Crypto Breaking

SWIFT says its blockchain-based ledger for financial messaging is now ready for initial use, marking a meaningful step toward giving banks a more clock-agnostic way to move value across borders. After nine months of development, SWIFT announced that 17 major institutions are preparing to pilot cross-border payments using tokenized bank deposits on the platform, with an initial controlled go-live phase expected to follow.
According to SWIFT, participating banks—including HSBC, Citigroup, BNP Paribas, UBS, ANZ, DBS, and Standard Chartered—will test how tokenized deposits can support 24/7 cross-border payments, including overnight and weekend transactions, while keeping the compliance, credit, risk, and control standards built into existing payment processes.
Key takeaways
SWIFT’s blockchain ledger is reported as ready for initial use after nine months of development.
17 banks plan to pilot cross-border transfers using tokenized bank deposits on the SWIFT platform.
The initiative targets 24/7 settlement behavior, extending payment availability beyond traditional banking hours.
SWIFT emphasizes that the approach aims to preserve existing compliance, credit, risk, and control requirements.
SWIFT indicated further expansion of the ledger’s functionality and availability after the first limited rollout.
From messaging to tokenized deposits
SWIFT’s role in global finance is largely about connectivity: its interbank messaging network links more than 11,500 banks and financial institutions across over 200 countries and territories. While SWIFT already supports rapid message delivery on its existing rails—SWIFT said 75% of payments reach the beneficiary bank within 10 minutes, often in seconds—the new effort focuses on what happens when settlement needs to operate regardless of the time of day.
The company’s announcement frames the ledger as an extension of SWIFT’s “resilient global platform,” intended to help “regulated digital assets” move across borders with greater velocity and flexibility. In remarks shared in the announcement, Thierry Chilosi, SWIFT’s chief business officer, said the ledger allows tokenized value to move internationally while maintaining the same levels of resiliency, security, and compliance that global finance expects.
For market participants, the practical significance is not just the use of blockchain, but the target operational outcome: keeping established governance structures while enabling payment flows that are less dependent on bank working hours.
Why the pilot matters for cross-border payments
In SWIFT’s description, the pilots are designed to test cross-border payment capabilities using tokenized deposits, without discarding the compliance and risk frameworks embedded in current processes. That emphasis is important because many tokenization efforts struggle with the same central question: how to integrate new settlement mechanics into existing regulatory and institutional controls.
SWIFT said the ledger will allow participating banks to support 24/7 cross-border payments, explicitly including overnight and weekend activity. That directly addresses a longstanding operational bottleneck in traditional payment infrastructure, where cut-off times and settlement windows can constrain responsiveness—especially for time-sensitive transfers.
It also places SWIFT in the middle of a broader shift in financial infrastructure: banks are increasingly exploring tokenized assets and settlement, but they want that evolution to happen within trusted, regulated systems rather than as isolated experiments.
Part of a wider push toward tokenized settlement
SWIFT’s move lands amid a series of parallel developments from major financial players that point to renewed momentum in tokenized deposits and securities infrastructure.
Earlier, a consortium of banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Barclays, BNY, and Wells Fargo—announced plans to launch a tokenized deposit network in the first half of 2027. The Clearing House would operate the network and connect traditional payment rails with digital asset infrastructure to enable 24/7 settlement.
In the markets sphere, the New York Stock Exchange previously partnered with tokenization platform Securitize to build blockchain-based infrastructure for tokenized stocks and exchange-traded funds. Separately, the parent company of the NYSE, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), has also shared plans for a tokenized securities venue aimed at 24/7 trading, instant settlement, stablecoin-based funding, and onchain settlement.
Taken together, these efforts suggest a sector-wide attempt to reduce the friction between “tokenized” workflows and the operational realities of regulated financial institutions. SWIFT’s pilot is another data point in that transition, particularly because SWIFT is not an issuer or a single-venue market—it is the messaging backbone for interbank communication globally.
What to watch next after initial go-live
SWIFT said it plans to expand the ledger’s functionality and availability after the initial controlled go-live phase. That sequencing matters: a controlled rollout typically helps institutions validate technical performance and governance requirements before scaling participation or expanding use cases.
For users ranging from treasury teams to payments operators, the next milestones will likely center on practical interoperability—how efficiently tokenized deposit transfers work across participating institutions and how smoothly the ledger integrates into existing operational and compliance routines. Investors and builders in digital asset infrastructure will also want to monitor whether SWIFT’s ledger becomes a repeatable baseline for cross-border settlement beyond the pilot group, or whether it remains a narrow-use experiment before wider adoption.
In the near term, the most important question is whether the pilots can demonstrate that 24/7 tokenized cross-border payments can coexist with established financial controls at scale. If SWIFT’s expansion follows the same logic, the ledger could become a significant bridge between traditional messaging standards and the settlement expectations of modern commerce.
This article was originally published as Swift Starts Blockchain Ledger Pilot for Tokenized Deposits With 17 Banks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ether is already seeing tangible activity from Robinhood’s newly launched layer-2 network. According to Token Terminal, more than $70 million worth of ETH has been bridged to Robinhood Chain within its first week, underscoring how quickly large user platforms can route on-chain liquidity into an Ethereum scaling environment.
Robinhood Chain launched on July 1 as an EVM-compatible, Arbitrum-based layer-2 that uses ETH as its native gas token. The network also positions itself as “AI-native and purpose-built for real-world assets,” while Robinhood continues expanding tokenized stock offerings to customers across more than 120 countries—an effort that has contributed to growing interest in blockchain rails for traditional market exposure.
Key takeaways
Token Terminal reports over $70 million of ETH bridged to Robinhood Chain in the first week, signaling fast liquidity onboarding.
DefiLlama data shows Robinhood Chain TVL at 46,748 ETH (about $83 million at current prices), with Thursday inflows alone totaling 31,855 ETH (about $55 million).
Early usage appears ETH-denominated, with Uniswap founder Hayden Adams saying most activity uses ETH as the primary trading and settlement “base pair.”
Analysts argue the structure could create recurring ETH demand via gas usage on an Arbitrum-based network tied to Ethereum settlement.
Even with bullish network metrics, ETH remains in a weak price regime, trading near multi-year bear market lows after a sharp decline from its 2025 peak.
ETH inflows accelerate after Robinhood Chain’s launch
Robinhood Chain’s first-week numbers suggest the network is attracting meaningful capital flow almost immediately. Token Terminal said the amount of Ether bridged to the chain surpassed $70 million within seven days of launch. In a Thursday post, Token Terminal also argued that if adoption continues, the chain could become “a meaningful new source of demand for ETH.”
The mechanism matters for Ethereum watchers. Robinhood Chain uses ETH as the gas token, meaning everyday on-chain activity on the network directly connects to ETH consumption. Unlike layer-2 designs that rely on alternative gas assets, an ETH-native setup aligns the economics of user transactions with the asset traders typically benchmark on.
On-chain engagement: users, revenue, and locked value
Token Terminal’s view of network performance extended beyond bridged amounts. It reported that Robinhood Chain reached 194,000 daily active users within its first week, while daily revenue grew to $39,000—an annualized run rate of roughly $14 million at the time of reporting.
DefiLlama’s protocol page for the Robinhood Chain bridge shows figures broadly consistent with the “fast start” narrative. It placed total value locked at 46,748 ETH, worth around $83 million based on prevailing market prices, and recorded Thursday inflows of 31,855 ETH (about $55 million). While TVL can be influenced by multiple factors, the magnitude of daily inflows is notable for a chain so early in its lifecycle.
Hayden Adams, Uniswap founder, added another useful datapoint: he said most activity on Robinhood Chain is ETH-denominated. In his description, ETH functions as the base pair for trading, the highest volume asset, and the gas token used to pay for blockspace. He also said ETH is burned on Ethereum layer 1 to cover data storage fees, tying part of the L2’s operational cost back to the mainnet.
Why investors are watching the “L2 flywheel”
The recurring-demand argument is at the center of the bullish reaction from several quarters. Andri Fauzan Adziima, research lead at Bitrue Research Institute, told Cointelegraph the early volume “validates the L2 flywheel” and characterized it as a “meaningful new demand sink.” His broader point was that when ETH is the native gas token on a high-velocity Arbitrum-based network, transactions can translate into ongoing, measurable demand while capital remains locked and a large user base gets onboarded.
“By using ETH as the native gas token on this high-velocity Arbitrum L2, every transaction I track creates direct, recurring demand while locking capital and onboarding Robinhood’s massive user base.”
Tim Sun, a senior researcher at HashKey Group, similarly framed the development as structurally positive for ETH. He emphasized that Robinhood Chain’s use of ETH for gas is the most direct benefit: as bridged assets, wallet activity, and on-chain transactions increase, new demand for ETH is generated.
Sun also pointed to a larger strategic implication. He said the deeper significance is not only how much gas is consumed, but that Robinhood is building its own on-chain financial ecosystem within the Ethereum network. In his view, this reinforces Ethereum mainnet’s role as the settlement layer and liquidity foundation for tokenized assets.
This matters because much of Ethereum’s long-term value thesis is tied to its function in real-world asset tokenization. The article from RWA.xyz cited in the source indicated that Ethereum and its layer-2 ecosystem together hold more than 50% market share in that segment, and the Robinhood Chain launch could further strengthen Ethereum’s position if it successfully attracts tokenized RWA usage at scale.
Tokenized assets meet an institutional-grade user pipeline
Robinhood’s involvement provides an important angle for the market: distribution. The platform has offered tokenized stocks to customers in more than 120 countries, reflecting sustained demand for tokenized exposure to US equities. If tokenized assets continue moving onto blockchains, networks that integrate ETH-based settlement and on-chain execution can capture both trading and transaction demand.
The tension for Ethereum traders is that network fundamentals do not always translate into immediate price action. ETH prices ticked up on Friday to $1,775, but it still trades near multi-year bear market lows—down 64% from its August 2025 peak, according to the figures referenced in the source. That means the key question for participants is whether early technical traction evolves into durable usage that can influence broader market expectations.
Bulls argue Ethereum’s growth path rests on multiple stacked drivers, including RWA tokenization, agentic AI payments, institutional adoption, and ongoing scaling upgrades. The source also pointed to Glamsterdam, expected before the end of 2026, as a network upgrade that could increase layer-1 capacity—an important piece of the scalability puzzle for any ecosystem hoping to absorb additional tokenized asset demand over time.
For now, the focus should stay on measurable signals: whether Robinhood Chain’s ETH-denominated activity sustains beyond the initial launch window, how TVL and daily revenue trend week-to-week, and whether tokenized asset usage meaningfully increases the number of users interacting with on-chain contracts.
This article was originally published as Robinhood Chain Bridges $70M+ ETH in First Week, Data Shows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The European Parliament has moved to revive “chat control” rules that require tech firms to scan messages for child sexual abuse material for a further period ending in 2028, a proposal widely criticized by privacy and cryptography advocates as undermining the logic of encrypted messaging.
In a Thursday vote, the chamber largely rejected extending the regulation—often referred to by critics as “Chat Control 1.0.” But the effort still advanced after lawmakers voted down the move to stop it, meaning the rules can be carried forward. The vote that would have ended the measure failed to secure enough support: 314 lawmakers voted to continue, while 276 supported the extension.
Key takeaways
The European Parliament approved a continuation of “chat control” rules tied to scanning messages for child sexual abuse material until 2028.
Lawmakers rejected an attempt to block the extension, which means the legal framework can proceed despite resistance in the chamber.
An exemption was approved for communications where end-to-end encryption is, has been, or will be applied—an important carve-out for encrypted messaging.
The final decision now depends on the EU Council, which will either accept or reject the amended legislation.
Negotiations for a permanent “Chat Control 2.0” framework are expected to restart in September, with disagreement over whether scanning should be targeted or broad.
How the extension cleared Parliament—and why encrypted messaging mattered
The vote follows the expiration of the earlier framework in April. With that window closed, messaging platforms such as WhatsApp were allowed to use their own voluntary approaches to detect and handle cases involving abusive material.
Thursday’s outcome reflects a split within the Parliament. Critics had aimed to prevent the extension, but stopping it required a higher threshold: only 314 lawmakers voted to halt the rules, short of the 361 needed. Instead, the measure advanced with 276 lawmakers voting in favor of ending the opposition move, effectively enabling the legislative path to continue.
Still, Parliament did deliver a partial win for privacy advocates. The assembly approved an exemption excluding communications where end-to-end encryption is, has been, or will be applied. The exemption was included as part of the legislation that Parliament endorsed, as reflected in the text of the adopted act: EU Parliament document TA-10-2026-0266_EN.
