memecoin went live after Biden teased the token on X on Monday with a post featuring the ticker and a montage of media coverage related to the “laptop narrative.” The launch attracted immediate criticism from prominent online commentators, including digital investigator Stephen Findeisen (known as Coffeezilla), who called LAPTOP a “shitcoin” and urged people not to buy.
Despite the sharp selloff, the token quickly became a focal point in political crypto culture. Biden framed the launch as reclaiming a story connected to a MacBook reportedly left at a Delaware repair shop in 2019, with later allegations tied to emails and files published before the 2020 US presidential election. Trump allies used that material in attacks against Hunter Biden and his father, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden.
On Wednesday, Biden’s follow-up message addressed the backlash head-on. He acknowledged widespread cynicism about memecoins, characterized Trump’s crypto efforts as a “grift,” and said buyers should not assume he or anyone else can influence LAPTOP’s value upward.
What the disclosures say about utility—and what they don’t
Project documentation for LAPTOP, hosted as a disclosures PDF, presents the token as a digital collectible with no promised functionality. According to the disclosures, holders receive no utility and do not receive voting rights, yield, or profit-sharing. The token also has a fixed supply of 1 billion, with 350 million tokens circulating at launch.
These terms matter for traders because they clarify that the token’s economic rationale is not tied to revenue generation, staking incentives, or governance mechanics. In practice, memecoins typically rely on attention and liquidity rather than underlying product utility—something the disclosures explicitly align with.
Token allocation, “TRUMP-loss” airdrops, and future governance by discretion
The disclosures allocate 300 million tokens (30% of the total supply) to founders, including Biden. Those tokens are locked for six months and then vested monthly over the following 24 months. Another 30% of the supply is reserved for “political, cultural and crypto predictions,” with tokens burned if specified outcomes occur and released to charity if they do not.
A key point for supporters and skeptics alike is the project’s airdrop plan. The disclosures outline an initial airdrop representing 10% of the total supply. Within that initial allocation, 2% is reserved for wallets that lost money on TRUMP token-related activity, while 8% is earmarked for eligible subscribers to Biden’s “Where’s Hunter” Substack newsletter.
In addition, the disclosures describe a separate 10% future airdrop to be distributed at the foundation’s discretion. Combined, the disclosures suggest that 20% of the total supply is dedicated to airdrops, but the portion specifically linked to “TRUMP-loss” wallets is capped at 2%.
This structure creates an important asymmetry: while the narrative emphasizes reimbursement for those who lost money on TRUMP-related tokens, the explicit cap limits the scale of that outcome. Meanwhile, a meaningful portion remains subject to later discretion, which investors may want to monitor closely—especially if the project’s later criteria become contentious.
Base’s stance and the question of platform involvement
Even with the project deployed on Base, the network’s relationship to the token rollout appears intentionally limited. Base founder Jesse Pollak stated on X that the project contacted his team, but that Base made a “conscious decision” not to help with the token’s design or promotion.
That distinction may influence how readers interpret the launch: while Base hosts the token’s infrastructure, Pollak’s comments suggest it did not provide endorsement or development support. For participants, this is a reminder that token deployments can happen on a chain without the platform taking responsibility for the market outcomes or the promotional strategy surrounding the asset.
Cointelegraph reported that Biden did not respond to its query before publication.
As LAPTOP continues to trade, the next variables readers should watch are straightforward: how liquidity evolves after the initial dump, whether subsequent airdrop criteria and distributions follow the disclosures as written, and how the market reacts to the project’s founder-locked and vested supply schedule.
This article was originally published as Hunter Biden Laptop Row Spurs Memecoin Boom, Market Traders React on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Cardano is at an important point right now. The ADA price pushed above $0.22, reached $0.22303, and then quickly gave back the move. That rejection has put the bullish setup from the previous 4-hour chart under pressure.
For now, two levels matter most: $0.22 on the upside and $0.20 on the downside.
Key Takeaways
ADA faces stiff resistance at $0.22, having hit an all-time high of $0.22303 but later retreated to $0.218.
The 4-hour bullish configuration is under threat as ADA has not been able to stay above the resistance at $0.22045 and below the 9 EMA at $0.21964.
RSI fell to 49.95 on the 4-hour chart, indicating that short-term buying pressure has reduced.
The prior inverted head-and-shoulders pattern is still in play only if ADA can regain and sustain itself above $0.22.
A breakout above $0.22 will place ADA within the range of $0.24-$0.26, and the target of the pattern is about $0.34.
Support is at $0.20. A breakout below it will leave ADA vulnerable to a drop to $0.18-$0.16.
According to Glassnode data, ADA’s market cap ranged between $7.4 billion and $8.4 billion as the price ranged between $0.20 and $0.22.
ADA’s next significant move in price is expected through a breakout either above $0.22 or below $0.20.
ADA Price Struggles to Break $0.22
The ADA chart was checked, and there is a strong push by buyers to break the resistance level of $0.22. In the 4-hour chart, ADA moved from about $0.16 to $0.22303. The current candle started at $0.22155, moved to $0.22303, fell to $0.21742, and is now trading at $0.218. This has formed a very clear rejection at the resistance level of $0.22045. ADA is also below the 9 EMA at $0.21964.
RSI has the same story to tell. The 4-hour RSI dropped from 53.62 to 49.95 to come back below the 50 mark. Thus, in order for buyers to get back in control, ADA must rise above $0.22045 and then cross $0.22303.
