Crypto Breaking

This week’s most important crypto business developments all point in the same direction: more of the industry’s value is being routed through financial infrastructure rather than pure onchain speculation. BlackRock, for example, has introduced tokenized money market products aimed at stablecoin reserve use under the US GENIUS Act framework.
At the same time, tokenized real-world assets are proving their resilience in volatile markets, even if their decentralized finance (DeFi) adoption still looks modest. Elsewhere in the sector, Tether reported a sharp rise in profits tied to US Treasury income, while a public Bitcoin miner linked to the Trump family posted improved production and narrower quarterly losses.
Key takeaways
BlackRock launched two tokenized money market products designed to help stablecoin issuers satisfy reserve requirements under the US GENIUS Act.
RedStone data suggests tokenized gold performed relatively well during a sharp gold sell-off, but only a small fraction of tokenized gold supply is used as DeFi collateral.
Tether reported $1.5 billion in second-quarter net operating profit, supported primarily by interest from US Treasury holdings and related arrangements.
American Bitcoin reported record second-quarter production of 932 BTC, improving revenue and narrowing losses, though it remains unprofitable.
BlackRock moves to tokenize stablecoin reserves
BlackRock introduced two tokenized money market products intended to support stablecoin issuers with reserve requirements under the US GENIUS Act, expanding its involvement in tokenized financial infrastructure. According to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, one product tokenizes exposure to BlackRock’s existing Treasury liquidity strategy on Ethereum, allowing approved investors to transfer ownership onchain while the underlying assets stay invested in cash and short-term US government securities.
The second product is described as a new institutional money market vehicle for digital asset markets. It is positioned as compatible with multiple blockchains and designed to automatically reinvest income—an approach that aligns with how reserve managers typically seek operational continuity rather than manual redemptions and reinvestment cycles.
For market participants, the practical significance goes beyond the novelty of tokenization. Stablecoins need credible, auditable reserves, and a product built around short-term government assets creates a clearer bridge between traditional compliance expectations and blockchain-based settlement. It also reinforces BlackRock’s growing footprint in tokenized Treasurys, where it already runs BUIDL, described as the industry’s largest tokenized Treasury fund.
This launch also reflects a broader institutional trend: Wall Street firms are increasingly entering tokenized markets not only as issuers, but as infrastructure providers for the assets that underwrite onchain finance. With GENIUS establishing a federal framework for payment stablecoins, the demand for reserve-grade solutions is likely to become more structured—potentially benefiting tokenization platforms that can translate “what reserves should be” into “how those reserves can be managed on-chain.”
Tokenized gold shows stress tolerance, but DeFi use is still limited
Tokenized bullion continues to draw attention, but its DeFi footprint remains small relative to its overall market. A report by RedStone, referenced in earlier Cointelegraph coverage, found that tokenized gold held up during periods of sharp price movement—specifically during gold’s sell-off.
RedStone’s analysis points to a key asymmetry in the sector: trading activity can surge while borrowing and lending adoption lag. While spot trading volume reportedly reached $90.7 billion in Q1 as gold futures rallied above $5,600 per troy ounce, RedStone estimated that only about $63 million of Tether Gold and PAX Gold is used as collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho. That figure is roughly 1.5% of their combined $4.2 billion market cap, indicating that most tokenized gold remains outside major onchain collateral pipelines.
The report also highlighted how collateral behaved during stress. On March 23, Aave processed what it described as its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations without disruption after gold dropped roughly 10% in a week—an event characterized by JPMorgan’s Greg Shearer as an “extremely brutal flush.” RedStone’s broader takeaway was that tokenized gold looked resilient, even as the findings underscored an infrastructure gap as tokenized real-world assets scale.
Since that period, gold futures have fallen more than 20% from January peaks, influenced by expectations of higher US interest rates. In that environment, the value proposition for tokenized gold is partly about reliability during volatility: the question for investors and DeFi builders now is whether liquidity and collateral usage can grow fast enough to match the expanding market for tokenized bullion itself.
Tether’s Treasury-linked earnings power another strong quarter
Tether reported a second-quarter performance that is closely tied to US Treasury income. According to its latest quarterly attestation, Tether generated $1.5 billion in net operating profit, driven primarily by interest earned on its US Treasury holdings and repurchase-related arrangements.
The attestation also points to reserve strength. As of June 30, Tether reported a reserve buffer of $4.11 billion, with assets exceeding liabilities by that margin. In parallel, even as the broader stablecoin market contracted, USDT circulating supply increased by $446 million to $184.6 billion. The result preserved Tether’s market share—DeFiLlama data cited in the earlier reporting placed USDT’s market value around $307 billion and suggested Tether still accounts for more than 60% of global stablecoin supply.
From an investor perspective, the most important implication is that stablecoin profitability continues to depend heavily on short-term interest rates. When Treasury bill yields and cash-equivalent returns are elevated, reserve-based income can become a major earnings driver, which is what appears to have happened in this quarter.
However, the same dynamic also raises a forward-looking risk: if rate expectations change or stablecoin demand slows further, Tether’s income could face pressure. This quarter’s stronger profit and reserve surplus therefore doesn’t eliminate near-term uncertainty for the stablecoin sector—it clarifies what factors are currently supporting earnings, and what could reverse them if macro conditions shift.
American Bitcoin improves production and reduces losses
Bitcoin mining remains highly sensitive to production economics and balance sheet decisions, and the latest quarterly results from American Bitcoin reflect that reality. In earlier Cointelegraph coverage, the company—linked to the Trump family and Nasdaq-listed—reported record second-quarter production of 932 BTC, improving mining revenue compared with the first quarter.
American Bitcoin reported mining revenue of $67 million in Q2, up from $62.1 million in Q1. The company also narrowed its net loss to $57.2 million, improving from an $81.8 million loss in the previous quarter. The production milestone matters because it is one of the few levers miners can control in the short term—hash rate and operational efficiency translate directly into how much Bitcoin is produced, even when market prices are volatile.
But the company’s financial picture is still constrained. American Bitcoin remains unprofitable, and it recently completed a 1-for-15 reverse stock split to maintain its Nasdaq listing after its share price fell below the exchange’s minimum bid requirement. Its balance sheet also includes pledged Bitcoin: the miner held roughly 8,002 BTC as of June 30 and had pledged about 3,090 BTC as collateral under equipment purchase agreements with Bitmain.
That pledge introduces additional sensitivity to Bitcoin price movements. Even when production improves, a decline in BTC could complicate collateral dynamics and funding conditions—an issue that investors should keep watching as the company attempts to stabilize its public-market footing.
Across these stories, a shared theme emerges: crypto businesses are increasingly evaluated on how they monetize financial assets—Treasury exposure, tokenized reserves, tokenized collateral, and operational production—rather than on token price narratives alone. The next watchpoints are straightforward: whether stablecoin-related tokenized reserve products expand beyond pilots, whether tokenized gold’s DeFi collateral usage grows beyond its current small share, and how earnings trajectories for issuers like Tether and miners like American Bitcoin respond if interest-rate and Bitcoin-price assumptions turn.
This article was originally published as Crypto’s Core Business Is Maturing Toward Banking Models on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

UK politics is facing fresh scrutiny over alleged crypto-linked political donations tied to former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried. Lee Anderson, chair of the UK Reform party, has called for an investigation into Defense Secretary Wes Streeting after reports surfaced of a reported £50,000 donation routed through a think tank during 2022 and 2023.
The renewed controversy comes as Bankman-Fried continues to serve a 25-year prison sentence in the United States. In parallel, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a formal mandate upholding his conviction, narrowing the legal avenues available to him.
Key takeaways
Reform UK chair Lee Anderson says parliamentary standards should investigate a reported £50,000 donation involving Wes Streeting.
The reported funds were said to come from Labour for the Long Term, whose founder allegedly received a $675,000 gift from Bankman-Fried before sending money to Streeting.
Streeting reportedly claims he never had contact with Bankman-Fried, and that a donor list provided by the think tank did not include the former FTX CEO’s name.
UK law permits larger donations by unincorporated associations, creating potential compliance loopholes around donor transparency.
Bankman-Fried’s conviction remains upheld after a Second Circuit mandate, reinforcing the finality of his sentence while he considers further legal steps.
Reform’s complaint over a reported Streeting donation
According to a Friday report from The Telegraph, Lee Anderson urged the parliamentary commissioner for standards to probe Wes Streeting over reports of approximately $50,000 in donations made via a think tank.
The donations in question were reportedly made between 2022 and 2023 and were said to originate from Labour for the Long Term, a political research and policy group. The Telegraph reports that Labour for the Long Term’s founder allegedly accepted a $675,000 gift from Bankman-Fried before later directing funds to Streeting.
Anderson’s call centers on whether parliamentary standards rules were met, particularly given the reputational and compliance concerns surrounding Bankman-Fried after his criminal conviction and imprisonment. The allegation is not that Streeting himself dealt directly with Bankman-Fried, but that donations may have been intermediated through an organization linked to the accused fraudster.
Donor transparency and the UK “association” loophole
The controversy also touches on how UK donation rules are structured. As described with reference to guidance from the International Bar Association, unincorporated associations are permitted to donate more than $675 directly to politicians. The regulations can function as a loophole, potentially allowing money to move through entities in ways that reduce visibility into the original source.