MEP Markéta Gregorová of the Pirate Party—who pushed the amendment to protect end-to-end encryption—called the result “a bittersweet victory.” In a statement, she said she was glad an absolute majority supported an amendment that at least preserves encryption, while also noting that “voluntary mass scanning unfortunately passed.” The statement is available via Greens/EFA: Greens/EFA.
Why the Council of the EU is the next gate
Parliament’s version of the laws—incorporating amendments and the end-to-end encryption exemption—will now be sent to the Council of the European Union. The Council is made up of ministers representing member states and has the authority to approve or reject the legislation.
For investors and builders in the crypto and privacy ecosystem, the practical significance is straightforward: if the rules are adopted as drafted, service providers operating in the EU could face pressure to implement scanning mechanisms for certain categories of content, even while encrypted traffic is carved out under specific conditions. The precise compliance burden—and how it will be interpreted by regulators later—will depend on the final Council outcome and the implementing approach that follows.
The “Chat Control 2.0” fight is expected to intensify
This Thursday vote does not settle the broader dispute. The current legislative push is tied to a wider attempt to update the policy into a more permanent framework—commonly labeled “Chat Control 2.0.”
Earlier this week, the European Parliament used a rarely applied urgent procedure to schedule a vote after the previous framework lapsed. According to earlier reporting by Cointelegraph, Parliament voted Tuesday to revisit whether the expired legal framework should be extended—prompting the return to the chamber on Thursday. That background matters because it shows how quickly the institution moved after the expiration in April and why the extension remained politically contested even within the Parliament.
The sequence also highlights tensions inside Parliament. Earlier in March, lawmakers rejected a temporary extension while “Chat Control 2.0” was being discussed. The European People’s Party, the largest group in Parliament, later revived the extension through the urgent procedure on Tuesday. In March, the group had voted against extending the rules, including due to amendments that would have restricted the scope of scanning.
Looking ahead, negotiations for the permanent “Chat Control 2.0” framework are set to resume in September. Key disagreement centers on whether message scanning should be targeted to higher-risk scenarios or applied more broadly. Former MEP Patrick Breyer—cited in the text provided—argued that resistance in Parliament was strong enough that securing a majority for “permanent, suspicionless mass scanning” would be extremely difficult.
What encrypted messaging advocates will watch next
The exemption for end-to-end encrypted communications is likely to remain the focal point for privacy and cryptography advocates as the measure heads to the Council. The immediate question is not only whether the exemption survives final negotiations, but how it will be operationalized in practice—especially for systems that handle encrypted content while still facing EU compliance expectations.
Readers should watch for Council deliberations and the September negotiations on “Chat Control 2.0,” where lawmakers will decide whether scanning rules will remain constrained or expand in scope. The outcome will shape how closely EU policy aligns with encryption-first design—an issue that continues to carry significant implications for users, developers, and the broader credibility of privacy protections across Europe.
This article was originally published as EU Parliament Approves “Chat Control,” Extending Private Scans to 2028 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Zcash’s scheduled Ironwood network upgrade is now set to activate on the mainnet on July 28, according to a statement from Zcash core developer Sean Bowe. The upgrade is designed to address an “infinity” bug tied to the Orchard shielded pool, a problem first disclosed in May and linked to the chain’s private transaction pool behavior.
Ironwood will close the current Orchard pool to new activity and establish a new shielded pool. Crucially, any funds moving out of Orchard would need to pass through an accounting checkpoint before they can enter Ironwood—an approach intended to generate evidence about whether any counterfeit Zcash tokens were produced via the Orchard issue.
Key takeaways
Zcash core developer Sean Bowe says Ironwood mainnet activation is set for block height 3428143, approximately July 28 at 8:00 a.m. EST.
Ironwood shuts down new entries to Orchard, forcing subsequent shielded activity into a newly created private pool.
Withdrawals from Orchard must route through an accounting checkpoint before entering Ironwood, potentially surfacing traces tied to the earlier Orchard bug.
The upgrade proceeds about a week later than a previously targeted July 21 activation date.
Zcash reports that more than 80% of its 21 million ZEC maximum supply has already been issued, with a figure posted by ruZCASH showing 16,806,723 ZEC in circulation.
Ironwood activation locked in at a specific mainnet height
In a Thursday update, Bowe said the “Ironwood mainnet activation height has been set and tagged,” adding that major ecosystem organizations are committed to activating NU6.3 at block height 3428143. He described the expected time as approximately July 28 at 8 a.m. EST.
The activation timing matters for Zcash users and service providers because NU6.3 touches how shielded transactions are routed and accounted for. Exchanges, wallets, and other infrastructure operators typically need a predictable window to ensure compatibility—especially when a change involves closing one privacy pool and switching users to another.
How Ironwood changes Orchard and the pathway to the new pool
Ironwood was announced in June as the solution to an “infinity” bug that was identified earlier on Zcash’s Orchard shielded pool. The upgrade’s core operational change is straightforward: Orchard is closed to new activity, and a new private pool is brought online.
Rather than letting funds flow freely from the old shielded pool into the new one, the upgrade requires a checkpoint-based accounting step. Zcash’s design intent, as framed by Shielded Labs when discussing potential implications of Orchard-related activity, is that moving any potentially counterfeit funds through the migration process would force a decision point—either to attempt movement (and risk exposure) or to leave funds behind and risk losing the ability to move them later.
In other words, the checkpoint layer is meant to reduce the odds that problematic funds can move silently during the transition from Orchard to Ironwood.
Why a late-July timeline became a concern
Not everyone had been comfortable with the schedule. Shielded Labs previously floated the possibility of delaying Ironwood, warning that some parts of the ecosystem might not have enough time to prepare for a late-July mainnet activation. That concern included entities such as exchanges, mining pools, and wallet providers—groups that typically need to coordinate software support, operational procedures, and testing.
Bowe’s latest comment now confirms that Ironwood’s launch will occur about a week later than an earlier target date of July 21. The shift underscores how upgrades that alter transaction pathways in privacy systems are as much an infrastructure readiness challenge as they are a protocol change.
For Zcash participants, the practical takeaway is that readiness checks should be centered on the NU6.3 activation height window rather than assuming the previously announced July 21 date holds.
Orchard bug fallout and what investors have been watching
The Orchard vulnerability disclosure in early June had market repercussions. According to Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage of the event, ZEC fell sharply after the June 3 disclosure, dropping by roughly half—from $602.68 to $299.25—before partially recovering in the following weeks.
While token price reactions don’t prove whether a specific vulnerability was exploited, Ironwood’s design is still relevant to holders because it targets the mechanism of how private transactions transition from Orchard to the replacement pool. In this case, the upgrade is not merely cosmetic; it changes how migrated shielded funds are processed and accounted for, with potential forensic value if counterfeit activity ever occurred through the Orchard bug.
Beyond the security work, Zcash is also approaching a different kind of milestone. A post from ruZCASH on Monday stated that Zcash has now issued 16,806,723 ZEC out of a maximum 21 million supply—more than 80% of total issuance. This kind of supply progression matters for long-term stakeholders because it affects the rate at which new supply continues to enter circulation over time.
What to monitor as Ironwood goes live
As July 28 approaches, the most important watchpoints are whether NU6.3 activates cleanly at the announced height and how exchanges and wallets handle the Orchard-to-Ironwood transition operationally. Equally, ecosystem participants will likely focus on whether the accounting checkpoint mechanism delivers the evidence Shielded Labs described—particularly if there is any lingering uncertainty about Orchard’s “infinity” bug and its real-world impact.
This article was originally published as Zcash Schedules Ironwood Upgrade for July 28 Launch on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Decentralized finance tokens have outperformed Bitcoin over the past month, a divergence Bitwise says may reflect a “quiet re-rating” of the sector rather than a short-lived bounce. In its latest crypto market review, the firm pointed to a steep change in relative performance during June: Bitcoin fell about 22%, while Bitwise’s index of tokens tracking major DeFi protocols declined roughly 4% over the same period.
Bitwise described the relative stability as unusual because DeFi tokens are typically among the first assets traders trim when risk appetite drops. The report argues that the sector’s volatility profile may be shifting as more traditional institutions use DeFi infrastructure—support that, in Bitwise’s view, has helped stabilize the broader ecosystem.
Key takeaways
Bitwise’s DeFi token index fell about 4% in June versus Bitcoin’s ~22% drop, suggesting DeFi held up unusually well.
Bitwise links the resilience to improving token economics and a narrowing gap between DeFi usage and token value.
Institutional participation is cited as a stabilizing force as firms build on major DeFi names such as Morpho and Jupiter, with Aave highlighted for generating roughly $900 million in the past year.
Despite token strength, total DeFi value locked has fallen—CryptoRank reported a decline to just over $70 billion from around $115 billion in January.
Bitwise expects stablecoin-focused announcements to intensify before the GENIUS Act takes effect in January 2027, and it flags the CLARITY Act as a near-term volatility catalyst.
Why Bitwise thinks DeFi is being re-priced
Bitwise’s core observation is that DeFi’s traditional pattern—bigger swings than Bitcoin during downturns—has not played out in the most recent month. The firm said the relative performance difference is both “unusual” and largely absent from mainstream discussion, implying that market positioning may be lagging what token-level pricing is already signaling.
The report also frames this as more than a simple momentum story. Bitwise argues that DeFi token economics have been improving and that the historical disconnect between how much the platforms are used and how valuable their tokens become is narrowing. In that framing, outperformance is less about speculation and more about demand for DeFi services translating into token relevance.
Bitwise further points to real-world institutional usage as a stabilizer. It specifically names Morpho and Jupiter as examples of areas where institutions have started building, and it cites Aave’s activity—stating that Aave generated approximately $900 million in the past year—as evidence that core DeFi markets remain economically active even when the broader crypto market cools.
What’s inside Bitwise’s DeFi index
Bitwise’s DeFi index fund is market-cap weighted, and its current composition sheds light on why the basket has been resilient. The index allocates about 61% of weight to Hyperliquid’s native token (HYPE), which is tied to the perpetuals exchange ecosystem. Bitwise noted that HYPE has gained more than 160% so far this year.
The index also includes other prominent DeFi exposure, including Uniswap (UNI), Ondo (ONDO), and Aave (AAVE), among others. Despite being major constituents, these names have generally declined over the year-to-date period, with Bitwise stating that several of them are down double digits. That matters for investors because it suggests the overall index performance is being supported by a concentrated outlier (HYPE) while other widely followed protocols face their own drawdowns.
Value locked is down—resilience may not mean growth
Token performance does not automatically translate into increased capital deployment. While Bitwise’s index held up better than Bitcoin in June, CryptoRank reported that total value locked (TVL) in DeFi declined sharply throughout 2026.
According to CryptoRank data cited on June 24, DeFi TVL dropped nearly 40% so far this year, falling to just over $70 billion from roughly $115 billion in January. The data provider attributed much of the decline to a major correction in early October that followed a prior peak in the broader crypto market—when Bitcoin reached a high of more than $126,000.
CryptoRank also suggested the current drawdown is smaller than what occurred during the 2022 bear market, implying relative durability. Taken together, the token-vs-TVL split points to an important nuance for readers: DeFi can experience weaker liquidity and still see token pricing stabilize or improve—especially if parts of the ecosystem (like derivatives venues or specific liquidity markets) remain relatively favored by traders and institutions.
Policy catalysts: stablecoins and the CLARITY Act
Bitwise’s report extends beyond performance comparisons by highlighting regulatory and legislative developments it expects to influence market conditions. One major focus is stablecoins ahead of the GENIUS Act, a stablecoin-regulating bill that was made law in the US last year and is set to take effect in January 2027.
Bitwise said it expects “a steady run of large firms” to announce stablecoin projects ahead of GENIUS implementation. The firm also noted that stablecoin supply has remained supported through the recent downturn. In Bitwise’s view, continued supply growth should benefit major settlement rails such as Ethereum and Solana during the current quarter as regulators finalize rulemaking around the GENIUS Act.
On market structure, Bitwise said the next three months could be “make-or-break” for the CLARITY Act, currently under review and negotiation in the Senate. Bitwise said it believes the bill has an unlikely chance of passing before the November elections.
The report outlines a two-path scenario. If CLARITY passes, Bitwise argues it could signal the bottom of the current bear market. If it fails, Bitwise expects volatility at first, followed by a period of “clearing of uncertainty” as the industry continues building under a regulatory environment it characterizes as more pro-SEC and CFTC focused.
For investors, the practical takeaway is that the market may be balancing near-term uncertainty on structure policy with longer-term momentum from stablecoin-related deployment. With DeFi tokens holding up comparatively well against Bitcoin even as TVL falls, traders may increasingly look at whether liquidity breadth returns—or whether token strength continues to concentrate in specific segments.