Cardano 4H Chart
The Bullish Pattern Needs Confirmation
In a post on X, the 4-hour setup shows an inverted head-and-shoulders pattern. The head formed around $0.10-$0.12, while the right shoulder developed around $0.16-$0.18. The neckline was around $0.22.
$ADA printing a textbook inverted head & shoulders
The right shoulder is holding strong, with buyers defending the neckline around $0.22. Momentum is shifting bullish as price pushes into resistance
A clean breakout above the neckline could open the path toward the… pic.twitter.com/8dH7uBqY67
— Crypto With Gopal (@cryptowithgopal) September 9, 2026
That pattern gave bulls a potential measured target near $0.34. The calculation is straightforward: the distance from the $0.10 head to the $0.22 neckline is about $0.12. Adding that distance to $0.22 gives roughly $0.34.
But there is an important condition here. ADA needs to hold above the $0.22 neckline for that target to remain valid. The rejection toward $0.218 means the breakout has not been confirmed yet.
Daily Chart Keeps $0.2186 in Focus
The daily chart makes the $0.22 area even more important. ADA is trading around $0.2186, almost exactly at the marked resistance of $0.21861. This level has rejected price during previous attempts in May-June and August 2026.
Cardano 1D Chart
There are still some positive readings. ADA is above the daily 9 EMA at $0.21556, and RSI has climbed to 58.54 from 56.25. RSI is also below 70, so the market is not yet in overbought territory.
The bigger trend, however, remains bearish because ADA is still below the major descending resistance line. A daily close above $0.2186-$0.22 would therefore be much more important than a brief move above the level.
$0.20 Is the Level Bulls Cannot Lose
The Glassnode data also puts the $0.20 level firmly on the radar. The data shows ADA’s market cap moving between roughly $7.4 billion and $8.4 billion as the ADA price moved between $0.20 and $0.22. That’s about a $1 billion difference in market capitalization across a $0.02 price range.
Cardano’s Market Cap
For ADA, $0.20 is now the key support. In case of a defense of this level, the price may stay in the range of $0.20-$0.22 and try to resist once again. The breakdown of $0.20 will bring $0.18-$0.16 back into consideration. In case ADA manages to break through $0.22 and settle above it, the next levels to target will be $0.24-$0.26, $0.30 and possibly even $0.34.
Now, the price of ADA is stuck between the resistance and support levels. A confirmed breakout above $0.22 will boost the bulls’ hopes, while the breakdown of $0.20 will weaken them considerably.
This article was originally published as Cardano Price Faces Key Test At $0.22 After Failed Breakout on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japan’s Bitcoin treasury-focused firm Metaplanet is facing renewed scrutiny from shareholders after controversy erupted around the company’s “10th Series” executive option pool and the dilution mechanics tied to its ongoing BTC accumulation.
The dispute centers on how the pool was structured—set at 20% of fully diluted shares and designed to expand automatically as Metaplanet issued new shares to finance additional Bitcoin buys—prompting critics to argue that management’s incentives increased at the expense of existing holders.
Key takeaways
Shareholders have challenged Metaplanet’s 10th Series executive option pool, arguing its built-in expansion led to significant dilution.
Metaplanet says the pool was frozen at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18, but critics claim the earlier growth still magnified dilution for existing shareholders.
Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended the incentive design in posts on X, while pseudonymous shareholder “Bitcoin Pharaoh” alleged personal benefit from options and raised concerns about fairness.
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich said the company would review governance and compensation policies, after an update that the CEO exercised 92,000 shares from the 10th Series pool.
Industry commentator Matthew Sigel said further exercise rights from the 10th Series should be frozen and replaced with a shareholder-approved plan tied primarily to BTC per fully diluted share.
Why the 10th Series option pool became contentious
Backlash intensified as multiple Metaplanet shareholders questioned the design and outcomes of the company’s 10th Series executive option pool. According to the dispute described by shareholders on X, the pool was established to represent 20% of fully diluted shares and to automatically expand as new shares were issued to fund Metaplanet’s Bitcoin accumulation.
Critics point to the scale of the growth. One shareholder claim summarized the change as the pool expanding from roughly 46 million shares to 319.5 million shares. While that characterization reflects the objections raised in social posts, Metaplanet’s response provides the key operational detail: the company said it froze the pool at 319.5 million shares on Aug. 18.
In a Tuesday X post, Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended the model, arguing that allowing management a 20% slice of the cap table over five years “isn’t some crazy number.” Bailey also wrote that he has been invested in Metaplanet “since day zero,” framing his support as long-term alignment rather than short-term compensation.
Responses from Metaplanet and shareholder pressure for transparency
Following the public debate, some shareholders said they are asking Metaplanet to cancel additional shares created from the 10th Series changes and to provide more transparency around future decisions. The criticism is not only about dilution in theory, but about the sequence of how the pool expanded while new share issuance financed Bitcoin purchases.
Metaplanet acknowledged in an Aug. 18 notice that expanding the share pool “amplifies the dilution borne by existing shareholders.” That admission is central to the contention: even if a freeze stops further automatic expansion, shareholders argue the damage had already accrued.
One pseudonymous shareholder, “Bitcoin Pharaoh,” also alleged that Bailey personally benefited from Metaplanet stock options, claiming Bailey received 300,000 options at a strike price of 105 Japanese yen when Metaplanet’s stock was reportedly trading at 510 yen. The allegation was presented as part of the shareholder critique, emphasizing perceived incentive misalignment and potential conflicts around board-related roles. Bailey did not provide a detailed rebuttal within the text provided, but he did publicly defend the overarching executive option structure.