In practice, this matters because investors, civil society groups, and voters increasingly treat political funding transparency as part of broader governance and compliance risk—especially when large sums appear connected to high-profile failures in the crypto sector. When donors are routed through intermediaries, scrutiny may shift from direct donor relationships to the processes that political figures use to vet where contributions come from.
While the UK rules allow certain structures for donations by associations, the reporting raises the question of whether vetting was sufficient and whether the think tank properly disclosed relevant contributors at the time.
Streeting’s response and the think tank founder’s denial
Per The Telegraph, Streeting asked Labour for the Long Term for a list of donors before accepting the reported $50,000. The report states that Bankman-Fried’s name did not appear on the donor list provided to him.
The same coverage claims that Streeting said he had never had any contact with the former FTX CEO. Bankman-Fried is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted on seven felony charges.
David Lawrence, the founder of Labour for the Long Term, also pushed back on the implication that Bankman-Fried was the ultimate source of Streeting’s contribution. According to The Telegraph, Lawrence said Streeting’s contribution was funded by a donor other than Bankman-Fried and that Labour for the Long Term “did not receive any donations from the FTX Foundation or Mr. Bankman-Fried.”
Even so, Anderson’s intervention suggests Reform believes the compliance question is not settled by denials alone. The focus for an official standards investigation would likely be whether disclosures and processes matched the expectations of transparency and accountability under parliamentary rules.
US mandate keeps SBF’s conviction intact
The UK donation allegations land against a background of legal closure for Bankman-Fried’s US case. Earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a formal mandate upholding Bankman-Fried’s felony conviction and 25-year sentence. The update builds on an earlier decision reported in June that limited his remaining options.
As Cointelegraph previously reported, the Second Circuit’s ruling reduced the number of routes available to pursue early release. Bankman-Fried still has the possibility of appealing to the US Supreme Court or waiting for a potential presidential pardon.
For readers watching the intersection of crypto and politics, the key point is that Bankman-Fried’s criminal status remains firmly established in the US. That matters because it may influence how other institutions interpret donations and intermediary arrangements tied to him or to parties connected with him—even after his conviction.
Why voters and crypto stakeholders should watch the investigation
Whether parliamentary standards decide that Streeting’s reported donation arrangements were properly vetted—or whether process gaps and association-based structures warrant stronger disclosure—will be crucial. The next steps to watch are the commissioner’s findings and any clarification on how donor lists were compiled and validated by the think tank, particularly in light of a conviction that the US appeals court has now fully cemented through a formal mandate.
This article was originally published as Reform UK Chair Urges Investigation Into Alleged SBF-Linked Donation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

This week’s most consequential crypto business headlines point to a clear trend: parts of the industry are increasingly built around the same revenue engines that power traditional finance—interest income, reserve management, and tokenized assets that sit closer to money markets than speculative trading.
BlackRock is expanding into tokenized reserve products for stablecoin issuers, Tether reported $1.5 billion in second-quarter net operating profit supported by US Treasury earnings, tokenized gold saw resilient collateral behavior during a sharp sell-off even as DeFi usage stayed thin, and American Bitcoin—linked to the Trump family—reported record mining output alongside improving losses.
Key takeaways
BlackRock introduced two tokenized money market products aimed at stablecoin issuers looking to satisfy reserve requirements under the US GENIUS Act.
Tokenized gold trading volumes rose, but only a small fraction of tokenized gold supply is used as DeFi collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho.
American Bitcoin reported record Q2 production of 932 BTC and narrowed its net loss, though the miner remains unprofitable.
Tether’s Q2 profit of $1.5 billion was driven largely by interest from US Treasury holdings and repurchase agreements, alongside a reported reserve surplus of $4.11 billion.
BlackRock moves deeper into onchain reserve infrastructure
Asset manager BlackRock launched two tokenized money market products intended to help stablecoin issuers meet reserve expectations following the US GENIUS Act, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph (BlackRock launches tokenized money-market funds for stablecoin reserves).
One product tokenizes shares of BlackRock’s existing Treasury liquidity strategy on Ethereum. Approved investors can transfer token ownership onchain, while the underlying assets remain allocated to cash and short-term US government securities. The design targets a practical split: onchain settlement for ownership, with traditional cash/T-bill-style instruments supporting the fund’s economics.
The second is a new institutional money market vehicle built for digital asset markets. It supports multiple blockchains and automatically reinvests income, positioning it as a reserve-management tool for issuers that need operational continuity rather than one-off tokenization use.
BlackRock also already operates BUIDL, described in the Cointelegraph report as the industry’s largest tokenized Treasury fund. This matters for investors and issuers because it signals that tokenized Treasuries are moving beyond isolated pilot offerings and into broader “plumbing” for stablecoin ecosystems—particularly as regulatory frameworks such as GENIUS are intended to formalize payment stablecoins.
Tokenized gold: resilience in stress, but DeFi adoption lags
A RedStone report found that tokenized bullion held up during gold’s sharp sell-off, but the same analysis pointed to a persistent adoption gap for tokenized real-world assets in DeFi lending. Cointelegraph previously summarized RedStone’s findings in Tokenized gold’s DeFi footprint remains small despite gold’s sell-off.
According to the report, spot trading volume hit $90.7 billion in Q1 as gold futures rallied above $5,600 per troy ounce. Yet only about $63 million of Tether Gold and PAX Gold together was used as collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho, representing roughly 1.5% of their combined $4.2 billion market cap—suggesting that liquidity growth has not translated into proportional use in onchain lending.
Still, the collateral experience during drawdowns was notable. On March 23, Aave processed its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations without disruption after gold fell about 10% in a week, described by JPMorgan’s Greg Shearer as an “extremely brutal flush” in the Cointelegraph coverage. RedStone’s takeaway was essentially twofold: tokenized gold appeared operationally resilient under stress, but the broader DeFi “rail” for tokenized bullion remains underutilized as the tokenized RWA sector scales.
Cointelegraph notes that gold futures later declined more than 20% from January peaks amid expectations of higher US interest rates, reinforcing that tokenized bullion remains sensitive to macro conditions—even if its onchain collateral mechanics can withstand volatility.
American Bitcoin posts record output while losses shrink
American Bitcoin, a Nasdaq-listed miner co-founded by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and described as Trump family-linked, reported record second-quarter production of 932 BTC, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier report (Trump-linked American Bitcoin posts record output, narrower Q2 losses).
The output helped lift mining revenue by 8% to $67 million in Q2 from $62.1 million in the first quarter. The company posted a net loss of $57.2 million, improving from an $81.8 million loss in Q1—an incremental improvement that matters because miners often operate with slim margins tied to both hash economics and power costs.
American Bitcoin previously completed a 1-for-15 reverse stock split to maintain its Nasdaq listing after its share price fell below the exchange’s minimum bid requirement, as Cointelegraph reported. The miner was majority-owned by Hut 8 and held roughly 8,002 BTC as of June 30, while also pledging about 3,090 BTC as collateral under equipment purchase agreements with Bitmain.
Even with record production and higher revenue, the company remains unprofitable. Cointelegraph highlights two ongoing risk dimensions for shareholders: continued operating losses and balance-sheet exposure to Bitcoin price moves, given the pledged BTC collateral tied to equipment arrangements.
Tether’s Treasury income keeps profits elevated
Tether generated $1.5 billion in net operating profit in the second quarter, primarily driven by interest earned on its US Treasury holdings and repurchase agreements, based on its latest quarterly attestation, per Cointelegraph (Tether posts $1.5 billion Q2 profit as US Treasury income boosts reserves).
In the attestation, Tether reported a reserve buffer of $4.11 billion as of June 30, with assets exceeding liabilities by that amount. That reserve surplus and the profit figure come at a time when the broader stablecoin market has contracted, but USDT circulating supply still rose by $446 million to $184.6 billion. The same Cointelegraph coverage states that USDT continues to represent more than 60% of the global stablecoin market, which DeFiLlama valued at roughly $307 billion.
Tether’s earnings model continues to benefit from elevated short-term interest rates, which increases income from Treasury bills and cash equivalents. However, the article also notes that stronger profits arrive amid sector-wide pressure and a weaker stablecoin market—conditions that could limit growth if rate conditions change or contraction deepens.
For readers tracking the durability of stablecoin issuers, the key takeaway is not just the profit headline, but the mechanism: Tether remains one of the largest holders of US Treasury securities, so its resilience is closely linked to the yield environment and its ability to maintain reserve buffers through shifting market conditions.
The common thread across these updates is how financial infrastructure is taking center stage—tokenized Treasuries and money-market structures for reserves, real-world collateral behavior under stress, mining operations shaped by balance sheets, and stablecoin profitability tied to interest rates. The next thing to watch is whether onchain reserve tools and tokenized RWA collateral keep expanding in DeFi and regulated stablecoin contexts, or whether adoption remains concentrated despite improving product design.
This article was originally published as Crypto’s Biggest Business Models Start Resembling Traditional Banking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Circle has expanded its blockchain payment infrastructure by launching native USDC and the Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol on OKX’s X Layer. The integration increases access to regulated digital dollar payments while improving cross-chain functionality for developers and businesses. It also strengthens X Layer’s position as a network supporting decentralized finance, payments, tokenized assets, and artificial intelligence applications.