This article was originally published as Bitwise: DeFi may be quietly re-rated after outperforming Bitcoin on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s institutional story is turning, but not decisively—according to Swissblock, the most intense US spot Bitcoin ETF sell-off in the current bear market appears to be over, even as it cautions that institutional demand is still “not yet strong.”
While flows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs swung from ten straight days of outflows totaling $2.7 billion to a brief rebound, on-chain and derivatives-focused research continues to show a split: futures demand has improved faster than spot buying. That divergence matters because it often signals whether a recovery is durable or merely technical.
Key takeaways
US spot Bitcoin ETFs reversed a ten-day outflow streak beginning June 17, after net outflows summed to $2.7 billion, per Farside Investors.
Swissblock says the “most overwhelming” distribution wave has ended, but warns accumulation is still “positive, but not yet strong.”
ETF flows show early stabilization—over $500 million net inflows across three trading days—yet remain fragile after a later net outflow.
CryptoQuant analysis highlights a demand gap: derivatives demand moved toward neutral while spot demand stayed negative.
Swissblock: the ETF “storm” looks to have passed
In an X post on Thursday, Swissblock framed the recent ETF movement as the end of an unusually heavy sell-pressure phase. The firm described the episode as “the most overwhelming ETF distribution wave of this bear market,” adding, “The storm has passed.”
Swissblock also tied the change to improving risk conditions, stating that “Bitcoin Risk continues easing from Capitulation Risk” and that spot ETF flows have “turned slightly positive again.” The underlying flow numbers referenced in the article come from Farside Investors, a UK-based investment data provider that tracks ETF movement.
According to Farside Investors data, starting June 17 the US spot Bitcoin ETF complex recorded ten consecutive sessions of net outflows totaling $2.7 billion. After that stretch, the trend began to reverse, with more than $500 million in net inflows across three trading days—before the most recent session mentioned in the article closed with a net outflow of $84.9 million for Wednesday.
Swissblock characterized the rebound as a signal worth noting, but not one to overread. It called the development a “caveat” to the recovery narrative—an acknowledgement that ETF accumulation has improved, yet “institutional conviction is not returning with full force.”
“Has the storm passed? Or is Bitcoin simply in the eye of the storm?”
Why ETF flows matter—even when they turn
Spot Bitcoin ETFs have become a key channel for traditional and institutional access to BTC exposure. When flows consistently run negative for long stretches, it often reflects sustained risk-off positioning by allocators who use these vehicles as a regulated wrapper.
The shift from prolonged outflows to net inflows, even if modest or intermittent, can therefore represent more than a short-term trading reaction. It may indicate that some capital is returning after de-risking pressures eased.
Still, Swissblock’s framing is instructive for investors: “positive, but not yet strong” implies stabilization rather than a full recommitment of institutional capital. The specific pattern highlighted—three days of meaningful inflows followed by a smaller outflow—suggests demand may be improving unevenly rather than trending cleanly upward.
Spot versus futures: CryptoQuant sees a widening mismatch
Beyond ETF flow headlines, the broader picture of Bitcoin demand across market venues remains mixed. Earlier coverage referenced in the article pointed to demand as a recurring hurdle for a sustained bullish market recovery.
In fresh research shared this week through CryptoQuant, contributor IT Tech described conditions as partially improving while emphasizing a “clear divide between spot and derivatives markets.” In that view, total 30-day cumulative demand moved from close to -500K BTC to roughly -75K BTC.
More importantly, IT Tech said futures demand recovered faster than spot demand. Over the same period, futures demand shifted from -295,000 BTC to a “slightly positive” figure, while spot demand continued to register negative levels.
“This tells us something important. The latest bounce has been driven primarily by derivatives traders, while spot buyers are still relatively cautious,” IT Tech commented.
CryptoQuant’s framing aligns with a common market dynamic: derivatives can reflect expectations and hedging activity that change quickly, while spot buying—especially from longer-horizon participants—often requires stronger conviction. The article includes an additional historical observation attributed to IT Tech: the most reliable rallies tend to begin when both futures and spot demand rise together.
What to watch next: whether the spot bid returns
At this stage, the key uncertainty is whether the ETF improvement will translate into stronger, more persistent spot demand. The Swissblock takeaway—accumulation is improving but institutional conviction is not fully back—paired with CryptoQuant’s spot/derivatives divergence suggests investors should watch for confirmation across multiple indicators rather than relying on a single flow reversal.
In the coming sessions, readers should look for sustained net inflows in US spot Bitcoin ETFs beyond short bursts, alongside evidence that spot demand meaningfully turns positive rather than merely stabilizing while derivatives activity leads the rebound.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETFs Face $2.7B Sell-Off as $85M Net Outflows Grow on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin rebounded after the Wall Street open as US stocks turned higher on fresh optimism around Iran. The shift in risk sentiment helped BTC/USD reclaim the $63,000 area, while traders reported short liquidations nearing $100 million over the past 24 hours, according to CoinGlass data.
The market’s relief rally followed remarks from US President Donald Trump suggesting there may still be room for a new Iran “deal” after the ceasefire situation deteriorated. With crypto effectively tracking broader risk assets, traders are now focusing on whether BTC can hold key intraday levels into the daily close.
Key takeaways
BTC/USD rose back above $63,000, gaining nearly 1.5% on the day, per TradingView.
CoinGlass shows short liquidations approaching $100 million over 24 hours, reflecting heavy leverage unwinds.
Several traders are watching whether BTC can secure a daily close above $64,700 to sustain the rebound.
Market participants continue to disagree on whether a bear-market bottom is forming, with competing cycle interpretations.
Risk appetite returns as Iran “deal” hopes resurface
According to TradingView, BTC/USD moved higher after Thursday’s Wall Street open, climbing back above $63,000. The move came as US equities rebounded across the board, helping to partially offset the downside seen earlier in the week.
That timing aligned with comments from Trump, who indicated that Iran “wants to make a deal” after the ceasefire breakdown. As reported via posts quoting trading resource The Kobeissi Letter and others, Trump said that calls had been made and that the sides “want to make a deal so badly.” Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph also linked the broader market mood to developments around the Iran ceasefire and regional tensions.
In crypto, the improved sentiment appears to have been immediate: CoinGlass data cited by the market coverage showed short liquidations running close to $100 million in the last 24 hours. For traders, that kind of flush can reduce immediate downside pressure while also encouraging fresh momentum trades—though it doesn’t automatically confirm a sustained trend reversal.
Liquidations highlight leverage stress—and quick sentiment reversals
Short liquidations are often a sign that price moves are accelerating due to leveraged positioning. CoinGlass data referenced in the reporting showed liquidity targets being hit fast enough to push near-$100 million in liquidations over a day, consistent with the broader “risk-on” bounce in stocks.
While such spikes can fuel further upside in the short term, they also tend to make markets more reactive to headlines. That matters now because the drivers cited here—geopolitical developments and policy signals—can change quickly, and crypto has been trading as a high-beta asset relative to traditional markets.
Traders taking part in the price discussion suggested the rebound does not necessarily indicate an immediate trend shift. One market participant, writing on X under the handle Killa, said the setup was “not bearish at all,” adding that he expects “a few more months of choppy PA.” In that view, BTC could still fluctuate within a broader band rather than transition cleanly into a new directional phase.
Traders narrow focus to BTC’s key daily close
As price action stabilized after the bounce, attention turned toward specific technical levels. Trader Killa highlighted $68,000 as a potential area for a short entry, consistent with the idea that rallies may encounter selling pressure before any larger breakout.
Another participant, Jelle (CryptoJelleNL), also emphasized that bulls may still be trying to reclaim key ground. In an X update, Jelle suggested that if BTC can move back above a level of importance, the market could push again toward the $65,000–$70,000 area. But if BTC rejects and loses support, Jelle indicated that the market could revisit levels below $60,000.
The most concrete “decision point” referenced in the reporting came from Daan Crypto Trades, who argued that a daily close above $64,700 would “flip the story” toward a larger relief rally. Daan’s X analysis placed BTC in a $61.3K–$64.7K range and described the latest move as a climb back after a prior risk-off flush. In that same framework, a daily close under $61.3K would open the door to retesting lows and potentially invalidate the rebound momentum.
Bear-market bottom debate continues despite the rebound
Even with the bounce above $63,000, participants are not aligned on what the move means for the larger cycle. The coverage pointed to ongoing divergence in views about whether the bear-market bottom is already in.
Earlier reporting referenced in the article highlighted two contrasting interpretations: one analysis described a “textbook” bottom formation as underway, while another cycle comparison argued for a deeper macro floor. In practice, this split matters because it changes how traders interpret near-term rallies—whether they’re seen as early confirmation of a bottom, or as relief moves inside a still-volatile consolidation.
That is why the market’s next few sessions may be less about whether BTC can rise, and more about whether it can hold above critical thresholds on a closing basis. Given the leverage effects seen in liquidations and the headline sensitivity tied to geopolitics, follow-through will likely be closely watched.
Heading into the next daily close, traders will likely treat levels such as $64,700 as a litmus test for whether this rebound is merely another range extension or the start of a broader relief phase—especially as opinions on a longer-term bottom continue to differ.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Traders Track Key Levels as BTC Reclaims $63K Post Trump-Iran Remarks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miner MARA Holdings saw its shares jump in Thursday’s early trading after the company outlined a major plan to build a Texas “digital infrastructure” campus designed to support both AI computing and Bitcoin mining. The move targets access to up to 2 gigawatts (GW) of power—an increasingly scarce input for AI data centers.
According to MARA, the project centers on a 1,200-acre site in Matagorda County, roughly 90 miles southwest of Houston. The company expects initial access to 1 GW of grid capacity by October 2027, with availability potentially rising to 2 GW by April 2028, enabling expansion of high-performance computing alongside mining operations.
Key takeaways
MARA announced plans for a 1,200-acre Texas site with expected access to 1 GW of grid capacity by October 2027 and up to 2 GW by April 2028.
The company says the campus is intended to serve both AI/high-performance computing workloads and Bitcoin mining.
After full energization, the site is projected to more than double MARA’s potential power capacity to about 4.8 GW.
HIF USA is set to retain a minority stake if MARA leases with a high-performance computing tenant, and neither party disclosed financial terms.
MARA’s broader push follows earlier acquisitions, including a 505-megawatt power plant and a co-located Ohio data center deal.
A power-heavy bet on AI computing
MARA’s announcement frames the Texas campus as an infrastructure play rather than a straight mining expansion. The company described development as a “digital infrastructure campus” that can host high-performance computing capacity while also supporting Bitcoin mining once the site is fully operational.
The early-stage development plan hinges on grid access. MARA said it expects 1 GW of grid capacity by October 2027 and up to 2 GW by April 2028. If and when the project reaches full energization, it is expected to more than double MARA’s potential power capacity to around 4.8 GW.
In separate reporting on its share performance, the news also notes that MARA said the project remains subject to regulatory approvals. The company indicated construction would be phased over multiple years.
Ownership structure and leasing dependency
The project includes a relationship with HIF USA. Under the terms MARA described, HIF USA will retain a minority ownership stake if MARA signs a lease with a high-performance computing tenant.
The companies did not disclose transaction financial terms. For investors, the key variable is the leasing plan: the minority-stake condition tied to HPC tenants highlights how MARA’s AI-collocation thesis depends on securing counterparties willing to commit to capacity on the timeline needed for data center development.
How miners are repositioning toward AI and HPC
The strategy fits a broader trend in crypto infrastructure. As demand for data center capacity has surged, some Bitcoin miners have begun expanding into AI and high-performance computing rather than relying solely on mining hardware.
Instead of repurposing chips and racks built specifically for mining, these companies aim to leverage power assets already designed for crypto operations—such as grid connections, substations, and energized sites. The rationale is straightforward: AI workloads require far higher and more reliable power delivery than many mining facilities were originally built to support.
CoinShares has estimated that mining infrastructure typically costs about $700,000 to $1 million per megawatt, while liquid-cooled AI infrastructure can range from $8 million to $15 million per megawatt for hyperscale-grade requirements. These figures underline why conversions can be expensive—particularly because AI customers typically expect higher power density and uptime.
Even with the costs, multiple publicly traded miners have recently announced large AI-oriented deals. CoinShares cited expansions and lease agreements across the sector, including hosting and data center arrangements that tie miner-hosted infrastructure to AI compute demand.
MARA’s expansion stack: from power generation to computing campuses
MARA’s Texas plan follows earlier steps to strengthen its power and compute footprint. In April, the company announced it would acquire Long Ridge Energy & Power, a transaction reported at roughly $1.5 billion. That deal included a 505-megawatt gas-fired power plant and a co-located data center in Ohio.