CEO Gerovich: governance review and the 10th Series exercise update
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich said the company would review governance and compensation policies and share updates once the work is complete. In a Sunday X post, Gerovich also sought to distance himself from shareholder discussions tied to MMXX Ventures, explaining that he is a significant but non-majority shareholder in MMXX’s parent company and that he does not hold an executive role.
Separately, on Aug. 31, Metaplanet revealed that the CEO exercised 92,000 shares from the 10th Series executive options pool. The exercise detail matters in this context because it illustrates that the incentive program in question moved from a theoretical cap-table mechanic into completed transactions tied to company performance and/or capital-market actions.
As the controversy escalated, Metaplanet’s earlier documentation and the Aug. 18 freeze appear to be the company’s attempt to address the immediate dilution concern by halting further pool expansion. However, critics continue to argue that transparency and fairness still require broader remedy—particularly if earlier expansions increased dilution beyond what holders expected.
External calls to freeze remaining rights and replace the structure
Outside commentary has added pressure by reframing what a better incentive approach could look like. VanEck’s head of digital asset research, Matthew Sigel, argued in a Wednesday X post that Metaplanet should “freeze” further exercise rights from the 10th Series option pool. Sigel also suggested holders voluntarily surrender the excess rights and weigh additional options tied to shares that were already exercised.
Most notably, Sigel proposed replacing “Series 10” with a shareholder-approved five-year incentive plan tied primarily to BTC per fully diluted share. That suggestion speaks directly to the core criticism: that tying the incentive to a cap-table percentage, rather than directly to Bitcoin ownership metrics normalized by fully diluted share count, can create outcomes where management’s equity gain does not map cleanly to shareholders’ contribution after dilution effects are considered.
At the time of Cointelegraph’s report, it indicated a request for comment from Metaplanet on whether the company would consider freezing remaining shares in the executive pool. The market also appeared to react to the debate and corporate updates: Metaplanet shares closed higher in Wednesday’s Tokyo trading, trimming their five-day decline to roughly 16.3%, according to Yahoo Finance.
For investors, the next key signal to watch is whether Metaplanet’s announced governance review results in concrete changes—particularly around whether any remaining 10th Series rights will be frozen and whether a new, shareholder-approved incentive framework is put forward and clearly tied to Bitcoin per fully diluted share rather than automatic cap-table expansion.
This article was originally published as Metaplanet Stock Plan Draws Shareholder Backlash, CEO Responds on MMXX on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin appears to be showing signs of a recovery in on-chain profitability despite the broader market still wrestling with uncertainty around where this cycle’s lows may ultimately form. A widely watched measure—spent output profit ratio (SOPR)—has remained above its breakeven level for an unusually long stretch in 2026, echoing patterns typically seen earlier during bull-market rebounds.
At the same time, analyst David Puell cautioned in a recent interview that SOPR’s improvement may not be enough by itself to conclude a bear-market floor is already in place. His view suggests that investors should respect the possibility of additional downside even as on-chain behavior turns more constructive.
Key takeaways
According to CryptoQuant, Bitcoin’s SOPR has stayed above the breakeven threshold of 1 since Aug. 19, currently around 1.002.
The current three-week run is the longest bullish SOPR streak of 2026, a pattern often associated with early bull-market recovery conditions.
Checkonchain’s wallet cohort analysis suggests UTXO profitability is beginning to resemble bull-market dynamics, including more profit-taking that doesn’t immediately flip back to losses.
Despite the SOPR rebound, David Puell says investors still need more evidence before assuming the next bear-market floor is already set.
SOPR’s longest bullish streak in 2026
Crypto analytics platform CryptoQuant reports that Bitcoin’s SOPR has been above its breakeven level of 1 since Aug. 19. SOPR evaluates whether coins spent on-chain are moving at a gain or a loss relative to the price basis at their prior transaction—so values above 1 generally indicate that spent outputs are more often being realized in profit.
In the current reading, SOPR sits near 1.002, a level slightly above breakeven but important because the metric tends to oscillate tightly around 1 for extended periods. What stands out here is duration: the measure has remained bullish for three full weeks, marking the longest such streak recorded so far this year.
That timing matters for traders because SOPR doesn’t just reflect a one-off bounce—it can signal whether the market is transitioning from “rally then sell” behavior typical of bear phases to “buy-the-dip” patterns often observed in earlier bull recoveries.
Wallet cohort analysis points to a profit-taking shift
SOPR can be further divided by wallet cohort, helping distinguish whether profitability is improving primarily among newer participants or whether longer-term holders are also spending in ways that suggest broad-based recovery. As noted by CryptoQuant-linked commentary, breaking SOPR down by investor groups can clarify whether on-chain gains are being concentrated or becoming more generalized.
Building on this type of analysis, Checkonchain highlighted short-term holder (STH) SOPR—tracking profitability for coins held for up to six months without selling. In a weekend post on X, Checkonchain said the market’s structure is starting to resemble early bull-market recovery behavior:
“In bear markets, rallies back into profit tend to get sold. In bull markets, short sharp moves below break-even tend to become buy-the-dip setups. The current structure is starting to look more like those early bull-market recoveries.”
The implication is not that drawdowns are impossible, but that the market may be failing to revert quickly to loss-making conditions after moving back toward profitability. If that continues, it can strengthen the case that the market is shifting toward more sustainable accumulation rather than transient bounce dynamics.
David Puell: SOPR helps, but downside risk remains
Even with the improving SOPR trend, David Puell—an investor and portfolio manager known for creating the Puell multiple indicator—stressed in an interview with CryptoQuant released on Sept. 4 that investors should not assume the next bear-market bottom has already been established.