Native USDC Brings Direct Stablecoin Access To X Layer
Circle has introduced native USDC on X Layer, an Ethereum-compatible layer-2 blockchain developed by OKX. The launch gives developers and businesses direct access to Circle-issued stablecoins across the network. It also reduces dependence on bridged versions that previously supported USDC activity.
The integration allows decentralized applications to use native USDC for payments, trading, lending, and other financial services. Developers can also build applications with regulated dollar liquidity from the network itself. As a result, projects gain direct access to Circle’s stablecoin infrastructure.
Qualified businesses can issue and redeem USDC through Circle Mint on X Layer. The service provides institutional access to regulated stablecoin liquidity for settlement and treasury operations. Meanwhile, Circle expands its infrastructure for enterprise blockchain adoption through the integration.
X Layer operates as an Ethereum-compatible layer-2 network with lower transaction costs and faster settlement speeds. The blockchain supports decentralized finance, payment services, tokenized real-world assets, and artificial intelligence applications. Therefore, native USDC strengthens payment capabilities across multiple sectors operating on the network.
Circle continues supporting bridged Ethereum-based USDC on X Layer during the transition period. However, the company encourages applications and ecosystem participants to migrate toward native USDC over time. This approach improves consistency while reducing reliance on external bridge infrastructure.
Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol Expands Multi-Chain Connectivity
Circle also activated its Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) on X Layer. The protocol allows users to move native USDC between supported blockchain networks. Unlike traditional bridge models, CCTP transfers native tokens instead of wrapped assets.
The addition brings the number of blockchains supporting CCTP to 26. At the same time, native USDC now operates across 36 blockchain ecosystems following the X Layer integration. Consequently, developers gain broader access to liquidity across multiple chains.
Cross-chain functionality supports decentralized applications that require efficient movement of stablecoins between different ecosystems. Developers can build services without creating separate liquidity pools for every blockchain. This design also simplifies payment and settlement processes across supported networks.
Circle designed CCTP to improve interoperability between blockchain ecosystems while maintaining native asset movement. The protocol removes the need for wrapped stablecoins during supported transfers. Therefore, developers can create applications with more direct cross-chain payment capabilities.
The expanded network also strengthens X Layer’s position within the broader blockchain ecosystem. Applications can connect with supported chains while maintaining access to regulated USDC liquidity. This combination supports payment services and decentralized financial products across several blockchain environments.
Expansion Supports Payments, AI Applications, And Enterprise Services
Native USDC also supports payment providers, fintech companies, decentralized applications, and automated financial systems operating on X Layer. Businesses can settle transactions with regulated digital dollars across the blockchain. Furthermore, developers can integrate stablecoin payments into consumer and enterprise services.
The integration connects with X Layer’s x402 ecosystem, which focuses on automated payments between artificial intelligence agents and digital services. Developers can use USDC for application programming interfaces and machine-driven payment processes. As a result, automated systems gain access to regulated blockchain settlement.
Circle continues expanding its blockchain infrastructure beyond the X Layer launch. The company recently introduced founding validators for its Arc blockchain initiative. Participants include BlackRock, DTCC, Galaxy, Mastercard, Visa, Standard Chartered, and other financial and technology organizations.
The validator group reflects Circle’s broader strategy to expand regulated blockchain infrastructure across financial markets. Enterprise participation also supports the company’s long-term network development goals. Meanwhile, Circle continues increasing the availability of native USDC across additional blockchain ecosystems.
The X Layer integration represents another step in Circle’s broader expansion strategy. Native USDC, Circle Mint, and CCTP now provide additional payment and settlement options for businesses and developers. Together, these services strengthen regulated stablecoin infrastructure across an expanding multi-chain blockchain ecosystem.
This article was originally published as Circle Launches Native USDC On OKX X Layer With Cross-Chain Support on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The UK political fallout from the Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried saga is widening, as Reform UK’s chairman has demanded an investigation into reported crypto-linked donations connected to Defense Secretary Wes Streeting.
In a report published by The Telegraph, Reform UK chair Lee Anderson called on the parliamentary commissioner for standards to examine Streeting over claims that he received £50,000 in donations via a think tank during 2022 and 2023. The reported funding is said to have originated from Labour for the Long Term, an organization whose founder—according to the same report—previously accepted a £675,000 gift from Bankman-Fried before transferring money to Streeting.
Key takeaways
Reform UK’s Lee Anderson has asked the parliamentary commissioner for standards to probe allegations involving Defense Secretary Wes Streeting’s reported £50,000 donation.
The alleged funds are linked, via Labour for the Long Term, to a prior £675,000 gift attributed to former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried.
Streeting is reported to have said he never had contact with Bankman-Fried, and his name reportedly did not appear on a donor list provided to him.
UK rules allow some unincorporated associations to provide large political donations, potentially creating a reporting gap for donors’ sources.
Separate US proceedings continue to narrow Bankman-Fried’s legal options, with the Second Circuit upholding his conviction and 25-year sentence.
Reform presses standards investigation over alleged donation chain
Anderson’s demand is aimed at whether parliamentary donation rules were followed in practice, given the alleged involvement of Bankman-Fried-related money. According to The Telegraph, the reported contributions to Streeting traced back to a think tank—Labour for the Long Term—which was established by David Lawrence.
The reporting describes a sequence in which the think tank received money that, in turn, was reportedly tied to Bankman-Fried. It then suggested that funds were used to support Streeting’s political activities without Bankman-Fried being directly identified in any donor list Streeting reviewed before acceptance, per The Telegraph.
Reform’s move underscores how the Bankman-Fried case is continuing to influence political scrutiny beyond the US courtroom—particularly where political funding structures may obscure ultimate funding sources.
Streeting response and think tank clarification
As described by The Telegraph, Streeting asked Labour for the Long Term for a list of its donors before accepting the reported £50,000. The same report states that Bankman-Fried’s name was not included in that list.
The defense secretary also reportedly said he had never been in contact with the former FTX CEO, who is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted on seven felony charges.
David Lawrence, the founder of Labour for the Long Term, told The Telegraph that Streeting’s contribution was funded by a donor other than Bankman-Fried. Lawrence also said that Labour for the Long Term “did not receive any donations from the FTX Foundation or Mr. Bankman-Fried,” according to the report.
The UK political funding loophole at the center of the debate
The dispute highlights a compliance challenge that is familiar to observers of UK political finance: certain organizational structures can make it harder to trace the provenance of money reaching politicians.
According to the International Bar Association, unincorporated associations are permitted to give more than £675 directly to politicians. The International Bar Association notes that such regulations can function as a loophole, potentially allowing organizations with business interests in the UK to act as “conduits for foreign or dark money” without reporting the underlying sources of funds.
For investors, builders, and users watching crypto’s broader regulatory and reputational effects, the practical takeaway is that large, politically visible controversies involving digital-asset figures can spill into governance and compliance debates—even when direct interaction between a politician and the crypto-linked actor is denied.
Farage’s own crypto scandal adds pressure to the timing
The Reform controversy arrives as Nigel Farage prepares to face voters in a by-election triggered by his resignation as a member of parliament amid his own crypto-related scandal. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Farage received $6.7 million in donations from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne and financial assistance from George Cottrell, a convicted fraudster connected to a crypto casino. Farage has claimed the contributions were “gifts.”
While the allegations involving Streeting and Labour for the Long Term are separate from Farage’s case, the overlap in timing reflects how political scrutiny can become a multi-front process—where multiple parties seek to frame one another’s compliance failures while voters weigh the overall integrity of political funding.
US appellate mandate narrows Bankman-Fried’s options
Even as UK officials face new questions, Bankman-Fried’s legal situation in the United States continues to tighten. Earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a formal mandate upholding his felony conviction and 25-year sentence, as reported by Cointelegraph.
The appeals court’s June decision reportedly reduced the remaining legal routes that could lead to potential early release. The same coverage states that Bankman-Fried may still pursue an appeal to the US Supreme Court or wait for a possible presidential pardon.
Taken together, the parallel developments—standards investigations in the UK and mandate-level enforcement in the US—suggest that the Bankman-Fried legacy is likely to remain politically and legally consequential even after the courtroom stage moves toward finality.
For the next phase, readers should watch whether the parliamentary commissioner for standards accepts Reform’s request and what procedural outcomes follow, as well as whether any further appellate steps in the US change Bankman-Fried’s prospects or prompt renewed attention to the financial pathways that link crypto figures to political fundraising.
This article was originally published as Reform UK Chair Urges Investigation Into Alleged SBF-Linked Donation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Firmus has secured $2 billion in fresh equity funding to expand its artificial intelligence infrastructure business across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region. The financing increased the company’s post-money valuation above $10.5 billion and strengthened support for its regional expansion plans. The capital will accelerate new AI factory projects while reinforcing Firmus’ shift from Bitcoin mining toward high-performance computing services.
Firmus Directs Fresh Capital Toward AI Factory Expansion
Firmus completed the equity round with full commitments from existing backers Coatue and Nvidia. Meanwhile, funds managed by Blackstone Tactical Opportunities and other Blackstone vehicles joined the financing. Jane Street also participated and expanded the group of institutional supporters backing the company.