Earlier this year, MARA also disclosed that it acquired a 64% stake in French computing infrastructure operator Exaion. Taken together, the acquisitions and the new Texas site suggest a continued shift toward owning or controlling the energy and infrastructure needed to support both mining and high-performance computing.
From a market perspective, the timing also matters. Many AI buildouts are constrained by permitting, grid interconnection, and power availability—areas where miners that already operate or plan energy-heavy facilities may attempt to move faster than purely new data center developers.
Sector positioning and what investors will watch next
MARA is described as the fourth-largest publicly traded corporate holder of Bitcoin by BitcoinTreasuries.NET data, holding 36,303 BTC. The company is also noted as the sixth-largest holding in the CoinShares Bitcoin Mining ETF, where it accounts for 4.76% of assets based on Yahoo Finance figures.
For the next phase of this story, the most important uncertainties are regulatory approvals and the pace of phased construction toward the stated grid milestones. Investors and operators will likely focus on whether MARA secures high-performance computing tenants early enough to align leases with the planned power ramp-up—especially since the ownership treatment with HIF USA is tied to signing such agreements.
This article was originally published as MARA Stock Jumps as Texas Plan Expands to 2 GW for AI Mining on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center have asked the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to clarify that blockchain protocol developers and non-custodial wallet providers should not be treated like traditional financial intermediaries.
The request was submitted in response to a CFTC request for information on how fintech regulations apply in the digital-assets era, urging the agency to codify exemptions and provide guidance tailored to onchain systems where users transact directly rather than relying on a firm to hold customer assets or execute orders.
Key takeaways
Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center want the CFTC to confirm that building onchain software and contributing to open protocols does not, by itself, trigger registration obligations meant for custodial intermediaries.
The groups argue that regulations should target entities that actually handle customer funds or execute trades, not developers who do not control how software is used.
They ask for explicit guidance that regulated derivatives exchanges, clearinghouses, and intermediaries may use blockchain infrastructure for execution, clearing, settlement, margining, and recordkeeping while staying within existing requirements.
They also request an exemption framework so non-custodial wallet providers are not classified as introducing brokers.
Why the CFTC is being pressed on fintech rules
In the letter, the companies contend that much of the CFTC’s regulatory framework was built around intermediaries that operate as gatekeepers—typically taking custody of customer assets and routing trades through centralized processes. In contrast, onchain protocols can be designed so that users conduct transactions without any intermediary exercising control over funds or placing orders on their behalf.
From that premise, Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center argue that applying registration rules designed for custodians and trade executors to protocol developers and infrastructure contributors would misalign legal obligations with actual operational roles in an onchain environment.
The filing specifically requests CFTC confirmation that protocol developers do not have to register solely for creating onchain software, alongside guidance that preserves the ability of regulated market participants to use blockchain-based infrastructure for core post-trade functions.
Exempting developers and addressing non-custodial wallets
Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center also ask the CFTC to formalize exemptions to prevent non-custodial wallet providers from being treated as introducing brokers.
The argument centers on responsibility and control: the groups say registration should attach to firms that manage customer funds or execute trades, while entities that provide access to non-custodial tools and software—without holding assets or directing trade decisions—should not be forced into categories meant for intermediaries that perform those actions.
They further emphasize that the regulatory baseline, as it stands, leaves US users without comparable pathways into onchain derivatives markets, while related innovation continues elsewhere. Their position is that clarity and targeted exemptions would reduce friction and allow legitimate participation without stretching existing rules beyond their original intent.
Letter to the CFTC. Source: Hyperliquidpolicy.org
What regulated exchanges and clearing firms should be able to do onchain
Beyond exemptions for developers and wallet providers, the letter seeks to remove uncertainty for established, regulated derivatives actors. Phantom and the Hyperliquid Policy Center ask the CFTC to clarify that regulated derivatives exchanges, clearinghouses, and intermediaries can use blockchain infrastructure for functions such as trade execution, clearing, settlement, margining, and recordkeeping.
Crucially, they frame this request as compatible with continuing compliance: the groups say the ability to use onchain infrastructure should be preserved as long as firms continue to meet the requirements already applicable to their regulated roles.
This is an important distinction for market participants because it positions blockchain integration as an implementation choice rather than a substitute for regulatory oversight—potentially affecting how exchanges design matching engines, how clearing systems manage accounts and obligations, and how margining and audit trails are maintained.
Broader onchain derivatives pressure on US regulators
The letter lands amid an increasingly public debate over how US regulators should approach blockchain-based derivatives. According to earlier coverage, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) and CME Group have also pushed for how the CFTC should evaluate risks tied to onchain platforms.
In May, reporting noted that ICE and CME urged regulators to scrutinize Hyperliquid’s move into commodity-linked perpetual futures, arguing that onchain derivatives in the energy space raise market integrity and manipulation concerns. Two weeks later, ICE CEO Jeffrey Sprecher called for a “level playing field” that would allow regulated exchanges to compete with onchain perpetual futures platforms, saying existing regulation can prevent traditional firms from offering 24/7 onchain products. Sprecher also said ICE had exploratory discussions with Hyperliquid to better understand how onchain derivatives markets operate.
Meanwhile, CME has continued expanding its regulated derivatives footprint. This year, the exchange announced futures tied to Avalanche and Sui, launched CFTC-regulated Bitcoin volatility futures, and introduced Nasdaq CME Crypto Index futures—a market-cap-weighted contract tracking seven digital assets. Separately, CME also pursued legal action: in June, the exchange sued the CFTC regarding the agency’s approval of crypto perpetual futures, arguing that the regulator exceeded its authority under the Commodity Exchange Act.
Taken together, the Phantom and Hyperliquid Policy Center letter reflects the same tension seen across the sector: regulated exchanges want pathways to use onchain infrastructure without giving up compliance obligations, while innovators and infrastructure providers want exemptions that reflect how onchain systems function when users retain control and firms do not custody funds or execute trades in the traditional sense.
Readers should watch how the CFTC responds to the specific exemption requests—particularly whether it will draw clearer lines between developer activity, non-custodial tooling, and intermediary conduct, and whether it provides explicit guidance on what regulated entities may do with blockchain infrastructure while staying within existing derivatives rules.
This article was originally published as Phantom and Hyperliquid Urge CFTC to Update Rules for Onchain Derivatives on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal will transition to an advisory role at the exchange starting July 31, according to an announcement he shared on X and LinkedIn.
In the same update, Grewal said Coinbase’s current legal vice presidents—Molly Abraham and Ryan VanGrack—will move into expanded leadership roles as general counsel and vice chair after his departure at the end of the month. Abraham added that she will “take the helm” of the company’s legal team.
Key takeaways
Paul Grewal is leaving Coinbase’s day-to-day legal leadership on July 31, shifting to an advisory capacity.
Molly Abraham and Ryan VanGrack are set to take over top legal governance roles as Coinbase reorganizes internally.
Grewal previously led Coinbase’s legal response to the SEC’s 2023 enforcement action alleging unregistered exchange, broker, and clearing activity.
Coinbase executives continue to press Congress on legislation that would move major digital-asset oversight from the SEC toward the CFTC.
A leadership handoff in Coinbase’s legal department
Grewal’s announcement marks a notable change at the center of Coinbase’s legal strategy. He has served as the exchange’s chief legal officer since 2020, overseeing the company’s engagement with regulators during a period when US crypto policy and enforcement have repeatedly shifted.
Under the plan Grewal described, Abraham will assume responsibility for directing Coinbase’s legal team as general counsel, while VanGrack will take on a vice-chair role. Grewal indicated that he would announce a potential new position “in due course,” but did not provide further specifics at the time of his post.
Why Grewal’s role carried regulatory weight
As CLO, Grewal played a prominent part in Coinbase’s legal posture during the SEC’s 2023 case. In that action, the SEC alleged that Coinbase operated as an unregistered securities exchange, broker, and clearing agency. Coinbase and its executives challenged the claims, and the lawsuit was later dismissed under the Trump administration.
The significance of a CLO at a major exchange extends beyond courtroom strategy: it often shapes how a company navigates evolving enforcement theories, responds to regulator guidance, and supports legislative engagement. Grewal’s move to advisory status therefore raises an obvious question for the market—how much influence will shift with the leadership change, even if Coinbase’s broader policy approach remains constant.
Coinbase has long portrayed its policy efforts as aligned with clearer regulatory boundaries for digital asset markets, and Grewal’s involvement has historically been a part of the exchange’s public-facing legal narrative.
Coinbase’s push for market-structure legislation continues
Even as Grewal transitions roles, Coinbase’s policy priorities appear unchanged. The company has been actively encouraging lawmakers to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY).
According to the reporting referenced in the source material, CLARITY is widely expected to alter the regulatory framework for digital assets by shifting oversight and regulation from the SEC toward the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). That framework change would matter to market participants because it could redefine which regulator is responsible for key aspects of crypto market supervision.
The source also notes that the US Senate is in a state work period until Monday, when lawmakers are expected to return and potentially take up a vote on the bill. For traders, issuers, and exchanges, the timing of committee movement and floor consideration can influence expectations around compliance costs and the likelihood of future regulatory certainty.
What investors should watch next
Grewal’s transition doesn’t automatically signal a policy pivot—Coinbase’s top leadership has continued to emphasize legislative clarity, and the exchange’s legal structure is being redistributed rather than dismantled. Still, the appointment and influence of whoever effectively holds the reins after the July 31 transition will be closely watched by anyone tracking US crypto regulatory risk.
With the Senate schedule potentially affecting CLARITY’s near-term momentum, the key question is how Coinbase’s legal leadership will shape engagement with lawmakers and regulators as the political process moves forward. Readers should monitor any further updates from Coinbase regarding Grewal’s advisory responsibilities and any concrete legislative or regulatory developments that follow the Senate’s return.
This article was originally published as Coinbase Legal Chief to Shift to Advisory Role on July 31 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitdeer Technologies Group shares rose sharply on Thursday after the Bitcoin mining infrastructure company said it will build a new manufacturing facility in Nevada. The project is designed to expand US production capacity for Bitdeer’s mining hardware and, according to the company, reduce dependence on third-party suppliers.
The stock climbed 14.1% to $14.33, wiping out much of an earlier selloff in the week. Even with the rebound, Bitdeer remains about 27% below its June high, though it is up roughly 26% year-to-date.
Key takeaways
Bitdeer plans to build a Nevada manufacturing facility in Sparks to assemble its SEALMINER mining machines.
The plant is expected to begin commercial production by the end of the year.
Bitdeer says the facility includes production of key mining hardware components, potentially lowering reliance on external hardware sources.
While competitors push into AI and high-performance computing, Bitdeer’s Nevada expansion is specifically focused on mining hardware.
Bitdeer also reported mining output of 921 BTC in May, representing a 370% increase versus the prior year.
Why a Nevada manufacturing push matters
Bitdeer’s announcement centers on a new facility in Sparks, Nevada, intended to assemble its SEALMINER line of Bitcoin mining equipment. The company says the site will also produce major components used in the machines, with commercial production slated to start by the end of the year.
For investors and mining-industry watchers, the importance of this shift is straightforward: hardware supply and lead times are often pivotal to mining operations, particularly when market demand accelerates. By bringing more manufacturing in-house within the US, Bitdeer is positioning itself to better control key parts of its supply chain rather than relying entirely on external vendors.
The facility also signals a broader strategic bet—mining infrastructure companies are increasingly expected to compete not only on hashrate and operating costs, but on the ability to scale equipment production reliably.
Incentives and local partnership cited by management
According to remarks attributed to Bitdeer CEO Catherine Guo by local media, the company worked with Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo’s administration and local authorities to secure tax incentives, including a reduction in qualifying sales taxes, as part of its decision to establish operations in the state.
These kinds of incentives can materially change the economics of industrial expansion, especially for manufacturing-heavy projects with significant upfront capital requirements. They also help explain why some mining-related manufacturers prioritize certain jurisdictions—cost structures and time-to-production can be decisive when trying to scale.
Bitdeer stays on hardware while rivals diversify
Bitdeer’s Nevada facility comes as several large Bitcoin miners and mining-adjacent companies broaden their businesses into AI, high-performance computing, and related digital infrastructure. In those cases, access to power and data center infrastructure can make it easier to pivot toward compute-intensive services beyond mining.
However, Bitdeer’s plans for Sparks are explicitly tied to Bitcoin mining hardware production rather than a broader AI-focused overhaul. The company has reportedly expanded into AI cloud services and high-performance computing, but the new Nevada plant is intended specifically for manufacturing SEALMINER equipment and components.
This creates an interesting contrast within the sector. While some publicly traded miners are using their infrastructure footprint to chase contracts in the AI ecosystem, Bitdeer is emphasizing the practical bottleneck on the mining side: getting capable hardware built and delivered at scale.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph has highlighted how the AI pivot among Bitcoin miners faces investor scrutiny, including concerns around insider sales. Against that backdrop, Bitdeer’s more narrow manufacturing focus may appeal to investors looking for tangible supply-chain expansion inside the core mining industry.