Puell’s stance came as the BTC/USD market has been holding a local range around $80,000. He argued that more evidence is required before changing his long-term bias toward an already-confirmed recovery. When asked about how Bitcoin’s 25% August upside might play out heading into Q4, Puell suggested further upside is the less likely outcome and framed his position as a downside risk.
In his words, “In our view, as of now, we leave it as a downside risk.” He also emphasized what he sees as the key prerequisite for altering his outlook: SOPR needs to remain above 1 for a longer period, alongside the broader requirement that investors are “realizing profits consistently without price going back to a new low.”
Importantly, Puell’s thesis doesn’t rely solely on on-chain profitability. He pointed to a technical requirement as well—Bitcoin needs to start printing a sequence of higher highs and higher lows on weekly time frames. Cointelegraph previously reported that this pattern remains absent on weekly charts, reinforcing the idea that on-chain improvement may currently be running ahead of price structure.
From “bear market over” to “prove it”: what to watch next
The SOPR recovery also follows earlier comments from CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju, who—based on readings from the platform’s Bull/Bear Market Cycle Indicator—described the bear market as already “over.” That earlier claim, contrasted with Puell’s more cautious requirements, highlights a recurring tension in crypto market analysis: on-chain signals can improve before price confirms the new regime, and different indicators can lead at different speeds.
What readers should focus on now is whether the SOPR streak turns into a sustained shift rather than a temporary excursion. Puell effectively sets a bar: SOPR must hold above breakeven for longer while price does not revisit fresh cycle lows. Traders and investors should also watch for whether weekly price action begins to display the higher-highs and higher-lows structure Puell says is still missing.
If SOPR remains bullish and weekly structure eventually strengthens, the current on-chain pattern could transition from “early recovery resemblance” to a stronger confirmation of a cycle change. If instead SOPR fades back toward losses while price fails to build trend, the market may be demonstrating the kind of bear-market volatility where profit-taking doesn’t last.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin SOPR Hits Longest Profit Run of 2026 as Bear-Market View Shifts on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The crypto industry has launched a renewed push in support of the Clarity Act ahead of a key procedural vote in the Senate on September 15. However, Republican lawmakers are worried the bill could fail if lawmakers disagree over ethical concerns around President Trump’s crypto interests.
The Clarity Act will help establish clear rules and divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
Crypto Industry Launches Clarity Act Push
The United States Senate will decide whether to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to the Clarity Act on September 15. The motion requires 60 votes to pass. The act will establish clear federal rules for crypto and clearly define oversight of the sector between the SEC and CFTC. However, some Republican lawmakers worry the bill may fall short of the required votes.
With support wavering, the crypto industry has launched a campaign to drum up support for the bill. The campaign emphasizes consumer protection and endorsements from outside the company, and criticizes the banking industry, which has vehemently opposed some sections of the Clarity Act. The campaign pushes back against the banking lobby, accusing it of blocking competition to secure profits.
The banking industry has pushed back against the bill, particularly sections governing stablecoin rewards. Banks argue stablecoin rewards could pull deposits away from the traditional banking system, potentially compromising the entire system. The latest push also attempts to broaden the bill’s appeal beyond crypto and highlights support from several law enforcement groups.
Ethics Provisions Could Become Bill’s Undoing
While the industry attempts to drum up support, a key political issue could become the bill’s undoing. Republican senators are treading a fine line as they grapple with ethical concerns around a sitting president and his family profiting from crypto. Lawmakers are deeply divided over ethics restrictions in the bill, with Republican senators Mike Rounds and Thom Tillis concerned the bill may not pass as Democrats push for stronger restrictions.
A Semafor article claims Democratic Senators believe very little progress has been made regarding demand for stronger ethics provisions that adequately cover the president and his family. Senator Rounds called the outlook “bleak,” while Tillis believes the legislation will fail to pass unless the White House compromises on some provisions. However, President Trump appears in no mood to negotiate, with a White House spokesperson urging Congress to pass the legislation.
Will The Clarity Act Pass Before Midterms
Republican senators are scrambling to secure the votes needed to pass the legislation before the end of the ongoing session. Republicans have already cut short the remaining runway for the Clarity Act. This means even if the act passes the Senate, final actions could be pushed beyond the November midterms. Additionally, Senate changes will need House approval before the legislation reaches the White House. Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of the administration’s biggest crypto advocates, urged Congress to pass the act, warning China could gain the upper hand if the legislation fails.
Lummis also highlighted several provisions included in the bill to protect consumers when crypto companies fail. Intermediaries are required to segregate customer assets, and some holdings will be treated as customer property in cases of bankruptcy. However, these protections will depend on the contractual agreement between customers and crypto platforms, and how the assets are held.
Lummis also warned that failure to pass the legislation could be a substantial setback, costing years of investments, jobs, and tax revenue.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Crypto Industry Launches New Push Ahead Of Key Clarity Act Vote on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Robinhood’s blockchain network could become a major fee generator, with Bernstein analysts forecasting up to $160 million in annual fees by 2028. In a report shared with Cointelegraph on Tuesday, the firm pointed to a shift in trading activity on the chain toward tokenized stocks—an activity mix the analysts believe is becoming self-reinforcing.
Within the short window since the network’s launch on July 1, Bernstein said tokenized stock trading has grown to roughly 27% of total volume, while native memecoin pairs have fallen to 36% of network activity from about 100% at launch. The change has helped the chain rise quickly in overall revenue rankings.