The funding almost doubled Firmus’ valuation from the $5.5 billion recorded during its April financing round. As a result, the company has raised more than $3 billion in equity over the past year. The additional capital will support Project Southgate and wider infrastructure development across Australia.
Firmus plans to accelerate the next stage of Project Southgate with the newly secured funding. At the same time, the company will prepare selected projects across the Asia-Pacific region. Early development work has also started on an Indonesian project designed for AI-focused customers.
Manufacturing Strategy Supports Regional Deployment
Firmus has already established Australian manufacturing for its proprietary HyperCube infrastructure platform. The company uses Nvidia’s DSX AI Factory Reference Architecture to build its computing systems. Consequently, the design supports faster deployment while improving energy efficiency and operational resilience.
The latest financing also strengthens Firmus’ partnership with Nvidia beyond infrastructure deployment. In June, both companies expanded their relationship through a cloud infrastructure agreement. Under that arrangement, Firmus agreed to purchase Nvidia systems while delivering cloud services powered by the company’s technology.
Australia remains the center of Firmus’ expansion strategy despite broader regional ambitions. The company plans to use its manufacturing capability and software platform to speed domestic deployments. Afterward, it expects to extend additional infrastructure projects across selected Asia-Pacific markets.
AI Infrastructure Continues Attracting Institutional Capital
The latest financing reflects growing demand for companies building physical AI infrastructure instead of traditional technology businesses. Large financial firms have increasingly supported data centers, computing capacity, and electricity infrastructure. These assets continue gaining importance as artificial intelligence services require greater processing power.
Former Bitcoin mining companies have also accelerated their transition toward AI infrastructure during the past year. Core Scientific agreed earlier this year to provide AMD with up to 2.5 gigawatts of future data center capacity. The agreement will begin in 2027 and supports the company’s ongoing business transformation.
Other companies have also expanded their AI strategies through infrastructure investments. IREN acquired Spain-based Nostrum Group in June and added approximately 490 megawatts of secured grid-connected power. Meanwhile, Hyperscale Data sold about 100 Bitcoin and secured a Bitcoin-backed credit facility for its Michigan AI campus.
Firmus stated that Australia will remain the primary destination for most of the newly raised capital. The company believes its existing production capacity will support faster deployment before additional regional expansion begins. Firmus also confirmed that the transaction remains a private financing rather than a public securities offering under United States securities regulations.
This article was originally published as Firmus Raises $2B, Reaches $10.5B Valuation to Expand AI Infrastructure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin extended its rally into Friday’s Wall Street open after a softer-than-expected US jobs report triggered a broad pullback in rate-hike expectations. TradingView data showed BTC/USD reaching $65,340 on Bitstamp, up about 1.3% on the day.
The catalyst was the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ nonfarm payrolls release for July, which showed the US economy losing 23,000 jobs. With unemployment steady at 4.1% and revisions cutting prior months’ employment gains, markets recalibrated toward the Federal Reserve holding rates rather than raising them in September.
Key takeaways
US nonfarm payrolls fell by 23,000 in July, with unemployment at 4.1%, lifting risk appetite across crypto and equities.
CME Group’s FedWatch Tool shifted September expectations from a potential 0.25% hike toward a rate pause.
Bitcoin traded near $65,340 on Bitstamp, holding gains despite a week marked by bearish crypto headlines.
QCP Capital said this week’s price action looks more like “resilience” than a confirmed directional breakout.
Jobs data eases the policy path
According to the BLS, July nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000. The agency also flagged downward revisions to earlier data: employment for May was revised down by 66,000 (from +129,000 to +63,000) and June by 37,000 (from +57,000 to +20,000). Combined, these revisions put May and June employment 103,000 lower than previously reported, per the BLS statement.
Traders linked the weaker labor-market picture with a more cautious Fed stance. The result was a firmer open for US equities: the S&P 500 added roughly 0.5% and the Nasdaq Composite was up just over 1% at the start of trading.
Interest-rate pricing moved quickly. CME Group’s FedWatch Tool indicates markets now expect the Fed to hold interest rates at its September meeting. Before the jobs report, expectations had leaned toward a 0.25% hike, with the majority of odds favoring increases as late as the prior day.
From hike odds to a pause—what investors are watching
Analysts tied Friday’s print to how traders will position ahead of key Fed moments later this month. Ryan Lee, chief analyst at Bitget Research, said the jobs data would “set the tone” for the September meeting and the Fed’s Jackson Hole symposium at the end of August. Fabian Dori, CIO at Sygnum Bank, suggested the degree of labor-market deterioration would shape how strongly Fed chair Kevin Warsh is influenced by the numbers.
“An orderly slowdown supports the liquidity relief case, while a print weak enough to raise growth concerns can still pressure risk assets even as rate odds move,” Dori said in comments sent to Cointelegraph.
That nuance matters for traders because weaker payrolls can push markets toward rate relief, but an overly pronounced deterioration can revive fears about demand and corporate earnings. For Bitcoin and other high-beta assets, the direction of rate expectations may be helpful only if it is paired with a calmer macro narrative rather than an accelerated recession risk.
QCP sees resilience rather than confirmation
Even as the macro backdrop improved, analysts emphasized that crypto’s recent trading behavior has not yet converted into a clean trend signal. In a crypto and macro overview released on the day, QCP Capital described the environment for Bitcoin as “uncertain,” adding that the week’s price action suggests resilience rather than “clear directional confirmation.”
QCP pointed to specific stress factors from the prior week, including the fallout from the Coldcard wallet exploit and additional BTC sales attributed to corporate holders, including Strategy. Despite those shocks, QCP said options markets showed only “limited demand for panic protection,” implying that traders were not rushing to hedge tail risks to the same extent they might in a stronger selloff scenario.
Earlier reporting referenced how options positioning could set up expectations for a price-range breakdown, with Cointelegraph noting that some market participants anticipated a move out of a trading range next month. Taken together, the current picture appears to be one where macro improves sentiment, but crypto derivatives data has not fully signaled that a lasting trend is already in place.
Stocks up, crypto holding—still a “wait and see” setup
Bitcoin’s ability to remain bid into the Wall Street open aligns with the immediate effect of the US jobs report: lower rate expectations typically ease discount-rate pressure across risk assets. However, the presence of ongoing crypto-specific uncertainties—highlighted by QCP—suggests investors may be cautious about declaring a sustained recovery solely on one macro release.
For now, the market’s key near-term task is to test whether the jobs-driven shift in rate odds holds through the next batch of economic data. If labor-market weakness persists without escalating into broader growth concerns, Bitcoin may continue to benefit from a friendlier liquidity narrative. If, instead, economic deterioration accelerates, the same move that lifts “pause” odds could also reignite risk-off pressure.
As traders look ahead, the next decisive signal to monitor will be how upcoming labor and inflation data interact with Fed communication—especially whether markets keep pricing a September pause—or revert toward hike expectations.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Hits $65.3K in August as Soft US Jobs Data Shifts Fed Bets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The United States Senate postponed action on the Clarity Act until September, extending uncertainty across the digital asset market. The delay removed a key legislative event that market participants expected before the August recess. Meanwhile, Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan said weaker expectations for the bill could trigger brief market pressure before conditions improve later this year.
Senate Pushes Clarity Act Vote to September
Senate leaders confirmed that lawmakers will not consider the Clarity Act before the August recess. Instead, they scheduled the legislation for consideration after Congress returns in September. As a result, the digital asset industry faces another period without a clear federal regulatory framework.
The bill aims to establish clear oversight for digital assets across the United States. It also defines the responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Therefore, many industry participants consider the proposal an important step toward regulatory certainty.
Republican lawmakers currently hold 53 Senate seats, yet the legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Consequently, bipartisan support remains necessary before the bill can advance. Lawmakers also continue negotiations over ethics rules, illicit finance measures, and consumer protection requirements.
Bitwise Expects Brief Market Weakness Before Potential Recovery
Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan addressed the delayed legislation in a recent company memo. He said lower expectations for the Clarity Act could remove uncertainty surrounding the Senate timetable. He added that the market could experience a short period of weakness before recovering later in the year.
Hougan pointed to prediction market expectations surrounding the legislation during his assessment. He said the probability of passage during 2026 should decline sharply if lawmakers fail to approve the bill this week. According to his view, reduced expectations could eliminate a major source of short-term uncertainty.
He also stated that the crypto market could weaken briefly after expectations adjust. However, he suggested that a clearer outlook may create stronger conditions during the fall. Therefore, the immediate reaction could remain temporary if legislative uncertainty declines.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP Hold Key Levels as Regulatory Debate Continues
Bitcoin continued trading above $64,400 despite the Senate postponement and broader policy uncertainty. At the same time, Ethereum remained above $1,900, while XRP traded near $1.05. Those price levels reflected a relatively stable market despite delayed legislative action.
The Clarity Act remains one of the most significant digital asset proposals under consideration in Washington. The legislation seeks to separate regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and the CFTC. In addition, it intends to provide clearer compliance standards for digital asset businesses operating in the United States.
Negotiators continue discussing several disputed provisions before the Senate resumes its work. One proposal could require President Donald Trump to divest from certain crypto-related business interests under new ethics rules. Meanwhile, President Trump has continued supporting policies that maintain United States leadership in digital asset innovation instead of allowing China to strengthen its position in the sector.