Output update underscores the company’s operating momentum
Alongside the manufacturing announcement, Bitdeer also provided a production update stating it mined 921 BTC in May. The company said this represented a 370% increase compared with the previous year.
That matters because new manufacturing capacity typically takes time to translate into higher throughput. In the meantime, investors often look for evidence that operations are already improving—either through added capacity, better utilization, or improved efficiency. Bitdeer’s May output increase offers some near-term confirmation that the company’s mining business is not only expanding on paper but also generating stronger results.
Even so, the market reaction to Thursday’s news suggests investors are treating the Nevada facility as more than incremental: the prospect of end-of-year commercial production could mark a meaningful step in the company’s ability to scale its hardware footprint.
Cointelegraph previously reported on how MARA Holdings announced plans to acquire a Texas site with up to 2 gigawatts of capacity to expand its AI and digital infrastructure business, and how TeraWulf signed a 20-year data center lease with Anthropic that the company said could generate roughly $19 billion in contract revenue. Those developments highlight how quickly many miners are moving toward AI-driven business models—even as hardware production remains central to the mining sector’s long-term competitiveness.
What to watch next
As Bitdeer works toward end-of-year commercial production in Nevada, the key question for investors is whether the facility meaningfully changes hardware availability, delivery timelines, and cost structure. The next signals to track are updated production metrics, progress on the manufacturing timeline, and any further detail on how the Nevada plant is expected to reduce dependency on third-party components.
This article was originally published as Bitdeer Shares Rise 14% on US Mining Hardware Production Expansion on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

White House officials have pushed back against concerns from Senate Democrats about vacancies at two key US financial regulators, saying the administration has already been soliciting Democratic names for open seats at both the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).
In a Thursday letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, administration officials responded to a June 10 request from 12 Senate Democrats that raised staffing and oversight worries at federal agencies, including the SEC and CFTC. The letter argues that, despite the leadership gaps, the normal nomination process has been pursued with Senate Democratic leadership.
Key takeaways
White House officials say they have already sought Democratic nominee names for both the SEC and CFTC vacancies, countering Senate Democrats’ earlier claims.
The SEC currently has two vacant Democratic seats, while the CFTC chair and sole commissioner is Republican Michael Selig.
Democratic lawmakers have linked understaffing concerns to delays in crypto market structure legislation, including the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act.
CFTC chair Michael Selig has argued in a recent interview that regulators may be forced to “write all the rules” on digital assets without new legislation.
White House response to Senate Democrats over regulator vacancies
The latest dispute centers on whether the White House has followed a customary, bipartisan approach to identifying Democratic candidates for independent agency vacancies. In June, the 12 Democratic senators warned that the White House was leaving many important posts open indefinitely rather than engaging with Senate Democratic leadership through the “normal process” of selecting nominees.
That request cited understaffing across federal agencies and pointed specifically to the SEC and CFTC. The letter also noted that while President Donald Trump has submitted some Democratic nominees for other agencies—including the National Labor Relations Board and the International Trade Commission—financial regulators have allegedly remained stuck without full bipartisan representation.
The Thursday response attempts to close that gap by asserting that the administration had already solicited names from Senate Democrats for the SEC and CFTC. According to the filing, the SEC and CFTC are both operating with incomplete leadership slates, with only Republican commissioners currently nominated and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC and CFTC staffing status and what it means for policy
As of Thursday, the SEC had two vacant Democratic seats alongside three Republican commissioners. One of the commissioners, Hester Peirce, was reported to be expected to leave the role by November, leaving open the prospect of further turnover during an already politically charged period for financial regulation.
At the CFTC, Michael Selig serves as chair and the only commissioner. His position has come with an assertive stance on jurisdictional control, particularly in relation to prediction market companies. Over the past several months, he has been outspoken about defending what he described as the agency’s “exclusive jurisdiction” in that area.
For market participants, regulator staffing is not just a governance issue—it directly affects how quickly and confidently agencies can move on rulemaking priorities, interpret complex market structures, and coordinate with Congress. When leadership teams are incomplete, policy timelines can become harder to predict and enforcement priorities can face more scrutiny.
Crypto legislation remains stalled amid bipartisan arithmetic
The staffing argument has run alongside a broader policy fight: the delay and partial progress of crypto market structure legislation in the Senate. With the Senate in state work periods through Monday, reports indicate discussions continue over the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, and Republicans have reportedly been preparing for a July vote.
However, the bill’s path has not been straightforward. The digital asset market structure legislation first passed the House of Representatives in July 2025, but it has faced significant delays since then, including government shutdowns and debates over ethics provisions. Even as Senate committees advanced versions of the bill earlier this year, the proposal still requires Democratic support to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for Senate passage.
That gap matters because the practical impact of legislation—on how markets are classified, overseen, and supervised—can determine whether regulators have clear mandates or must rely primarily on existing statutory authorities and enforcement discretion.
Selig warns of “all the rules” risk without legislation
In a Wednesday interview with Fox Business, CFTC chair Michael Selig argued that the CLARITY Act is being derailed by ethics and other “extraneous issues,” reducing the chances of a bipartisan outcome. He suggested that if the bill does not move forward, regulators like him could end up setting most of the regulatory framework themselves.
According to Selig’s comments, the problem is not merely delay but the likelihood that the final policy shape would be less collaborative and less bipartisan than intended. In his framing, the longer Congress takes, the more rulemaking power shifts toward regulators—an approach that can be politically contentious, especially for fast-moving crypto markets.
For investors and builders, that raises a key question: will digital asset market regulation arrive through a comprehensive legislative package, or will it instead emerge through fragmented agency actions and interpretations? Until Congress resolves the bipartisan vote challenge, market participants may need to plan for continuing regulatory uncertainty.
What to watch next
The immediate question is whether the Senate’s return and any July scheduling will translate into real movement on the CLARITY Act, and whether regulator staffing disputes cool down as nominations continue. Market stakeholders should also watch how the SEC’s leadership changes—particularly around Hester Peirce’s expected departure—interact with ongoing legislative negotiations and agency rulemaking priorities.
This article was originally published as White House: No Democratic SEC/CFTC picks submitted for vacancies on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin reclaimed the $63,000 level on Thursday, but traders are approaching Friday’s $1.4 billion Bitcoin options expiry on Deribit with caution. The central debate is whether macro pressure—particularly rising US Treasury yields—will undermine BTC’s rebound and put the $62,000 support zone to the test.
While US bond yields pushing toward 4.6% have kept risk appetite cautious, Deribit positioning appears to be more balanced than outright bearish. That mix is setting up a weekend-or-later decision point for BTC’s short-term direction.
Key takeaways
US 10-year Treasury yields nearing 4.6% are weighing on risk assets, reinforcing fears about debt concerns and tighter financial conditions.
Deribit’s balanced put-to-call activity suggests downside demand is not dominating ahead of Friday’s large options expiry.
Open interest and strike concentration point to key levels around $62,000, $61,000, and $63,500 for near-term price behavior.
For bulls to extend their edge, BTC needs to hold above key expiry-related thresholds; otherwise, the market may remain rangebound.
Treasury yields and risk appetite: why BTC is stuck near $63K
The move in US government bond yields is driving much of the near-term caution. With the US 10-year yield approaching 4.6%, investors appear increasingly concerned about the expansion of government debt and the likelihood that additional monetary policy support may be needed to avoid a recessionary slowdown.
That backdrop has influenced Bitcoin’s trading behavior. BTC has largely been moving sideways, while equities—at least in the Nasdaq-100—have been holding relatively close to record levels. On Thursday, technology momentum continued to attract capital, supported by market-moving activity in semiconductors.
According to the article, SK Hynix’s US initial public offering was oversubscribed, contributing to strength across parts of the AI-linked chip complex. The result was a risk-on bid in equities, with Arm Holdings up about 10%, Advanced Micro Devices higher by roughly 7%, and Micron gaining around 7% intraday.
Still, equities strength does not automatically translate into sustained BTC upside when bond yields are rising. Bitcoin tends to react to shifts in global liquidity expectations, and bond yield pressure can quickly change the market’s risk calculus.
ETF flow worries cool off—options demand looks more balanced
Spot Bitcoin ETF flows briefly came back into focus on Wednesday, when the market saw $85 million in net outflows, ending a short run of three consecutive days of inflows. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph linked that outflow episode to broader selling pressure in spot ETF markets.
However, the presence of outflows alone does not clarify whether institutions have shifted structurally bearish. More importantly for the near-term trade is how derivatives positioning has evolved into Friday’s expiry.
Deribit activity has been described as “balanced” between calls and puts, implying that demand for downside exposure has not surged. The key point is that options volumes over the past few days did not show a clear stampede into protective puts.
As cited in the piece, Laevitas data shows the put-to-call volumes relationship remains supportive of range stability. Even though call activity has outpaced put volume over four days—suggesting traders have trimmed urgency around downside—this is not the same as a market that is fully discounting volatility.
Deribit expiry setup: where the market’s incentives cluster
Friday’s weekly options expiry involves a large notional figure of $1.4 billion on Deribit, and the strike distribution matters for how price can “pin” near certain levels. The article highlights an interesting imbalance in the immediate strike zones.
Calls up to the $62,500 region amount to about $137 million, while puts above $61,000 total roughly $121 million. That does not imply an outright one-sided bet, but it does indicate that there is meaningful positioning both for upside continuation and for defense just below the middle of the range.
Open interest and strike placement also shape traders’ expectations for pinning behavior. With BTC positioned around the $63,000 area heading into expiry, the next move could be influenced by how market makers and hedgers respond to gamma exposure across key strikes. The article references Deribit open interest data for July 10 BTC, underscoring that the market is not operating without “gravity” around specific prices.
Within this framework, the piece outlines conditional outcomes: bulls would strengthen their position materially with a move above $63,500 by the 8:00 AM UTC expiry on Friday, while bears maintain a smaller edge below $61,000. Without additional macro or catalyst-driven volatility, the market may not deliver a decisive breakout purely from derivatives positioning.
Oil, geopolitics, and bond yields: what could break the range
Beyond crypto-native signals, the article points to two macro variables that could shift demand between fixed income and risk assets: energy and Treasury yields. A temporary truce in the Middle East could ease recession fears, encouraging capital rotation into higher-risk markets—an environment that typically supports BTC.
On the other hand, the piece also notes an ongoing counterweight. It argues that persistent uncertainty in the macro outlook, including the risk of additional large Treasury issuance to cover debt growth, could keep pressure on yields and dampen crypto upside attempts.
Traders are also asked to watch crude oil direction. A renewed escalation around Iran could push oil higher, worsening inflation fears and potentially forcing a less favorable policy outlook—conditions that tend to complicate liquidity for risk assets.
Crucially, the article ties these macro considerations back to options behavior: with put-option buying remaining restrained in recent sessions, BTC appears positioned to defend the $62,000 support level, at least in the immediate term. Still, that defense is not guaranteed. The market’s stability depends on whether bond yields ease and whether geopolitical risk stops feeding into inflation and rate expectations.
For now, the near-term picture is conditional: a successful expiry resolution above $63,500 could deliver short-term relief, but sustained upward progress would likely require a more supportive macro shift. Until then, traders may have to manage expectations for a range that can hold—but also revert quickly if yields keep climbing.
As Friday’s options expiry approaches, the key variables to watch are whether Treasury yields cool off and how price reacts around $63,500 and $62,000 into the settlement window—levels that derivatives positioning is effectively steering toward.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Tests $62K as $1.4B Options Expiry Hits Friday on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin mining stocks that briefly caught a bid on hopes of an AI-driven pivot are now facing a more skeptical market backdrop, according to Blocksbridge Consulting. In its Miner Weekly update, the research firm says the AI infrastructure theme—centered on data centers, power assets, and partnerships with hyperscalers—helped re-rate valuations across parts of the sector, but momentum has cooled as broader AI and chip equities have pulled back.
Blocksbridge points to the TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index, which tracks Bitcoin miners alongside AI cloud providers, power suppliers, and other AI infrastructure-linked businesses. The index has fallen 16% over the past month, a move that has shifted investor attention toward corporate governance and whether insiders and major shareholders benefited from the earlier rally.
Key takeaways
Blocksbridge links the prior stock re-ratings in Bitcoin mining names to an AI infrastructure narrative, which has since lost traction.
The TEM AI Infrastructure Growth Index is down 16% over the past month, reflecting weaker sentiment across AI-adjacent equities.
Insider selling at TeraWulf, Cipher Digital, Riot Platforms, and Core Scientific has drawn more attention, even though many transactions were reportedly executed under Rule 10b5-1 plans.