Key takeaways
Bernstein expects Robinhood’s blockchain network to reach as much as $160 million in annual fees by 2028.
Tokenized stocks now represent about 27% of the chain’s trading volume, up from memecoin-dominated activity at launch.
DefiLlama data shows the chain generated $2.13 million in fees in the past 24 hours and is currently leading by daily fees.
Bernstein links the growth in tokenized stocks to liquidity and “reflexive demand” created by Uniswap automated market-making pools pairing memecoins with stock tokens.
AMC’s CEO criticized Robinhood’s tokenized-stock offering as unrelated to AMC, signaling potential reputational and regulatory sensitivity.
Tokenized equities become a bigger share of Robinhood chain activity
Bernstein’s outlook centers on how trading demand is evolving on the Robinhood network. According to the report, tokenized stock trading has expanded to around 27% of total volume, while memecoin trading has declined in relative importance.
The analysts described the movement as more than just a temporary rotation in retail preferences. They argue the underlying market structure encourages both sides of the token pair to attract attention and liquidity—particularly when memecoins are used alongside stock tokens within the same automated trading venues.
Why “reflexive demand” may be strengthening trading volume
In Bernstein’s framing, Uniswap automated market-making (AMM) pools are a key mechanism. The firm said these pools pair memecoins with stock tokens and can generate “reflexive demand” for both assets. In practice, this means activity connected to one side of a pairing—whether due to trader interest in memecoins or exposure to tokenized equities—can spill over into demand for the other side.
That distinction matters for investors because it suggests Robinhood’s fee engine may depend less on a single category of token activity and more on a broader loop linking different user motivations. While memecoin trading can be volatile, paired liquidity and cross-asset engagement can help stabilize volumes—at least in the early stages—if the pool design sustains repeat activity.
Fee leadership so far: DefiLlama shows $2.13 million in a day
Early monetization performance has also supported the bullish narrative. In just over two months after launch, the Robinhood chain has emerged as the leading network by daily fees, according to DefiLlama’s fees-by-chain dashboard. DefiLlama data cited by Cointelegraph places the chain at $2.13 million in fees over the past 24 hours.
That “leader” status is especially relevant because transaction fees are one of the most direct ways a network’s usage becomes measurable revenue. Bernstein’s 2028 estimate builds on the premise that current fee momentum can scale as tokenized stock trading becomes a bigger component of activity.
Company valuation optimism meets renewed scrutiny around tokenized stocks
Bernstein’s comments arrive after the firm previously adjusted its stance on Robinhood shares. On July 20, Bernstein raised its price target on Robinhood (HOOD) stock to $160 from $130 and kept an Outperform rating, forecasting growth in the company’s prediction market business alongside tokenized equities.
In Tuesday’s premarket trading, Yahoo Finance data indicated Robinhood shares were little changed at last look. Yet tokenized stocks have not been without controversy. Cointelegraph previously reported that Adam Aron, CEO of AMC Entertainment Holdings, criticized Robinhood’s blockchain-based equities as lacking any affiliation with AMC. Aron called the offering “outrageous” and said AMC would request an investigation from its outside securities counsel.
While Bernstein’s model emphasizes demand-side growth from tokenization, AMC’s remarks highlight a separate risk dimension: how tokenized “economic exposure” to a company’s stock token is perceived by issuers and how that perception may intersect with legal or regulatory obligations. Even if trading continues to rise, controversy can change the trajectory of future partnerships, product approvals, or public sentiment.
What to watch next for the Robinhood chain
Traders and investors should watch whether tokenized stock volume continues to expand beyond the early post-launch period and whether daily fees remain resilient as the mix shifts away from memecoin dominance. At the same time, developments following AMC’s planned investigation could become a factor in how tokenized equities evolve on public networks.
This article was originally published as Bernstein: Robinhood Chain fees could reach $160M annually by 2028 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Singaporean national Malone Lam has pleaded guilty in US federal court to participating in a racketeering conspiracy prosecutors say was used to steal and launder more than $245 million in cryptocurrency. Prosecutors allege the scheme relied on social engineering tactics and home break-ins, and that Lam helped run an international operation that targeted victims through online connections.
In a statement released Tuesday, the US Department of Justice said Lam organized the enterprise, identified prospective victims, and coordinated other conspirators. According to court documents referenced by the DOJ, the operation was formed through connections on online gaming platforms and was active from no later than October 2023 through at least May 2025. The plea was entered before US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and the court scheduled a status hearing for Dec. 8. The government did not announce a sentencing date.
Key takeaways
Lam pleaded guilty to one count of a RICO conspiracy, shifting the case from a single theft allegation to an alleged broader criminal enterprise.
US prosecutors describe a workflow combining social engineering with account takeover, then laundering proceeds through multiple crypto services.
The DOJ says the operation linked victims via online gaming platform connections and operated for roughly a two-year window.
The guilty plea comes nearly two years after Lam was charged over the theft of more than 4,100 Bitcoin from a Washington, DC resident.
How the alleged heist began with a 4,100-Bitcoin theft
Prosecutors initially accused Lam and Jeandiel Serrano of fraudulently obtaining more than 4,100 Bitcoin from a single victim on Aug. 18, 2024. At the time, that cache was valued at more than $230. Earlier coverage of the case noted that blockchain investigator ZachXBT identified the victim as a Genesis creditor and described an attack pattern that involved impersonation and account compromise.
According to that reporting referenced in the case background, the attackers allegedly posed as Google support staff to gain access to the victim’s accounts. Prosecutors say the operation then moved to impersonate Gemini support, urging the victim to reset two-factor authentication and to use screen-sharing software. Investigators allege the screen-sharing step exposed private keys, enabling the theft.