The delayed vote leaves the regulatory timetable unresolved as lawmakers continue negotiations during the congressional recess. Although the legislation remains active, its final form still depends on bipartisan agreement. Until then, the digital asset market will continue operating without the comprehensive federal framework that many industry participants have sought for years.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Delay Raises Crypto Uncertainty As Bitwise Sees Volatility on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Trading activity in both centralized and decentralized crypto derivatives cooled sharply in July, with perpetual futures volumes hitting multi-month lows across major venues. The slowdown points to thinner speculative momentum—an environment where liquidity and positioning often matter as much as spot demand.
According to CryptoRank’s data posted on X, perpetual futures trading volume on centralized exchanges (CEXs) fell to $4 trillion in July, the lowest level in 31 months since December 2023. The same report also tracked weakness across spot markets during the month, reinforcing the picture of reduced overall market participation.
Key takeaways
CryptoRank data shows CEX perpetual futures volume dropped to $4T in July, a 31-month low.
Binance accounted for most CEX perp volume at $1.4T, while OKX and Bybit posted $607B and $300B respectively.
Coinglass reports CEX spot trading volume declined 23.6% in July to $13.6B from $17.8B at the start of the month.
DefiLlama data indicates DEX perpetuals fell to $531B in July, near a one-year low, with DEX open interest also sliding.
On leading DEX Hyperliquid, tokenized RWAs grew in importance, even as overall DEX perp activity declined.
CEX perpetual futures slide to a 31-month low
CryptoRank said that in July, perpetual futures trading on centralized exchanges totaled $4 trillion—down to the weakest point since December 2023. The month’s decline followed a brief recovery between April and June, after which volume fell again across major venues.
Binance led CEXs by volume with $1.4 trillion in monthly perpetual futures activity, according to the CryptoRank post. OKX came next with $607 billion, followed by Bybit at $300 billion.
For market participants, changes in perp volume can be a useful proxy for speculative activity and the willingness of traders to take leveraged exposure. When volumes compress—especially after a short rebound—liquidity and price discovery in derivative-heavy markets can become less resilient, even if underlying spot interest remains intact.
Spot weakness and the pullback in derivatives activity
Part of the broader contraction appears tied to spot trading as well. Coinglass data cited in the report shows daily spot crypto trading volume fell 23.6% from July 1 to July 31, dropping from $17.8 billion to $13.6 billion.
This matters because spot and derivatives flows often move together during risk-on or risk-off phases. With spot participation weakening over the month, it becomes more difficult for perp markets to maintain high turnover—particularly when traders are less eager to hedge or express directional bets through leverage.
DEX perpetuals near a one-year low, open interest declines
Derivatives activity also weakened on decentralized exchanges. DefiLlama data indicates DEX perpetual trading volume fell to $531 billion in July, the lowest level since June 2025. The report also described a 21% decline from June 2026’s $676 billion.
Beyond volume, DEX open interest fell as well. According to the same DefiLlama figures, open interest on DEXs dropped to $17.9 billion in July from a September 2025 peak of $19.4 billion. Open interest reflects the total value of active, unsettled perp contracts and can help signal whether new capital is entering the market or existing positions are being reduced.
In other words, July’s slowdown was not just about lower trading counts—it also reflected less outstanding leveraged exposure on DEX venues.
Hyperliquid remains a volume leader as RWAs gain share
Even as overall DEX perpetual activity declined, Hyperliquid stood out as the leading platform. DefiLlama-tracked performance in the report shows Hyperliquid generated $199 billion in reported trading volume over the past 30 days.
What appears to have changed on Hyperliquid is not its dominance of volume, but the composition of that volume. A larger portion of Hyperliquid’s trading has come from tokenized real-world assets (RWAs). The report states that RWAs accounted for 32% of Hyperliquid’s second-quarter trading activity, which corresponded to 6.6% of the protocol’s $169 million quarterly revenue.
The shift toward RWAs also shows up in category rankings. The article notes that tokenized assets became Hyperliquid’s largest trading category for the first time last month, with RWAs representing 52% of the protocol’s total weekly trading volume between July 13 and July 19.
For traders and builders, this is a meaningful divergence from the broader July picture: while total DEX perp volume and DEX open interest declined, Hyperliquid’s internal mix leaned more toward tokenized assets. That suggests demand for certain contract exposures may remain sticky even when overall leverage appetite cools.
What to watch next
With both CEX and DEX perpetual activity at multi-month lows and spot volume also down in July, the next signal for traders will likely be whether August brings renewed spot engagement and sustained perp open interest, or whether the contraction becomes a longer trend. At the same time, the growing RWA share on Hyperliquid raises a separate question: can tokenized-asset flows offset softer broader derivatives momentum in the months ahead?
This article was originally published as CEX Perpetual Futures Volume Drops to $4T, Lowest Since Late 2023 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Ethereum is once again wrestling with its core incentive design. A proposed upgrade, EIP-8363 (“Tapered Issuance Burn”), would gradually reduce staking rewards as more Ether is locked up, with the idea of cutting new protocol issuance to zero once staking reaches a specified threshold.
The controversy is not abstract: Ether’s stake rate, DeFi’s reliance on staking derivatives, and institutional demand for predictable monetary policy all collide in the debate. Supporters argue that beyond a certain point, additional staking delivers diminishing security benefits—while critics warn that reducing issuance could destabilize parts of Ethereum’s financial plumbing and undermine trust in how the network governs its money.
Key takeaways
EIP-8363 would taper validator rewards as staking participation rises, ultimately aiming to stop issuance when a target staking level is reached.
Proponents say Ethereum has crossed into a zone where extra staking is less valuable for security and more harmful for non-stakers.
Critics—including DeFi and institutional voices—argue the change could weaken decentralization, disrupt lending markets, and introduce “yield governance risk.”
Opponents also contend that Ethereum’s inflation is already low and that market forces will likely slow staking further without altering issuance.
The proposal’s timing is also drawing fire, with critics questioning its publication close to the Aug. 6 deadline for the next Ethereum upgrade proposals.
What EIP-8363 proposes—and why it sparked pushback
EIP-8363, published on the Ethereum Magicians forum (https://ethereum-magicians.org/t/eip-8363-tapered-issuance-burn/29263), is designed to rein in staking rewards as more ETH gets locked to secure the network. According to the proposal’s framing, the policy would eventually reduce new issuance to zero once 50% of Ether’s supply is staked.
Among the proposal’s authors are Ethereum Foundation researcher Justin Drake and ETHCC co-founder Jerome de Tychey. Their argument is that Ethereum has reached a point where incremental security gains from additional staking are no longer proportional to the issuance granted to validators. In their view, paying for security “beyond what the network needs” becomes a subsidy to existing staking participation at the expense of holders who are not staking.
But many in the ecosystem dislike what they see as a potential shift in Ethereum’s monetary logic. Mike Silagadze, founder of Ether.fi, criticized the idea on social media, saying it would be harmful to decentralization, adoption, and the network’s credibility.
“This is so disappointing on every level. […] This is bad for decentralization, this is bad for Ethereum adoption, and this is bad for the credibility of the network.”
Dr. Steve Berryman, Bitwise’s head of client partnerships for Ethereum, similarly argued that institutional adoption depends on certainty, and that changing issuance at the margin would introduce uncertainty that institutions are unlikely to tolerate.
“Institutional adoption requires certainty and playing with the issuance at the margin would cause uncertainty and institutions hate uncertainty.”
Is Ethereum already “over-staked”? The numbers behind the debate
Current network participation provides the backdrop for the disagreement. According to Validator Queue data (https://www.validatorqueue.com/), Ethereum has roughly 41.5 million ETH staked, yielding about 2.67% and representing around 34.07% of total supply.
Supporters of EIP-8363 maintain that while more staked ETH generally makes attacks harder, there comes a point where the extra security is increasingly marginal. The proposal, in that sense, targets the incentive mechanism: it aims to stop rewarding additional staking once Ethereum is already sufficiently hardened.
However, opponents challenge the premise that issuance is functioning as a meaningful “stealth tax” on non-stakers. Berryman argued that the market may naturally approach a ceiling in staking participation as yields fall, without needing changes to Ethereum’s issuance policy. He also suggested that participation growth has been influenced by institutional entrants—mentioning players such as Bitmine and BlackRock—and that after those entities complete their staking allocations, staking rates could plateau again.
Another dissenting view comes from commentator Leo Lanza, who opposes the proposal and disputes the idea that Ethereum’s inflation materially harms non-stakers. Lanza pointed out that Ethereum’s annual inflation is below 1% and compared it to gold’s supply growth range of roughly 1% to 2% annually, arguing that markets can solve the problem without protocol-level adjustments.
“The free market already solves this […] Let the market adjust.”
DeFi and decentralization concerns: the risks critics emphasize
Even if tapering issuance curbs unnecessary rewards, critics argue it may introduce second-order effects. A central concern is that staking is deeply embedded in Ethereum’s decentralized finance ecosystem through staking derivatives and related collateral usage. Silagadze argued that a policy like EIP-8363 would “kill a huge chunk of DeFi which is built around the staking ecosystem.”
Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, raised additional worries. In his view, reducing staking rewards could encourage investors who treat ETH as a yield-bearing asset (or “ETH beta”) to rotate into alternative yield strategies—effectively punishing Ethereum for its growth. Kulechov’s concern is that the network could lose liquidity and composability that are tied to staking-linked yields.
“My concern is… those who are fine with ETH beta and yield might also sell ETH for other yielding assets […] Ethereum should not be punished for its growth.”
Technical stakeholders also caution against simplistic security arithmetic. Greg Koumoutsos, technical research lead at the Lido Labs Foundation, said that a staking ratio around one-third of supply does not appear unhealthy, while agreeing that thinking proactively about excessive staking is reasonable. More importantly, he argued the proposal oversimplifies what issuance is paying for—suggesting the broader system benefits include decentralization, operator diversity, censorship resistance, and network resilience.
“Ethereum is not only paying for slashable ETH; it is paying for decentralization, operator diversity, censorship resistance, and network resilience.”
In other words: lower issuance is not automatically a superior security policy unless those trade-offs are explicitly accounted for.
Who pays the price if rewards fall? The decentralization angle
Critics also argue that lowering rewards could affect validator participation patterns in ways that increase concentration. Koumoutsos noted that independent validators do not benefit from the same economies of scale as large staking businesses, exchanges, or institutional operators. If protocol rewards drop, he said, marginal solo validators could exit, leaving a thinner base of independent operators.
“A solo validator has real costs: some ideological solo stakers may remain, but many marginal solo validators will not, and fewer new ones will enter, if any.”
He added that large centralized platforms may be motivated by factors beyond yield—such as customer retention, regulatory positioning, and product integration—making them less likely to reduce staking even if rewards decline. Within delegated staking, the same dynamic could tilt incentives toward custodial products rather than onchain staking protocols, which tend to face higher ongoing maintenance, governance, and upgrade responsibilities.
Predictability versus adaptation: the governance-risk dispute
Supporters of EIP-8363 argue that stronger long-term monetary characteristics for Ether are worth the adjustment, while opponents counter that constant tweaking of Ethereum’s monetary policy undermines one of its biggest selling points: predictability.
Berryman said institutions care more about certainty than about marginal changes in staking yield, describing adjustments to the issuance curve as “yield governance risk.” His argument is less about absolute reward levels and more about whether the network’s monetary rules can be relied upon.
“It’s not broken, why try and fix it?”
Silagadze echoed the idea from an adoption perspective, arguing that any change with far-reaching implications—especially those affecting DeFi—could harm confidence among large institutions or nation-state actors that view Ethereum as a stable governance environment.
Beyond the substance of the proposal itself, the rollout has drawn procedural criticism. According to the reporting, EIP-8363 was published just two days before the Aug. 6 deadline for proposals to be considered for the next Ethereum network upgrade. Silagadze argued that a change with wide-ranging consequences should not have been introduced on such a short timeline.
That pressure highlights a broader tension in Ethereum governance: monetary and security incentives are interconnected, so every adjustment inevitably creates winners and losers across staking, DeFi, and institutional markets.
Readers should watch how the debate evolves in the lead-up to the relevant upgrade timeline—especially whether proponents adjust the scope or mechanics of tapering to address concerns about DeFi collateral effects, validator participation, and institutional predictability.
This article was originally published as Ethereum EIP-8363 Staking Proposal Faces Strong Community Backlash on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin users are revisiting a core assumption about self-custody after the disclosure of a “low-entropy” issue tied to Coldcard hardware wallet firmware. According to reporting and analysis referenced in the crypto community, publicly observed thefts linked to the flaw began around July 30, prompting investors and long-time hardware wallet holders to scrutinize how their seed phrases are generated.
While Coldcard’s devices have long been valued for offline security and user control, the episode highlights an uncomfortable truth: if the randomness used to create a wallet’s seed can be predicted or effectively reduced, attackers may brute-force private keys. The situation has also reignited debate inside the ecosystem about what it actually means to “verify” secure entropy—and how much should be outsourced to hardware versus performed by the user.
Key takeaways
Coldcard firmware starting with version 4.0.1 (released March 2021) is described as using MicroPython’s Yasmarang PRNG instead of relying correctly on the device’s STM32 hardware RNG.
Coinkite estimated that affected Coldcard models produced seeds with roughly 40 bits of entropy (Mk2/Mk3) or around 70 bits (Mk4/Mk5/Q), which falls short of what’s needed for a robust 12-word BIP-39 seed.
Attackers reportedly brute-forced private keys after the issue became known, with Cointelegraph coverage cited as placing stolen value at over $100 million in BTC.
Users who generated seed phrases using sufficient physical entropy (e.g., dice) have been argued to reduce reliance on the compromised randomness path.
Community tools such as honeypot monitoring have been used to estimate which wallet types attackers are sweeping effectively.
What changed in Coldcard’s randomness generation
The central technical claim is that Coldcard hardware wallets contained what appeared to be functional STM32 “true random number generators” (TRNGs) designed to produce unguessable seed phrases. However, after Coldcard creator NVK initiated a firmware rewrite intended to move from a GPL-licensed free software model to a read-only model, analysts say a serious vulnerability was introduced.
Starting with firmware version 4.0.1, released in March 2021, the device reportedly switched to MicroPython’s Yasmarang PRNG rather than properly using the STM32 hardware RNG. Random number generation is described as inherently difficult for computer systems, and secure seed creation is typically expected to incorporate enough external physical unpredictability to make outputs infeasible to guess.
In the ecosystem, the Yasmarang PRNG has been widely characterized as a pre-programmed fallback. A referenced engineering analysis from Block that explains “predictable RNG fallback” and the mechanics of a “32-bit reseed” approach was linked by the article’s source material. Coinkite later disputed that characterization in an X post, challenging the conclusion that the device was simply hardwired to an obviously weak method.
Even with that dispute, the broader implication remains: when a wallet’s seed generation is not truly unpredictable, private keys may become searchable. The article’s source material notes speculation on X about whether a backdoor was deliberately placed, and it also cites a Bitcoin journalist’s view that the bug may have arisen from development practices and attempts to suppress errors through randomized changes.
Entropy levels, seed security, and why brute force mattered
Coinkite’s estimates cited in the source material are specific about the magnitude of the problem. It estimated that Mk2 and Mk3 devices generated seeds with about 40 bits of entropy, while Mk4, Mk5, and Q achieved roughly 70 bits. As the source notes, both figures are well short of the 128-bit level generally treated as sufficient for a secure 12-word seed phrase.
That shortfall matters because it reshapes the threat model. Instead of requiring attackers to brute-force astronomical keyspaces, lower effective entropy can make key discovery drastically more practical. The source material further states that after the flaw, attackers succeeded in brute-forcing private keys and stealing funds, pointing to Cointelegraph coverage that described thefts exceeding $100 million worth of BTC.
The likelihood of whether a specific wallet was found and swept is presented as depending on additional variables—such as whether extra “dice entropy” was added, or whether a BIP-39 passphrase and a non-standard derivation path were used. Those details underline a key uncertainty for readers: the exploit’s impact may not have been uniform across all users and all wallet setups.
Using physical entropy to reduce reliance on hardware
Beyond the immediate controversy around Coldcard firmware, the episode has reinforced a recurring community principle: “Don’t trust, verify.” The source material argues that users who avoided relying on opaque hardware generation for the most security-critical step—seed creation—had a better chance of preventing exposure to the low-entropy issue.
The practical point is that rolling dice provides a process users can observe and audit themselves. Verifying a TRNG’s quality, by contrast, would require detailed inspection of electronics and firmware—work most users cannot feasibly perform.
Importantly, the source material suggests that safe self-custody still does not require relinquishing the ability to cross-check. If the seed phrase is generated from physical entropy, the user’s dependence on the compromised hardware path is reduced. It also describes ways to validate whether derived artifacts match across devices—such as importing the same seed into another device to cross-check the resulting xpub and receiving addresses.
For detecting other classes of compromise, the source material also mentions checking signatures: nonce exfiltration through an airgap can be detected by comparing whether two devices generate the same signature when given an identical unsigned transaction, referencing RFC 6979 for deterministic signing behavior.
While these checks can’t replace true unpredictability at the moment entropy is created, they create additional hurdles for attackers and can help users spot irregularities in how transactions are processed and signed.
How the community is generating entropy without trusting a single device
After the exploit became public, the source material says methods and proposals for generating entropy directly from physical inputs accelerated across the community. One widely used approach described involves validating dice-to-seed conversion by cross-checking the device’s ability to correctly transform die faces into a BIP-39 seed phrase via hashing. The article states that using upward of 100 dice throws can be enough to generate entropy for a 24-word seed.
Other options include paper-based systems. The source cites a table published by Bitbox that uses a lookup method to map combinations of dice outcomes—plus a coinflip—directly to BIP-39 seed words without electronics. More advanced worksheets are also referenced, including a codex32 dice de-biasing approach that uses a van Neumann extractor so biased dice can still yield secure seed material that can be computed by hand.
For users seeking convenience, the source material points to alternatives that reduce error-proneness, such as printing and cutting BIP-39 word fragments, shuffling them, and drawing random words—methods made easier by products like Seedsticks or Entropia. It also references specialized hardware intended to verifiably distribute entropy across devices, alongside examples of community-designed physical entropy generators shared on X.