Strategic investors are also trimming exposure, including Tether’s stake reduction in Bitdeer after Bitdeer’s AI-related rebound.
AI’s pullback changes what investors scrutinize
Blocksbridge says the AI transition initially buoyed the market’s outlook for miners that are repositioning their operations toward compute-related infrastructure. The pitch is straightforward: mining companies already control or access large-scale power generation and can leverage data-center assets, making them potential suppliers of capacity for AI-related demand.
However, when AI and semiconductor stocks retreat, the trade-off becomes harder to ignore. With fewer investors willing to underwrite optimistic long-term narratives in the face of near-term uncertainty, governance questions tend to resurface—particularly around whether insiders sold shares during periods when the story was most compelling.
In that context, Blocksbridge highlights that executives and major stakeholders have disclosed stock sales. Many of these trades were reportedly carried out using prearranged Rule 10b5-1 trading plans, which are commonly used to reduce the risk of accusations that insider information influenced transactions. Even so, Blocksbridge argues that the same routine mechanism can look less neutral when the sector narrative cools after a rapid re-rating.
Insider and strategic selling comes into focus
The Blocksbridge report draws a direct line between the easing AI sentiment and increased scrutiny of insider activity. It points to disclosed stock sales by executives at TeraWulf, Cipher Digital, Riot Platforms, and Core Scientific. Rule 10b5-1 plans are designed to create a predetermined trading schedule so that sales can occur without discretionary timing based on nonpublic information.
Blocksbridge says the sales are now attracting more attention because investors are reassessing the durability of the AI-linked valuation premium. Rather than asking only whether miners can transition into AI infrastructure providers, the market is increasingly asking whether public shareholders ultimately capture the value created by these pivots.
That skepticism also extends to non-executive investors. Blocksbridge notes that stablecoin issuer Tether reduced its stake in Bitdeer following Bitdeer’s AI-driven rebound. While the reasons for any individual investor’s changes in exposure may be complex, the broader pattern—strategic capital trimming risk as sentiment fades—adds another layer to governance and alignment concerns.
TeraWulf singled out after a high-profile AI infrastructure deal
Blocksbridge describes TeraWulf as the clearest example of how insider activity can become especially visible when a company is viewed as a leading beneficiary of the AI infrastructure shift. It says CEO Paul Prager and Beowulf E&D Holdings, an entity the CEO manages, sold roughly 1.59 million WULF shares.
The timing becomes notable in the report’s framing because it occurred ahead of, or around the period of, a deal widely viewed as validation of TeraWulf’s AI strategy. Blocksbridge ties the spotlight to the company’s announcement of a 20-year AI infrastructure lease with AI developer Anthropic, referenced in earlier reporting from Cointelegraph: “Terawulf shares rise after 19B Anthropic AI lease, JV sale”.
For investors, this kind of juxtaposition matters because it forces a hard question: are insiders reflecting a long-term conviction in the transition, or are they de-risking after the stock has already priced in a meaningful portion of the upside? Rule 10b5-1 plans don’t eliminate that interpretive tension—they simply shape the legal and compliance framework around how the trades occur.
The valuation problem behind AI infrastructure spending
Blocksbridge’s report also broadens the discussion beyond Bitcoin miners to the AI sector itself. Many miners have moved into AI data-center positioning as traditional mining economics have grown tougher, particularly after Bitcoin’s 2024 halving tightened industry margins.
But the AI infrastructure trade is no longer empty space. Blocksbridge argues it has become crowded and is facing mounting pressure from investors to justify large capital expenditures against uncertain payoffs. In a report published by Deloitte in October, AI was described as a “paradox of rising investment and elusive returns,” reflecting the view that many organizations may need more time than expected to turn AI spending into measurable value.
Additional perspective in the Blocksbridge update comes from Teneo research based on a survey of more than 350 public company CEOs. That work suggested fewer than half of AI initiatives delivered returns exceeding their costs.
These findings don’t negate the long-term demand thesis for compute capacity—but they do highlight why miners attempting to capture AI-related demand may face a harder path to convincing equity markets. The sector may benefit from access to power and existing infrastructure, yet the equity valuation mechanism still depends on credible timelines for monetization and measurable returns.
In this environment, investors appear to be shifting from the simplicity of the AI pivot story toward a more demanding checklist: execution milestones, evidence of customer pull-through, and whether governance signals align with shareholders’ long-term interests.
Going forward, the market’s key question will likely be whether miners can translate their AI infrastructure positioning into durable, shareholder-visible returns—while insiders and major investors’ selling patterns remain an unavoidable data point during periods of weakening AI sentiment.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Miner AI Pivot Spurs Investor Scrutiny After Insider Sales on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

UK Labour MPs are preparing to push for a permanent ban on crypto donations to political parties and candidates, arguing that recent allegations around Nigel Farage’s funding have underscored risks of undue influence in British politics.
According to The Guardian, the party is looking to overhaul existing donation rules after a March moratorium on crypto contributions was introduced and then prompted further scrutiny. The renewed push is linked to Farage’s resignation from Parliament and reporting that he received large “gifts” connected to the digital-asset industry.
Key takeaways
Labour MPs are considering making the March crypto-donation moratorium permanent, moving from temporary restraint to a lasting rule change.
The push follows Farage’s resignation and claims that he accepted millions in donations described as “gifts” from crypto-linked figures.
UK lawmakers plan to review proposed amendments next week, potentially tightening political funding limits for digital assets.
A by-election in Farage’s constituency will be triggered, but major parties reportedly plan not to run candidates, leaving the contest to voters.
A temporary ban becomes a permanent proposal
The legislative debate centres on the March moratorium on crypto donations, which was announced by the UK government as part of a broader effort to protect democratic processes. The government’s move included a cap on donations from overseas electors and a ban on crypto donations, framed explicitly around safeguarding the integrity of elections.
Labour now wants that crypto restriction to be extended beyond its initial window. The Guardian reports that MPs have tabled amendments aimed at turning the moratorium into a permanent measure.
Liam Byrne, a Labour MP for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North and chair of the business select committee, is among the figures backing the changes. He argued that the scale of the alleged inflows—cited in the report as “$268 million”—could fuel a wider political media ecosystem that benefits populist movements.
In a post on X, Byrne reiterated his view that stronger donation safeguards are needed, linking the current push to evidence of how crypto-related money could intersect with political influence.
Farage’s resignation reignites the funding controversy
Farage announced his resignation on Tuesday, following reporting about contributions he accepted while serving as MP for Clacton. He said the UK parliamentary standards commissioner was investigating the donations, while maintaining that he “did nothing wrong.”
The allegations described in the reporting include a $6.7 million “gift” from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne and additional support—such as staff, security, transport, and accommodation—linked to George Cottrell, described as a convicted fraudster connected to a crypto casino.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted Farage’s resignation was tied to the controversy over crypto donations and gifts. That resignation is expected to keep the issue at the top of the UK political agenda, particularly as Labour seeks to lock in lasting limits.
What Labour MPs want to change—And why it matters
Under the reported plan, Labour lawmakers intend to consider amendments to the representation of the people measures next week. If adopted, a permanent crypto donation ban would represent a significant tightening of rules around how digital-asset wealth can flow into electoral politics.
For investors and builders in the crypto economy, the practical implication is straightforward: policy risk around political funding could shift from a temporary, trial-like restriction to a durable compliance requirement—one that may influence how crypto-linked businesses think about political engagement in the UK.
It also changes the timeline for uncertainty. A moratorium implies a watch-and-review period; a permanent ban implies long-term regulatory expectations. Market participants typically price in policy duration, and longer-lived restrictions tend to reduce the odds of sudden rule reversals—either tightening further or reversing course.
There is also a governance angle. Labour’s framing, as reported, focuses on democracy-protection rather than market conduct. That means the next step for observers is not just how the crypto donation ban is written, but how enforcement is handled and whether standards investigations evolve into broader election-law reforms.
By-election dynamics and the leadership question
Farage’s resignation automatically triggers a by-election in Clacton. He told constituents that “the people of Clacton should be the judges of my actions,” according to the reported coverage. However, the major party landscape is expected to be unusual: The Guardian reports that Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and Greens will reportedly not field candidates.
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has described Farage’s move as a “desperate stunt,” a characterization that signals the political conflict around the donation allegations is likely to remain sharply contested.
Separately, a potential political leadership transition could affect how quickly Labour pushes the crypto donation issue through parliament. Earlier this week, a week-long window reportedly opened for Labour MPs to nominate candidates for the party’s next leader, who would also become prime minister if Labour wins.
Cointelegraph previously noted that Andy Burnham—a Labour MP and former mayor of Greater Manchester—has been positioned as a contender following Starmer’s resignation. As mayor, Burnham backed the idea of making the city a “Web3 powerhouse” and supported using digital technology for economic development.
If Burnham secures enough support to win the leadership contest, he may face immediate pressure to address both the proposed crypto donation ban and broader questions about how UK regulators oversee crypto activity, including the Financial Conduct Authority’s role.
What to watch next
Next week’s consideration of Labour’s proposed amendments will be the key milestone. Observers should watch whether the party’s push results in a permanent statutory ban on crypto donations and, equally important, how any enforcement mechanisms and parliamentary standards findings develop around the Farage-linked allegations.
This article was originally published as UK Lawmakers Consider Making Crypto Donations Ban Permanent After Farage Scandal on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Perpetual futures—derivatives that typically trade without fixed expiry dates—are increasingly being positioned as a next-generation instrument for markets that never sleep. In a Wednesday post on X, blockchain-focused asset manager Pantera Capital argued that decentralized venues built around onchain infrastructure could make 24/7 perpetual trading materially more competitive with traditional finance by improving continuity of trading and simplifying contract mechanics.
Pantera, which is an investor in the Hyperliquid ecosystem, highlighted Hyperliquid as a leading example of that shift. The firm also pointed to growing interest from established market operators, including NYSE parent Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), and cited data suggesting onchain perpetuals have taken a meaningful share of total perpetual volumes over the last year-plus.
Key takeaways
Pantera says perpetual futures offer structural advantages—such as 24/7 trading and continuous price discovery—over many traditional derivative formats.
Hyperliquid is presented as the clearest onchain case study, extending perpetuals from crypto to equities, commodities, and stock indices.
Pantera claims decentralized exchange (DEX) perpetual volumes have risen to 14% of centralized exchange (CEX) perpetual volumes, up from less than 1% in early 2023.
Pantera estimates Hyperliquid represents about 40% of onchain perpetual trading volume and generated $13.5 million in weekly fees over the past seven days, according to DefiLlama data.
Traditional finance firms are moving toward onchain 24/7 markets, with ICE leadership urging regulators to avoid a “level playing field” disadvantage for onchain perps.
Why perpetuals are attracting attention beyond crypto
Perpetual futures have long been a staple in crypto markets, but Pantera’s argument is that their core mechanics translate well to broader financial products. According to the asset manager, onchain perpetual venues benefit from several “structural advantages” relative to conventional derivatives: trading can run continuously, positions don’t face the same kind of scheduled contract expiries, position management can be simpler, and prices can reflect ongoing demand through uninterrupted markets.
The point matters for investors and market participants because it reframes the debate away from whether derivatives can be moved to blockchain and toward how the product’s operational characteristics change trading behavior. If market hours and contract roll cycles are reduced, liquidity dynamics and execution practices may shift—particularly for strategies that rely on staying continuously exposed rather than rebalancing around expiry windows.
Hyperliquid’s expansion and the push toward “housing all of finance”
Pantera specifically singled out Hyperliquid as evidence that perpetuals can spread quickly when the venue’s design supports both trading continuity and a growing menu of assets. The firm said Hyperliquid has gone beyond cryptocurrencies and expanded perpetual futures into equities, commodities, and stock indices as part of founder Jeff Yan’s vision of “housing all of finance.”
That expansion is significant because it introduces a compatibility question that often holds back experimental derivatives: whether an onchain trading venue can support complex, non-crypto underlyings while maintaining the user experience traders expect. By framing Hyperliquid’s asset diversification as a key driver, Pantera is effectively arguing that the perpetual model—paired with always-on trading—can serve as a general-purpose derivatives interface.
Onchain perps gain share, but central venues are watching closely
Pantera’s post also emphasized measurable traction in onchain perpetuals. The firm said DEX perpetual volumes rose to 14% of CEX perpetual volume, up from less than 1% in early 2023, when Hyperliquid first launched. It further claimed Hyperliquid accounts for roughly 40% of onchain perpetual trading volume.