Following the initial allegations, Lam and Serrano were arrested on Sept. 18, 2024. The DOJ then unsealed their indictment the next day, alleging that the defendants laundered stolen proceeds through crypto mixers, exchanges, pass-through wallets, and virtual private networks.
From an alleged theft to a wider RICO conspiracy
Lam’s guilty plea is significant because it is tied to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) framework—an approach prosecutors use when they argue defendants participated in a continuing criminal enterprise. In the DOJ’s description, Lam was not merely a participant in a single hack, but a coordinator who helped form and operate the network.
Earlier in the case, prosecutors expanded the scope. On May 15, 2025, the DOJ announced a superseding indictment that added 12 more defendants and broadened the allegations into an RICO conspiracy involving more than $263 million in cryptocurrency thefts. That update also included allegations of an additional $14 million theft in July 2024 and an alleged home break-in targeting a hardware wallet.
For investors and builders, the RICO structure matters because it signals prosecutors’ intent to treat these acts as part of a repeatable enterprise rather than an isolated fraud. It also affects how the court may evaluate the relationships between defendants and the operational methods—especially when investigators allege multiple tactics aimed at the same end goal: draining funds and then obscuring their origin.
Operational tactics prosecutors say were coordinated
The DOJ’s Tuesday statement describes an enterprise that allegedly recruited and identified victims using connections formed on online gaming platforms. Prosecutors say Lam organized the operation, selected targets, and worked with other conspirators to carry out the theft and laundering process.
In addition to the alleged cyber component, prosecutors say the enterprise included physical intrusion. The expanded indictment referenced an alleged home break-in targeting a hardware wallet—an allegation that, if proven, would demonstrate that the scheme was not limited to remote account compromise.
The government also alleged that Lam continued directing associates even during pretrial detention. Prosecutors claimed he arranged delivery of luxury items to his girlfriend. More broadly, the DOJ asserted that members of the group spent stolen funds on high-end purchases, including private jets, rental properties, watches, and at least 28 exotic cars. Prosecutors further alleged that nightclub expenses reached $500,000 per evening.
While these claims are part of the prosecution’s theory and not findings by the court, they help explain why prosecutors pursued a RICO case: they depict an alleged pattern of criminal activity paired with conspicuous consumption and operational coordination.
What comes next for the case
Lam’s guilty plea sets a procedural milestone, but it does not end questions that market participants may be watching. The court scheduled a status hearing for Dec. 8, yet the DOJ has not announced a sentencing date. That leaves the timing and trajectory of remaining proceedings—particularly the cases involving additional defendants—unclear.
Going forward, readers should pay attention to how the government and defense present the scope of the enterprise at sentencing, especially whether the prosecution will emphasize specific tactics such as impersonation workflows, the role of laundering infrastructure, and the alleged use of physical break-ins. Those details often determine how courts view responsibility in RICO matters and can influence outcomes for co-defendants in the expanded indictment.
This article was originally published as Cybercrime Boss Malone Lam Pleads Guilty in $245M Crypto Theft Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A Singaporean national, Malone Lam, has pleaded guilty in US federal court to participating in a racketeering conspiracy prosecutors say relied on social engineering and physical break-ins to steal and launder more than $245 million in cryptocurrency. The US Department of Justice said Lam helped build and run an international operation, including selecting targets and coordinating co-conspirators.
Prosecutors allege the enterprise operated from no later than October 2023 through at least May 2025, according to court documents unsealed by the DOJ. Lam entered the plea before US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly to one count of participating in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conspiracy, and the judge scheduled a status hearing for Dec. 8 without announcing a sentencing date.
Key takeaways
Malone Lam’s guilty plea centers on participation in a DOJ-described RICO conspiracy involving over $245 million in crypto theft and laundering.
Prosecutors say the operation used online gaming platform connections and blended digital social engineering with home break-ins.
The case traces back to allegations that Lam helped steal more than 4,100 Bitcoin from a Washington, DC resident.
A RICO track expanded the prosecution: a superseding indictment added 12 defendants and increased the scope to more than $263 million in alleged thefts.
Lam’s sentencing date has not been announced, even though the plea was entered roughly two years after the original criminal charge.
How the alleged theft worked
According to the original DOJ allegations, Lam and another defendant, Jeandiel Serrano, were accused of fraudulently obtaining more than 4,100 Bitcoin from a single victim on Aug. 18, 2024. Prosecutors previously said the victim’s assets were worth more than $230 at the time of the alleged theft.
Later reporting by blockchain investigator ZachXBT identified the victim as a Genesis creditor. The alleged scheme, according to that investigative reporting, involved attackers impersonating “Google support” staff to compromise the victim’s accounts, then posing as Gemini support to pressure the victim into resetting two-factor authentication and using screen-sharing software. Prosecutors said the screen-sharing step exposed private keys, enabling attackers to gain control of the Bitcoin.
From targeted fraud to a broader racketeering conspiracy
Prosecutors arrested Lam and Serrano on Sept. 18, 2024, and unsealed an indictment the next day. In that filing, prosecutors alleged that the defendants laundered stolen proceeds through a network of methods including crypto mixers, exchanges, pass-through wallets, and virtual private networks.
The DOJ also positioned the case as more than a single theft. On May 15, 2025, prosecutors announced a superseding indictment that added 12 additional defendants and expanded the matter into an alleged RICO conspiracy tied to more than $263 million in cryptocurrency thefts. The updated charging narrative included an additional $14 million theft reported in July 2024 and an alleged home break-in targeting a hardware wallet.