Taken together, these ideas shift the emphasis from “which hardware wallet is most trusted” to “how randomness is sourced at the moment security depends on it.” In practice, the Coldcard incident has encouraged many users to treat seed creation less like a black-box procedure and more like a process they can replicate and reason about.
Going forward, readers should watch for clearer technical consensus on exactly how the affected firmware path produced low-entropy outputs in different models, and for continued analysis tools—such as honeypot tracking mentioned in the source—to refine estimates of which wallet behaviors remain most resilient. Until then, the safest operational takeaway is straightforward: wherever possible, make seed generation as independently verifiable as the rest of your self-custody workflow.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Users Reassess Self-Custody After Risk Concerns Rise on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin derivatives trading is taking a noticeably larger share of activity on Binance, according to fresh analytics that highlight how spot interest has cooled while futures usage keeps building. On CryptoQuant’s data, the futures-to-spot trading volume ratio on the exchange has reached an all-time high of 7.82, meaning futures volume is now nearly eight times spot volume.
This shift matters for market structure: when spot volumes lag derivatives, price discovery can become more reflexive—driven more by leverage and hedging than by new spot inflows. With Bitcoin holding a narrow band for weeks, traders are increasingly expressing their expectations through options positioning, including bets that any eventual range break could lean downward.
Key takeaways
Binance futures volumes outpace spot at a record pace: CryptoQuant reports a futures-to-spot ratio of 7.82.
Spot demand has been deteriorating more consistently: CryptoQuant data shows a steadier decline since June compared with derivatives demand.
Short-term positioning is increasingly “hedge-forward”: options traders appear to be managing downside risk for September.
Trading range behavior persists: Bitfinex Research says volumes thin near the range extremes, suggesting neither side is forcing a breakout.
Binance’s spot-versus-futures gap widens to a new peak
CryptoQuant’s “quick take” analysis, published Friday, focuses on Binance’s daily trading volume split between spot and derivatives. The headline metric is the futures-to-spot volume ratio, which has climbed to 7.82—the highest reading CryptoQuant reports for this measure.
In the same snapshot, daily futures volume on Binance is listed at $57.82 billion for the week cited, versus $6.08 billion in daily spot volume. The imbalance indicates that a greater share of trading activity is happening in leveraged or risk-managed instruments rather than outright spot buying.
CryptoQuant contributing analyst Arab Chain linked the trend to persistent differences in how participants use markets, noting that Bitcoin was trading around $64,000 while futures activity continued to expand faster than spot. In his view, the change reflects more investors and traders leaning on futures for leverage, risk management, and shorter-term trading tactics.
For traders and investors, this is more than a curiosity about exchange usage. When spot volumes don’t keep pace, it can signal that the marginal buyer is weaker—so price moves may depend increasingly on derivatives positioning, liquidations, and hedging dynamics rather than broad spot accumulation.
Cooling spot appetite as Bitcoin stays rangebound
CryptoQuant frames the latest ratio spike as coming after months of retreating demand, particularly from retail segments. The report also points to a broader observation made earlier in coverage by Cointelegraph: retail attention has been shifting toward AI-linked equities following broader stock-market dislocations. While that comparison is outside Binance itself, it underscores a theme CryptoQuant emphasizes—spot interest has been less consistent during the current phase.
Looking specifically at demand trends, CryptoQuant states that on a rolling 30-day basis, both spot and derivatives demand are deteriorating. However, it says spot shows a more consistent decline since June, while futures has remained net positive.
Technically and behaviorally, the report ties this to the market’s two-month range above $60,000. Prolonged consolidation often dampens spot urgency because the incentive to buy increases when there’s a clearer directional move. CryptoQuant also references a period in February when Bitcoin first dropped to the $60,000 level and traders recorded a sharp spike in realized losses on-chain. Subsequent attempts to revisit that area have allegedly seen lower volumes, as both buyers and sellers appear to have exhausted enthusiasm.
CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju previously summarized the divergence on X, stating that Bitcoin spot demand is weakening while futures demand remains net positive—but at a level lower than during the rebound about three months earlier.
Options traders lean toward a downside resolution in September
As spot participation stays muted and futures dominate activity, market participants have been expressing expectations through derivatives beyond outright leverage—especially options. Bitfinex Research, citing its own exchange analytics and referencing Glassnode, highlighted how volume has been losing intensity on both spot and derivatives.
Bitfinex Research wrote that for the moment, activity is clustering near the middle of Bitcoin’s local range, while it thin[s] out near the extremes. It also pointed to taker volume as a sign that neither side is aggressively pushing to force a breakout in either direction.
According to Bitfinex, options positioning suggests traders expect rangebound behavior to continue through August, after BTC/USD gained 7.4% in July. The more notable shift is its outlook for September: Bitfinex said options traders are effectively pricing a likely downside resolution of the range, aligning with what it described as “familiar Bitcoin bear-market behavioral patterns.”
In other words, the derivatives market is not only doing more volume—it is also using structured contracts to hedge and to reflect a preference for a particular path of volatility. That’s consistent with the idea that when spot interest fades, traders may rely more on options to manage downside scenarios during uncertain consolidation.
What the widening ratio and hedging signals could mean next
Taken together, the Binance volume split and the options posture point to a market that is still deciding how it wants to trend—without clear spot-driven conviction. A futures-to-spot ratio near 8x can indicate that traders are increasingly comfortable operating in derivatives, but it can also raise the stakes for how quickly leverage unwinds if the range finally breaks.
For readers watching the next phase, the key question is whether spot demand can reassert itself if price attempts a move—or whether market action continues to be dominated by hedging and leverage as September approaches. The persistence (or reversal) of the futures-to-spot imbalance, alongside whether options positioning continues to favor downside, will likely be the clearest tells.
This article was originally published as Binance Data: Bitcoin Futures Volume Dominates Spot by 8x on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US lawmakers have pushed back a vote on major crypto market-structure legislation, extending a period of regulatory uncertainty for institutions that need clearer rules on trading, custody, and oversight. The delay, confirmed by U.S. Senator John Thune’s office to Cointelegraph, means the bill will not be considered before the August recess, with Thune’s team describing it as a priority for September.
Industry leaders say the postponement could reshape competitive dynamics outside the United States. First Digital founder and CEO Vincent Chok, whose firm issues the FDUSD stablecoin, argued that jurisdictions with clearer frameworks—particularly in Asia—could use the additional time to attract capital and talent as US uncertainty weighs on institutional adoption.
Key takeaways
Senator John Thune’s office confirmed the US Senate will not vote on the crypto market-structure legislation before the August recess, pointing to September as the next window.
First Digital CEO Vincent Chok said prolonged regulatory uncertainty is harder for markets to adapt to than slower timelines.
1inch’s deputy general counsel warned that a failure to enact the legislation could lead back to “regulation by enforcement,” leaving firms reliant on agency interpretations and case-by-case action.
The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) is already in force, creating a contrasting regulatory timeline compared with the US.
Some commentators interpret the delay as a political outcome that may further incentivize development “offshore” while US rules remain unsettled.
Senate delay extends uncertainty for institutional crypto
According to confirmation from Thune’s office to Cointelegraph, the Senate will not bring the bill to a vote before the August recess. Thune reportedly cited Democratic opposition, and said the legislation would be a priority when senators return in September.
While a delayed vote can be normal in legislative calendars, Chok’s concern was specific: for market participants, the most damaging factor is not simply a slower process but extended ambiguity. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, he said that “markets can adapt to slower timelines,” but “what they struggle with is prolonged uncertainty.”
Chok tied the issue directly to institutional readiness. Without clear market-structure rules, he argued, institutions are left without dependable guidance on topics that are central to mainstream adoption—especially market design, custody practices, and regulatory oversight.
“Regulation by enforcement” risk and fragmented rules in the US
Maylea Ma, deputy general counsel at decentralized exchange aggregator 1inch, emphasized what changes if Congress does not pass the legislation. In her view, the industry could move toward a familiar pattern: “regulation by enforcement.”
Ma said that in such a scenario, firms would remain dependent on how regulators interpret rules and enforce them on a case-by-case basis. She also pointed to a fragmented US landscape, where companies may have to navigate overlapping state-level money transmitter requirements alongside securities-law interpretations that can vary by jurisdiction and enforcement posture.
That uncertainty is particularly consequential for institutional participants, which generally require more predictable compliance expectations before scaling operations, offering services, or integrating crypto infrastructure into broader financial workflows.
Asia’s window to demonstrate “clear regulation and innovation” together
Chok suggested the delay could strengthen the relative attractiveness of global hubs that have already pursued clearer regulatory positioning. He said that for Asia, postponement provides additional time for hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore to show that regulatory clarity can coexist with continued innovation.
His underlying thesis is that capital allocation and talent decisions often respond quickly to regulatory risk. When US timelines are uncertain, institutions looking for stability may favor venues where rulemaking appears more settled—even if US legislation eventually arrives.
In that sense, the Senate’s procedural shift may have strategic consequences beyond the US market itself. The longer the pause continues, the more companies may build or expand operations in jurisdictions perceived to offer a smoother compliance path.