To ground the growth narrative in revenue generation, Pantera cited fees performance: Hyperliquid, it said, generated $13.5 million in weekly fees in the past seven days, using DefiLlama data. While trading volume and fee totals are not the same metric, the combination is useful for readers because it suggests demand is not purely speculative—there is sustained activity sufficient to support protocol revenue.
Still, the numbers also highlight a transition phase. Even at 14% of CEX perpetual volume, the majority of perpetual activity remains centralized. Pantera’s figures therefore portray an emerging competitive set of venues rather than a complete replacement of traditional exchanges.
Traditional finance steps toward 24/7, and ICE calls for regulatory parity
Pantera’s thesis about perpetual futures has drawn parallels with moves already happening in traditional finance. The asset manager pointed to attention from ICE, where CEO Jeffrey Sprecher urged regulators to create a “level playing field” for launching 24/7 onchain perpetual futures contracts.
The underlying tension is straightforward: onchain derivatives aim to bring trading closer to continuous market mechanics, but regulatory frameworks and supervisory expectations may still treat onchain offerings differently than traditional venues. Pantera’s mention of ICE leadership implies that the competitive stakes are large enough that major incumbents are advocating for consistent rules rather than waiting for markets to converge naturally.
Momentum appears across multiple related announcements involving 24/7 trading ambitions. Cointelegraph previously reported that OKX announced plans to launch perpetual futures linked to ICE’s Brent crude and West Texas Intermediate benchmarks, citing a partnership with the exchange operator. Earlier coverage also noted the NYSE’s collaboration with tokenization platform Securitize to develop blockchain-based stock trading infrastructure with 24/7 trading and settlement for Wall Street, as well as ICE’s plans for a tokenized securities venue aimed at 24/7 trading and instant settlement, with stablecoin-based funding and onchain settlement.
Taken together, these developments show that the “always-on” market concept is no longer confined to crypto infrastructure. Instead, it is becoming a reference point for how TradFi platforms consider liquidity access, settlement speed, and funding workflows.
For readers, the next thing to watch is whether regulatory clarity accelerates the move from pilots to scaled onchain perpetual launches across more traditional asset classes. Pantera’s data suggests onchain perps are already carving out measurable share, but the pace of expansion beyond current players will likely depend on how the “level playing field” debate resolves and whether incumbents can align product rollouts with regulator expectations.
This article was originally published as Pantera: Hyperliquid highlights how on-chain perps may disrupt Wall St on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) has issued new rules aimed at reducing account takeovers on virtual asset trading platforms (VATPs) and online brokers. The regulator says platforms in the city must upgrade authentication controls to make logins more resilient to phishing and other social engineering tactics.
The SFC requires stronger phishing-resistant authentication methods and device binding, and it bans one-time passwords delivered via SMS, email, or app-based logins. Companies covered by the rules have 12 months to implement the changes, which the SFC frames as a key part of raising local cybersecurity standards as phishing activity intensifies globally.
Key takeaways
The SFC’s new requirements apply to virtual asset trading platforms (VATPs) and online brokers operating in Hong Kong.
One-time passwords through SMS, email, or app-based logins are prohibited for these platforms.
Phishing-resistant authentication and device binding are required, with options such as passkeys and hardware security keys.
Covered firms must complete implementation within 12 months from issuance.
The SFC linked the update to rising phishing and social engineering losses in the broader crypto industry.
What the SFC is requiring for crypto login security
In a statement released Thursday, the Hong Kong regulator outlined specific expectations for authentication on VATPs and online brokers. The SFC’s document sets out requirements for phishing-resistant methods and device binding, aiming to prevent attackers from hijacking accounts through fraudulent login prompts or compromised credentials.
According to the SFC, the new standards disallow one-time passwords delivered by SMS, email, or via app-based logins. Instead, the commission points to stronger alternatives designed to reduce the effectiveness of phishing scams—for example, passkeys, registered devices with cryptographic verification, and hardware security keys.
The formal requirements are available through the SFC’s publication gateway: SFC requirements document.
Why Hong Kong is tightening rules now
The SFC’s move arrives at a moment when phishing and social engineering incidents continue to disrupt crypto users worldwide. The SFC said that in the first quarter of 2026, phishing-related tactics accounted for a significant portion of reported industry losses.
As reported by Cointelegraph earlier, industry losses totaled $482 million in the period, with $306 million attributed to phishing attacks and social engineering scams. The SFC also referenced a separate local data point: counterfeiting and fraud incidents represented 57% of security incidents reported to the Hong Kong Cyber Security Accident Coordination Center in 2025.
In remarks carried in the SFC materials, Dr. Ye Zhiheng, executive director of the Intermediaries Department of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, said that protecting customers from increasingly complex counterfeiting and fraud attacks requires comprehensive measures spanning prevention, detection, response, and education.
Real-world phishing losses underscore the risk
The SFC’s tightening reflects a pattern already visible in recent crypto incidents: attackers often use phishing to trick users into signing approvals or connecting wallets to fraudulent pages. These actions can grant attackers control over funds or enable unauthorized transfers.
Cointelegraph reported on Wednesday that a crypto investor lost nearly $1 million after signing a malicious phishing token approval transaction on Ethereum. Earlier coverage also described another case in which a wallet holder reportedly lost $1.65 million after connecting to a fake exchange and signing a malicious contract that gave attackers unlimited access to funds. Researcher Ryan Coleman made the assessment in a post shared on X: RyanColeXBT.
Additional examples cited in earlier reporting highlight the variety of phishing delivery methods. Cointelegraph noted that on May 25, on-chain analyst “b-block” warned scammers used Google to deploy malicious phishing ads impersonating decentralized exchange Uniswap, reportedly stealing more than $400,000 from victims. That earlier report is here: Cointelegraph on fake Uniswap ads.
Broader industry leaders have also called attention to wallet security weaknesses that phishing exploits. Cointelegraph previously connected such risks to discussions from Binance co-founder Changpeng Zhao after major investor losses, including a $50 million address poisoning incident in December 2025. Earlier coverage on that topic is here: Zhao’s remarks and related loss.
Device binding and passkeys: what changes for users and platforms
Although phishing attacks often start with a message that looks legitimate, the SFC’s approach targets the authentication layer that attackers rely on. By requiring phishing-resistant authentication and device binding, the rules are designed to reduce the chances that credentials or approvals obtained through a scam lead directly to account compromise.
For platforms, the practical implication is that they cannot treat multi-factor authentication as a checkbox. The SFC’s explicit ban on SMS/email one-time passwords is especially important because these methods can still be vulnerable to social engineering and interception—scenarios where attackers focus on tricking users into providing the second factor or luring them into fraudulent flows.
Instead, the SFC highlights methods that tie authentication to trusted hardware or cryptographic verification. Passkeys, cryptographic device registration, and hardware security keys all share a common theme: the login mechanism should be harder for attackers to replicate via fraudulent prompts, and stronger controls should ensure that only authorized devices can complete authentication.
For Hong Kong users, the change may eventually translate into a more consistent login experience with fewer fallback authentication options. For investors and traders, stronger login security is not just a compliance issue; it can be a direct determinant of whether account takeover attempts succeed—particularly when platforms integrate authentication with deposit, withdrawal, and trading permissions.
Still, one key uncertainty remains: how quickly different VATPs and online brokers will choose among the SFC’s allowed phishing-resistant alternatives, and how smooth the migration will be for end users. With a 12-month deadline, platform execution and user onboarding processes will likely be crucial in determining how effectively the new rules reduce real-world phishing losses.
With the SFC setting a clear timeline and banning weaker authentication methods, attention should now turn to how quickly Hong Kong platforms roll out passkeys or device-bound cryptographic authentication—and whether regulators will later expand requirements as phishing tactics evolve.
This article was originally published as Hong Kong Regulator Mandates New Anti-Phishing Rules for Crypto Firms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

StarkWare co-founder Eli Ben-Sasson argues that quantum-safety for Bitcoin is more likely to arrive through ZK STARKs—especially when used to compress the huge signature data expected from post-quantum (PQ) schemes—rather than by simply expanding blocks or accepting slower throughput. He also suggested that Adam Back, founder of Blockstream, aligns with the core idea, though Cointelegraph reported no response from Back to its outreach.
The broader debate has resurfaced this week as Ben-Sasson also drew attention for a separate, contentious proposal on X: raising Bitcoin inflation to 4% annually. However, his technical case for ZK STARK aggregation rests on a concrete concern—PQ signatures are far larger than today’s ECDSA/Schnorr signatures—and the resulting trade-offs for network capacity and decentralization.
Key takeaways
Post-quantum signatures are much larger than Bitcoin’s current signature schemes, potentially forcing major capacity changes.
ZK STARK aggregation could compress many large signatures from a block into a much smaller proof, reducing on-chain data pressure.
Simply increasing block size is an alternative, but it may raise costs for nodes and revive decentralization concerns.
Bitcoin’s governance and Script limitations are the main bottlenecks for adding native STARK verification at the base layer.
StarkWare’s roadmap points to a different approach via account abstraction, making post-quantum upgrades operationally easier on systems like Starknet.
The core constraint: PQ signatures don’t fit like today’s
Ben-Sasson’s argument starts with the mismatch between Bitcoin’s existing cryptographic footprint and the expectations around post-quantum schemes. Adding PQ signatures “by itself,” he says, does not make the chain quantum-safe in a practical sense; it introduces an engineering problem first: the new signatures are orders of magnitude larger.
According to the article, the current set of PQ signatures approved by the US-based National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are roughly 10 to 100 times larger than Bitcoin’s prevailing ECDSA and Schnorr signatures. The practical risk is throughput and verification overhead—one oft-cited concern is that a block could end up supporting far fewer transactions.
Ben-Sasson’s counterproposal is to move the bulk of that data off the chain and replace it with a compact cryptographic statement. In his view, the signatures for all transactions in a block could be aggregated into a single ZK STARK proof, which would be significantly smaller than including the original signatures. That, he argues, could preserve or even improve effective efficiency compared with a naive on-chain PQ upgrade.
“If they don’t allow for ZK STARK aggregation, then definitely it will be a very unfortunate move because it won’t really solve the problem … where the problem is ‘can everyone actually use Bitcoin?’” Ben-Sasson said.
“So for that you need massive scale. And for that, you need things like signature aggregation and just increasing the block size isn’t enough.”
Block size as the “simple engineering” fix—and why it’s controversial
One alternative Ben-Sasson acknowledges, via commentary from other experts, is increasing Bitcoin’s block size. The dispute is not about whether it works—it’s about the cost structure and the governance path.
Marin Ivezic, author of PostQuantum.com and founder of Applied Quantum, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin’s SegWit scheme reduced the impact of larger signatures by up to 75%. But Ivezic’s modeling of NIST’s ML-DSA-44 scheme (described in the article as having 2,420 bytes per signature) suggests block capacity could drop to roughly 500 to 700 transactions under those conditions—down from 2,500 to 3,000 “today.”
That figure is what makes block-size debates feel inevitable: if PQ signatures drive transaction sizes sharply upward, the network needs somewhere for that data to go. Yet, as the article notes, critics see block growth as a blunt instrument because it pushes more storage, bandwidth, and verification work onto all nodes. Over time, that can mean higher operating costs and potentially less hardware diversity—an outcome that opponents argue could shift Bitcoin toward centralization.
The article also points to Blockstream Research’s recent experiments compressing hash-based post-quantum signature schemes for Bitcoin. It cites SHRINCS and SHRIMPS, with “everyday” signatures said to be around five times larger than current Bitcoin signatures, and up to 40 times larger in recovery scenarios such as wallet resurrection. The implication is that even with compression, larger signatures remain a throughput challenge unless block sizes increase.
“Raising capacity natively is the simple engineering answer and the hardest governance answer,” Ivezic said. “We just don’t have time for those debates.”
Why ZK aggregation could matter more than capacity alone
The attraction of ZK STARK aggregation is not simply that it is smaller. It’s that it changes the economics of what must be stored and verified by nodes.
At a high level, ZK proofs let one side prove that some statement holds without exposing all underlying details. In the Bitcoin setting described in the article, a STARK proof could certify that the necessary conditions for multiple transactions—tied to signatures—are satisfied, without requiring the chain to carry the full set of individual signature bytes.
The operational claim from Ben-Sasson is that generating a proof for a single block is a job that likely needs to be done once (with optional redundancy), and that the proving hardware could be far cheaper than commercial mining setups. The article further notes that verifying proofs could be feasible on very modest devices, pointing to Lean Ethereum’s specification benchmarks—where proving equipment is described as potentially under $100,000 and verification could run on almost any equipment, even something like a Raspberry Pi.
Ben-Sasson also argues the momentum for ZK STARKs existed among early Bitcoin developers. He claimed that figures such as Greg Maxwell and Mike Hearn were “very bullish about ZK STARKs,” citing their belief that STARKs provide post-quantum security without trusted setup. In the article, he adds that he thinks Bitcoin Core developer Luke Dashjr and Adam Back are aligning more with the idea, though Cointelegraph states it did not receive a response from Back.