In the same expanded prosecution, prosecutors also alleged Lam continued directing associates after his arrest and while he was held in pretrial detention. They claimed he coordinated the delivery of luxury items to his girlfriend as part of the broader alleged operation.
What prosecutors say the operation looked like
The guilty plea adds clarity—at least from the government’s perspective—on how prosecutors believe the enterprise functioned. In its announcement of Lam’s plea, the Justice Department said Lam organized the international operation, identified prospective victims, and coordinated other conspirators.
The DOJ further stated that court documents show the enterprise was formed through connections on online gaming platforms. Prosecutors described a hybrid approach that combined online access and manipulation with physical intimidation or intrusion, including home break-ins aimed at compromising crypto holdings.
As the case expanded, prosecutors also alleged that stolen funds were used for high-end purchases and a lifestyle involving private jets, rental properties, watches, and at least 28 exotic cars. They also pointed to nightlife expenses, including claims of nightclub bills reaching $500,000 per evening.
Why Lam’s plea matters for the crypto industry
Although the case is rooted in one defendant and one alleged victim, the RICO structure and the government’s description of tactics are significant for the broader crypto ecosystem. The allegations emphasize how social engineering attacks can be paired with operational coordination and money movement infrastructure, making them more resilient than a single compromise event.
Investors and users should take note of how the DOJ’s narrative connects account takeover techniques—such as impersonation of trusted service channels and pressure to reset authentication—directly to the longer-term laundering pipeline. The plea also underscores that prosecutors may pursue multi-defendant conspiracy theories under RICO when they view crypto thefts as part of an ongoing enterprise rather than isolated fraud.
That said, the practical impact on ongoing civil or creditor-related matters will depend on what facts are established in the case record beyond the plea itself, including how courts and prosecutors handle evidence tied to the expanded allegations.
With Lam now having pleaded guilty, attention will likely shift to what the government can prove at sentencing and what additional defendants still fighting the charges will challenge—particularly around how the alleged operation formed, how targets were selected, and how proceeds were traced and laundered. Readers should watch for updates as the status hearing approaches and for any subsequent DOJ filings that clarify the government’s remaining theory of the case.
This article was originally published as Malone Lam Pleads Guilty in $245M Crypto Theft Conspiracy Case on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Circle has agreed to acquire Singapore-based cross-border payments platform Tazapay in a $400 million all-stock deal expected to close in 2027, the companies announced. The acquisition is structured as a Class A common stock purchase, with the final price subject to adjustments tied to Tazapay’s debt, transaction expenses, and cash levels, according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
The transaction will also depend on customary closing conditions and approval from the Monetary Authority of Singapore, Circle said in its Tuesday announcement. Circle previously invested in Tazapay through Circle Ventures, including during the startup’s August 2025 Series B round.
Key takeaways
Circle is buying Tazapay for $400 million in an all-stock transaction expected to close in 2027.
The SEC filing says the deal price will be adjusted for Tazapay’s debt, transaction expenses, and cash.
Tazapay reports more than $25 billion in annualized payment volume and services over 60 banking and fintech partners.
Circle says stablecoins make up about 60% of Tazapay’s transaction volume, supporting its cross-border routing ambitions.
Circle says Tazapay customers should not see disruption to services, APIs, pricing, or support.
A $400 million all-stock acquisition aimed at faster global rails
Under the agreed terms, Circle will pay for Tazapay using Class A common stock. The SEC filing also states the purchase price is not fixed: it will be adjusted based on Tazapay’s debt, transaction expenses, and cash at closing.
Circle said the deal would require regulatory and procedural steps before completion, including approvals from the Monetary Authority of Singapore and other standard closing conditions. The company did not indicate any expected earlier-than-2027 timeline in the announcement.
Tazapay’s scale in Asia-Pacific and emerging markets
Tazapay positions itself as an infrastructure provider for cross-border payments, with a focus on local payout rails across many destinations. According to information Circle shared, Tazapay has more than $25 billion in annualized payment volume and serves more than 60 banking and fintech partners.
In August 2025, Tazapay told Newswire that its annualized payment volume was more than $10 billion, suggesting meaningful growth over time as the company expanded its network and partner footprint. The company also said it supports payout rails covering more than 100 markets.
Tracxn data cited in the coverage indicates Tazapay has raised $57.9 million across five funding rounds. Circle’s involvement through Circle Ventures included participation in the August 2025 Series B round, linking the corporate strategy behind the investment to the later acquisition.
Stablecoin-linked volume and the push for 24/7 routing
Stablecoins account for about 60% of Tazapay’s transaction volume, according to Circle. That share matters for Circle’s stated direction: the company is working to integrate stablecoin-based payment rails into mainstream cross-border flows.
Circle said the acquisition will expand its ability to route payments to and from Asia-Pacific and emerging markets. In comments attached to the announcement, Circle’s Irfan Ganchi, senior vice president of payments, described the goal of increasing Circle’s capability to originate and terminate payments globally “near-instant and 24/7” and said the effort is a step toward making USDC the default payment rail for cross-border commerce.
Tazapay has also been described as a design partner for the Circle Payments Network since 2025. Circle said that role, plus Tazapay’s existing infrastructure, is central to how it plans to scale routing capabilities after the acquisition.
What remains unchanged for customers and partners
Circle said Tazapay customers should see no disruption to their services, APIs, pricing, or support. For users and developers building on payment infrastructure, this kind of continuity promise is often as important as the acquisition headline—because it affects integration stability and operational risk during a transition period.