One complication raised in the article is that Ethereum researcher Justin Drake has described a desire for Bitcoin to adopt Lean Ethereum’s ZK proof aggregation approach. However, political constraints might make that difficult to implement in practice—even if the technical path exists.
What would it take for Bitcoin to verify STARKs?
The question for Bitcoin is less about whether ZK STARKs are cryptographically credible and more about whether Bitcoin can verify them in a practical, acceptable way. That brings the discussion to Bitcoin Script and governance.
The article suggests a more politically pragmatic starting point may be re-enabling OP_CAT, an opcode Satoshi introduced and later removed. Ben-Sasson argues that if OP_CAT is enabled, it could unlock capabilities needed for STARK proofs and aggregation and thereby support post-quantum security.
Still, while OP_CAT drew attention in earlier months (as the article frames it, 12 to 24 months ago), it has “lost momentum” more recently. It remains a governance-dependent path, with Bitcoin’s deliberative culture cited as a key factor.
Beyond OP_CAT, the article mentions other proposals such as OP_STARK_VERIFY, an opcode-oriented idea designed to verify STARKs more efficiently on Bitcoin, and a concept called BitZip associated with Ethan Heilman. Heilman’s framing (as quoted in the article) outlines two broad routes: enhancing Bitcoin with general-purpose opcodes to support rollup-like constructions, or supporting STARKs at the consensus layer. He also referenced weaker aggregation schemes—like CISA (Cross Input Signature Aggregation)—as potential partial help.
Even if the crypto is strong, the practical gating factor is that Bitcoin Script cannot verify STARKs today. The article quotes Ivezic’s assessment that a base-layer STARK verifier is realistically a 2030s governance conversation, noting that consensus-layer changes carry far more surface area than small signature-related opcodes—even ones like OP_CAT that have already faced years of debate.
By contrast, the article highlights that other networks may find post-quantum transitions easier. It notes that Ethereum is targeting 2029 for post-quantum transition and that Solana has experimented with post-quantum signatures. For Starknet specifically, the article ties StarkWare’s three-phase quantum-secure transition to native account abstraction, which allows upgrades of underlying cryptography without forcing every user to migrate accounts manually.
“On Starknet, we have this big advantage that we have already native account abstraction and smart wallets, which means that nothing is enshrined so its very easy to upgrade the wallets and the infrastructure to be post quantum.“
The strategic implication, as Ben-Sasson presents it, is that post-quantum roadmaps on networks without flexible account layers could be “extremely hard,” while Starknet’s design choices reduce lock-in risk.
For Bitcoin readers, the next watchpoints are straightforward: whether any OP_CAT-related or STARK-verification discussions regain momentum, and whether the community gravitates toward aggregation-first proposals that preserve decentralization—rather than defaulting to block-size increases that may raise node burdens. The cryptography may be solvable, but Bitcoin’s ability to verify it at scale hinges on governance and Script capabilities.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s Scaling Choice: Larger Blocks vs STARK Proofs on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Interpol says a cryptocurrency wallet tied to a suspected romance-scam money launderer processed more than $122.5 million over a 10-month period, underscoring how online fraud networks are increasingly using crypto rails to complicate enforcement.
In a statement released Thursday, Interpol said Thai authorities arrested two suspects and dismantled a money-laundering operation that routed proceeds from romance scams into cryptocurrencies. Interpol added that the scheme relied on cross-chain token swaps to obscure the origin of funds as they moved through different networks.
Key takeaways
Interpol reported a suspected romance-scam laundering wallet handled over $122.5 million in 10 months.
Thai investigators linked the activity to laundering techniques that used cross-chain token swaps to mask transaction trails.
Operation First Light 2026 ran across 97 countries and territories, focusing on fraud networks and the financial infrastructure behind them.
The operation resulted in 5,811 arrests and the seizure of $293 million in illicit assets, according to Interpol.
Interpol used its payment-freezing tool (Global Rapid Intervention of Payments) to help block transfers involving both fiat and crypto assets.
Operation First Light 2026 targets both scams and laundering
Interpol framed the Thai case as part of Operation First Light 2026, an Interpol-coordinated push to disrupt social engineering scams and the laundering channels used to convert fraudulent proceeds into transferable value.
According to Interpol, the campaign involved authorities in 97 countries and territories and used data analysis to trace patterns across cases connected to online fraud. Interpol said the operation analyzed 152,808 cases, blocked 31,014 bank accounts, resolved 23,715 investigations, and identified 15,606 suspects.
Interpol also said authorities employed its Global Rapid Intervention of Payments system to support rapid freezing of payments—an approach designed to stop illicit transfers before funds move further. The tool can be used to block transfers involving fiat and virtual assets, Interpol said.
Crypto laundering via cross-chain swaps increases tracing difficulty
While social engineering tactics remain central to romance scams, Interpol’s disclosure highlights the evolving mechanics of laundering. In the Thai investigation, Interpol said proceeds were funneled into cryptocurrencies and that cross-chain token swaps were used to make the trail harder to follow.
Cross-chain activity can introduce additional hops, route changes, and token transformations that complicate straightforward attribution. In this case, Interpol’s emphasis on swaps points to a strategy criminals are using to break linkages between the original scam payments and the eventual destination of funds.
From an investor or market participant perspective, these reports reinforce a recurring risk: illicit demand for liquidity and conversion services may intersect with otherwise legitimate crypto markets. Even when the volumes are linked to scams rather than “organic” trading, they can still affect on-chain flows and increase compliance pressure on exchanges and service providers.
Global scale: arrests, seizures, and additional action in Palau
Interpol said Operation First Light 2026 culminated in 5,811 arrests and the seizure of $293 million in illicit assets related to fraud and money laundering. Interpol also highlighted the operational breadth of the campaign, describing it as coordinated across many jurisdictions rather than a single-country investigation.
Beyond the Thai operation, Interpol said authorities in Palau deported 22 people allegedly involved in two hotel-based scam centers. Interpol linked those centers to schemes that used cryptocurrency and illegal gambling websites to target victims abroad.
Together, the Thai and Palau developments show how enforcement efforts are increasingly addressing the broader ecosystem around online fraud: recruitment and victim targeting, the movement of funds, and the systems used to keep perpetrators hard to trace.
Romance scams remain a focus amid growing US losses
Interpol said social engineering scams continue to be a major threat and argued that no single country can tackle the problem alone. The statement reflects ongoing international attention to fraud schemes—especially those branded as romance scams or “pig butchering,” where criminals cultivate trust before steering victims toward fake investment opportunities.
The crackdown also arrives as regulators and investigators continue to document high losses from crypto-linked scams. In April, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reported that Americans filed 181,565 crypto-related scam complaints totaling more than $11 billion in losses in 2025, according to coverage that referenced the FBI data.
Romance scams often use social media, messaging apps, and dating platforms to build legitimacy. Once a victim is persuaded to move funds, crypto can be presented as a convenient, fast transfer method—while laundering techniques such as token swaps can further delay attribution and seizure.
What to watch next
Interpol’s figures show how international enforcement is trying to follow money across borders and across crypto networks, but criminals’ use of cross-chain swaps suggests evasion tactics will keep evolving. Readers should watch whether future operations increasingly focus on transaction-level tracing and rapid freezing capabilities—and how quickly authorities can convert blockchain activity into recoverable assets.
This article was originally published as Interpol Probe Links $122M Crypto Wallet to Romance Scam Money Laundering on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Sony Financial Group has taken a meaningful step toward entering the US stablecoin market through a newly planned, regulated banking subsidiary. Sony Bank said it received preliminary approval from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to form a US national trust bank subsidiary that will be able to issue US dollar-denominated stablecoins.
According to an announcement from Sony Financial Group, the unit—Connectia Trust, National Association—would be fully owned by Sony Bank. Sony Financial Group also said the effort is backed by $40 million in starting capital and is intended to serve as a building block for a longer-term digital asset business foundation.
Key takeaways
Sony Bank received preliminary approval from the OCC on July 2 to establish Connectia Trust, National Association.
The planned subsidiary is designed to issue and manage US dollar-denominated stablecoins, but no activity can begin until final authorizations are obtained.
Sony said it expects to launch the new stablecoin banking subsidiary later this month, subject to the remaining approvals.
The move reflects a broader push by major banks to integrate stablecoin rails even as US legislation remains unsettled.
Meanwhile, regulatory efforts around stablecoins—including the CLARITY Act—face political and industry friction that may affect how banks expand.
OCC preliminary nod for a Sony-controlled trust bank
Connectia Trust, National Association is the specific entity Sony Bank intends to create, with the company describing it as a US national trust bank subsidiary. The OCC preliminary approval is the first major regulatory milestone, but Sony emphasized that it will not conduct any business activities—including stablecoin issuance—until all required approvals and authorizations are secured, including the OCC’s final approval.
Sony Bank also indicated that it plans to launch the subsidiary this month. For investors and market participants, the practical takeaway is that Sony is positioning itself to operate within the US regulatory perimeter, rather than relying on offshore issuance models or non-bank pathways. Still, the timeline remains contingent on final OCC clearance, so readers should treat “this month” as conditional.
A regulated stablecoin plan—and the open question of product shape
The announcement frames the stablecoin initiative as part of Sony’s broader digital asset groundwork. The subsidiary would support the issuance and management of US dollar-denominated stablecoins, backed by Sony Bank and funded with $40 million in initial capital.
The company’s documentation did not, in the provided text, spell out whether Sony plans to launch a proprietary stablecoin or rely on existing stablecoin infrastructure. Cointelegraph reached out to Sony Bank for additional details on the business plan and whether a Sony-issued token would be involved, but did not receive a response by publication time.
That uncertainty matters: the regulatory and operational complexity can differ depending on whether a bank is issuing its own stablecoin versus integrating minting, redemption, and compliance workflows around a third-party token. What is clear is the direction—Sony is seeking an institutional role in US dollar stablecoin issuance through a trust bank structure.
Banks keep building stablecoin rails as US rules lag
Sony’s move lands in a moment when large financial institutions are increasingly experimenting with stablecoin-based settlement and onboarding—even as US regulatory clarity remains incomplete. Earlier coverage highlighted that Standard Chartered and Circle said they developed a system allowing institutions to mint and redeem USDC through a bank-led onboarding process. In their described model, clients can mint and redeem the US dollar-backed stablecoin via the bank’s platform rather than establishing separate accounts with Circle.
While the Sony plan concerns US dollar-denominated stablecoins more broadly, the parallel is instructive: banks appear willing to pursue stablecoin integration, provided they can align with supervisory expectations and operational controls. The key difference is that Sony is planning to issue and manage stablecoins itself through a regulated entity, which may require more internal infrastructure and governance than distribution-only integration models.
CLARITY Act uncertainty continues to shape timelines
Regulatory momentum in the US is still uneven. The CLARITY Act—one of the best-known efforts aimed at establishing a framework for certain digital asset activities—remains stalled. In the provided reporting, the bill is described as having cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May, but facing pushback from many Democrats and the banking industry.
Critics have raised concerns that the proposal could allow crypto firms to offer yields on stablecoins without subjecting them to the same requirements as traditional financial institutions. That tension has practical implications for how quickly banks and regulated issuers can expand certain revenue models around stablecoins.
Congressional scheduling also adds friction. The bill was set for a House of Representatives hearing on July 17, but Galaxy Digital’s head of research, Alex Thorn, warned that there may not be enough floor time before the Senate’s traditional four-week recess beginning Aug. 8. In a separate update referenced in the text, Galaxy cut its odds of the bill becoming law in 2026 to 50%.
Industry groups remain engaged. More than 200 crypto companies and related organizations urged the Senate to pass the CLARITY Act in a letter shared by Stand With Crypto. Separately, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, speaking to Fox Business in May, said banks will continue to “fight” the current version of the CLARITY Act and argued that firms wanting to offer yield-bearing products “should apply for banking charters.”
Taken together, the bank-led push to integrate stablecoins and the legislative gridlock point to a shared reality: institutions may be able to move forward faster where they can operate within existing banking frameworks, even while broader digital asset rules remain contested.
What to watch next
For Sony and the wider market, the next milestone is straightforward but crucial: final OCC approval for Connectia Trust, National Association and confirmation of what Sony intends to issue—whether a proprietary stablecoin or a narrower role in issuance and management. With the CLARITY Act still uncertain, the market will likely look to how banks translate regulatory permission into practical stablecoin products that can scale within US supervision.
This article was originally published as Sony Bank Approved by U.S. Regulator to Launch Stablecoin Issuance on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.