While the companies did not outline a post-close roadmap in the details provided, the focus on uninterrupted customer experience suggests the integration approach will be managed to avoid breaking changes. Circle’s statement also implicitly indicates that the product and developer-facing interfaces are expected to remain stable until closing, which is still set for 2027.
In the market, Circle’s NYSE-traded shares were down more than 2% in Tuesday’s premarket activity, according to Yahoo Finance, at last look. The move reflects how investors often react to larger corporate actions even when timelines extend into the future.
Why the deal matters for cross-border payments
The acquisition highlights a broader competitive theme in stablecoin-enabled finance: infrastructure providers are looking to secure distribution and routing where payment speeds and availability are crucial. By bringing Tazapay’s network—along with its reported stablecoin-heavy flow mix—into its own stack, Circle is effectively positioning itself to compete in the middle layer between banks, fintech apps, and on-chain settlement.
It also matters that the transaction is all-stock and subject to adjustments. For shareholders, the structure adds exposure to equity valuation and closing conditions; for Tazapay, the deal preserves involvement in a larger payments ecosystem rather than a purely cash exit. Circle’s requirement for Monetary Authority of Singapore approval underscores that cross-border payment infrastructure can carry regulatory weight even when stablecoins are a key component of the operating model.
As the deal works through approvals and closing conditions, readers should watch for additional detail on integration plans for the Circle Payments Network and how Circle intends to maintain continuity for Tazapay’s partners. The key uncertainty remains the timeline and the final share-based purchase price mechanics once the debt, expense, and cash adjustments are locked in ahead of the 2027 close.
This article was originally published as Circle to Acquire Tazapay to Expand USDC Cross-Border Payments in the US on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Abasemagunyeni eMexico babambe abantu ababili okusolwa ngokubulala abantu abane ekuhlaselweni kwendlu okungathi kwenziwa befuna i-“cold wallet” yeBitcoin okucatshangwa ukuthi iqukethe izigidi zamaRandi, ngokusho kukaLa Jornada kanye nokubikela okuvela eHhovisi loMshushisi Jikelele loMbuso waseMexico (FGJEM).
Isigameko esisolwayo sigxile kuJonathan Meléndez, umshayi wekhibhodi weqembu le-rock iCamilo Séptimo, kanye nomkakhe okhulelwe, indodakazi yabo, kanye nomsebenzi wasendlini e-Atizapán de Zaragoza. I-FGJEM yaseMexico ithe abasolwa bangase babhekane nezikhathi ezinde zokuboshwa uma begwetshwa, kanti abacwaningi kuthiwa bathi omunye wabasolwa uthole ukufinyelela endlini ngenxa yokuxhumana komuntu siqu.

Strategy, ក្រុមហ៊ុនកាន់កាប់សាជីវកម្មធំបំផុតនៃ Bitcoin, មិនបានបន្ថែមទៅកាន់ឃ្លាំង BTC របស់ខ្លួនក្នុងវគ្គរាយការណ៍ចុងក្រោយរបស់ខ្លួនឡើយ។ ផ្ទុយទៅវិញ វាបានប្រើផ្នែកមួយនៃយន្តការហិរញ្ញប្បទានរបស់ខ្លួន ដើម្បីទិញមកវិញភាគហ៊ុននៃយានជំនួយភាគហ៊ុនសំណព្វរបស់ខ្លួន STRC ដែលបង្ហាញការផ្លាស់ប្តូរឆ្ពោះទៅការគ្រប់គ្រងរចនាសម្ព័ន្ធដើមទុន ជាជាងការបន្ថែម Bitcoin ថ្មី។
យោងតាមឯកសារដាក់នៅថ្ងៃអង្គារជាមួយគណៈកម្មការមូលបត្រសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) Strategy បានទិញមកវិញភាគហ៊ុនសំណព្វ STRC មានតម្លៃ 176.3 លានដុល្លារ—ប្រហែល 1.8 លានភាគហ៊ុន—រវាងថ្ងៃទី 31 ខែសីហា និងថ្ងៃទី 7 ខែសីហា (Sept.)។ ក្នុងរយៈពេលដូចគ្នានេះ Strategy ក៏បានបង្កើនទំហំកម្មវិធីទិញមកវិញ Digital Credit Securities របស់ខ្លួនដល់ 2 ពាន់លានដុល្លារ។ ដោយមិនមានការទិញ Bitcoin ថ្មីក្នុងអំឡុងពេលនេះ ទ្រព្យសម្បត្តិឃ្លាំងរបស់វាត្រូវបានចុះបញ្ជីថា 845,050 BTC ដែលបានទិញសម្រាប់ 63.6 ពាន់លានដុល្លារ ក្នុងតម្លៃជាមធ្យម 75,412 ដុល្លារក្នុងមួយកាក់។

Visa ha presentat una nova aproximació per finançar empreses vinculant els seus registres de liquidació de pagaments amb préstecs basats en blockchain. La companyia de pagaments diu que el canvi està pensat perquè els prestadors facin servir les dades de liquidació de VisaNet juntament amb informació de transaccions onchain per avaluar els prestatari i ampliar el crèdit en funció d’obligacions de pagament; efectivament, acosta el préstec onchain als fluxos quotidians de pagaments.
L’anunci, fet dimarts, situa els programes de targetes vinculats a stablecoins i el crèdit onchain com a parts d’una pila de pagaments més àmplia, on les dades de liquidació poden servir com a senyals de “capital de treball” en lloc de confiar només en documentació tradicional d’estil bancari.