EU MiCA already in force, highlighting a widening timeline gap
Ma contrasted the US situation with Europe, pointing out that the European Union’s MiCA framework is already operational. She noted that MiCA is “already in force,” referencing Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage on the end of a grace period and the issuance of relevant licenses.
Under that backdrop, Ma said 1inch would continue operating with a conservative, non-custodial approach that focuses on self-custody. The key point is not that MiCA removes all complexity, but that it provides a structured regulatory timeline that companies can plan around—while the US remains tied to legislative and enforcement uncertainty.
For readers, the practical implication is that compliance planning may increasingly look “regional.” Businesses could find that their roadmaps are governed less by global principles and more by where regulatory frameworks are already active.
Political framing: ambiguity as a driver of offshore innovation
Not all reactions were confined to legal mechanics. Wellington-Altus chief market strategist James E. Thorne offered a more politically pointed interpretation, posting on X that he viewed the postponement as a “fold” by Thune and a victory for Senator Elizabeth Warren and the regulatory status quo. His argument was that continued ambiguity encourages innovation to move offshore while other jurisdictions develop clearer regimes.
While Thorne’s remarks are political rather than technical, they align with a broader market reality: regulatory uncertainty can influence where teams incorporate, where products launch, and which markets institutions consider first—especially when compliance staff need more than verbal assurances to manage risk.
As the Senate returns in September, the key question for the crypto sector is whether the legislation can clear remaining procedural hurdles—or whether the industry is pushed further into a cycle of enforcement-driven precedent. Either outcome will likely determine how quickly institutions feel comfortable moving from experimentation to scaled adoption, and it may continue shaping where global crypto activity concentrates.
This article was originally published as CLARITY Act Delay Creates Window for Asian Crypto Hubs, First Digital CEO Says on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Senate will not vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess, a delay that could prolong regulatory uncertainty for crypto firms and indirectly strengthen the bargaining position of jurisdictions already offering clearer rules. First Digital CEO and FDUSD stablecoin issuer Vincent Chok said the postponement gives places like Hong Kong and Singapore more time to demonstrate that regulation and innovation can coexist.
According to an office confirmation relayed to Cointelegraph, Senator John Thune’s team said the bill will be prioritized when senators return in September. The delay is attributed to Democratic opposition to the legislation.
Key takeaways
The U.S. Senate will not hold a pre-August recess vote on the CLARITY Act; lawmakers are expected to revisit the bill in September.
Industry leaders warn that prolonged uncertainty can slow institutional adoption more than long timelines can.
Executives argue that clearer Asian regulatory frameworks could attract more talent and capital as U.S. rules remain unsettled.
Critics say the outcome risks a return to “regulation by enforcement” if Congress fails to set out coherent market structure rules.
Some market participants contrast the U.S. delay with the EU’s MiCA regime, which is already in effect.
What the Senate delay means for U.S. market structure
Chok’s comments highlight the core problem many market participants associate with the CLARITY Act debate: without an enacted framework, institutions must operate amid unclear expectations around market structure, custody, and oversight.
In a statement sent to Cointelegraph, Chok said markets can adjust to slower timelines, but “what they struggle with is prolonged uncertainty.” For institutions—especially those weighing regulated custody arrangements, compliance resourcing, and operational risk—this type of ambiguity can translate into delayed decisions, reduced willingness to offer new products, or a preference for platforms and venues that feel less exposed to changing enforcement priorities.
The CLARITY Act is often viewed as a potential bridge toward predictable rules for how digital asset markets should be structured in the U.S. With a Senate vote now pushed beyond the August recess, the question shifts from “whether the bill advances” to “how long uncertainty lasts—and whether it becomes a permanent drag on institutional momentum.”
Pressure on institutions: enforcement risk and compliance fragmentation
Maylea Ma, deputy general counsel at decentralized exchange aggregator 1inch, framed the stakes in terms of enforcement style rather than just timeline. If Congress does not ultimately enact the CLARITY Act, Ma said the industry could face a renewed emphasis on “regulation by enforcement.”
She described continued reliance on agency interpretations, case-by-case enforcement, and a patchwork of state-level rules covering money transmission and securities-related obligations. In practice, that kind of fragmentation can raise compliance costs and make it harder to scale across jurisdictions—particularly for firms trying to build products that require consistent regulatory expectations.
At the same time, Ma said 1inch expects to keep operating with a model that is conservative on custody—stressing non-custodial and self-custody characteristics—while waiting for greater legal certainty in the U.S.
That distinction matters: some business models can be adapted to enforcement risk by limiting custodial responsibility, while others—such as offerings that require regulated custody partners or broad consumer access—may still struggle under an unclear baseline for oversight.
Why Asia could benefit as clarity becomes a competitive advantage
Chok argued that regulatory progress outside the U.S. would continue regardless of the CLARITY Act’s timetable. In his view, the delay provides regional hubs additional time to show that clear rules can be paired with ongoing innovation.
His comments effectively position regulatory certainty as a market asset. When institutions consider where to allocate resources—launching new services, hiring compliance talent, or setting up operational infrastructure—jurisdictions with settled frameworks can appear less risky than those where policy is repeatedly deferred.
That competitive dynamic is also reflected in the political critique offered by Wellington-Altus chief market strategist James E. Thorne. Posting on X, Thorne characterized the postponement as a defeat for the bill’s momentum and suggested it could encourage innovation to move offshore while other regions develop more defined regimes.
While Thorne’s language is partisan, the underlying theme aligns with the broader industry concern: uncertainty creates incentives to seek regulatory certainty elsewhere, especially for firms with global plans.
Europe’s MiCA as a benchmark—and the U.S. gap
Ma pointed to the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) as an example of a framework already in force. She said 1inch would continue with its current operational approach while the U.S. awaits clearer guidance.
MiCA’s status matters in this context because it provides a reference point for companies and institutions comparing where compliance effort may be more predictable. When one region is already operating under a harmonized set of requirements, the contrast with the U.S.—where digital asset regulatory treatment can still vary by agency focus and jurisdiction—can influence product roadmaps.
In other words, the Senate delay is not happening in a vacuum. Even if the CLARITY Act were to move forward later, market participants are already using other regulatory baselines to plan risk and timelines.
With the Senate vote now expected in September, the next watchpoint is whether the bill gains sufficient support to move beyond procedural friction. Until then, institutions are likely to keep balancing their U.S. strategies against the operational certainty offered by other regimes—especially as the industry asks whether “later” clarity can avoid turning into an extended period of enforcement-led governance.
This article was originally published as CLARITY Act Delay Creates Window for Asian Crypto Hubs: First Digital CEO on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The Senate has postponed the CLARITY Act floor vote until lawmakers return from the August recess. Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the delay and outlined plans for September. As a result, the decision extends negotiations over a federal digital asset regulatory framework.
Senate Leadership Shifts CLARITY Act Vote Beyond August Recess
Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed that the Senate will not vote on the CLARITY Act before the August recess. Instead, Republican leadership plans to prepare the legislation for floor consideration after lawmakers return in September. Therefore, the measure remains pending despite earlier expectations of quicker action.
The confirmation followed reports from Capitol Hill indicating that Senate leaders had changed their legislative timetable. The revised schedule places the digital asset market structure bill on the agenda after the recess concludes. Meanwhile, lawmakers will use the break to continue discussions surrounding the proposal.
The delay means the Senate will resume work on the legislation during its September session. Republican leaders had explored options for advancing the bill before leaving Washington. However, the chamber did not complete the required procedural steps before the scheduled recess.
Democratic Concerns Extend Negotiations Over Market Structure Bill
Democratic senators continued seeking additional negotiations before supporting the legislation for a final vote. They maintained concerns over unresolved provisions affecting the broader digital asset regulatory framework. As a result, bipartisan agreement remained incomplete before the Senate adjourned.
Republican leadership had explored procedural paths that could accelerate consideration of several pending measures. Those efforts included discussions surrounding unanimous consent agreements before the recess. Nevertheless, senators did not reach the broad agreement required to move the legislation forward immediately.
The Senate also considered the procedural requirements necessary before floor debate could begin. A cloture process remains one available path for advancing the measure toward debate and voting. Even so, leadership chose to postpone that effort until lawmakers return after the August break.
CLARITY Act Background Keeps Digital Asset Framework in Focus
The CLARITY Act seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory structure for digital assets across the United States. The proposal aims to define oversight responsibilities and improve regulatory certainty for the industry. Accordingly, lawmakers continue treating the legislation as a significant policy initiative.
The House previously approved the CLARITY Act before sending the legislation to the Senate. That action placed responsibility on senators to review, debate, and determine the bill’s future. Therefore, the Senate now holds the next major step in the legislative process.
Supporters argue that the proposal would provide clearer rules for digital asset markets and related businesses. Meanwhile, lawmakers continue examining governance, compliance, and oversight provisions within the legislation. Those discussions remain active despite the delayed voting schedule.
The postponement does not remove the bill from the Senate agenda after the recess. Instead, leadership intends to prepare the legislation for consideration when lawmakers reconvene in September. Consequently, negotiations are expected to continue during the intervening weeks.
Committee work and private discussions may also shape the bill before its return to the Senate floor. Senators from both parties still have opportunities to address remaining policy differences. Therefore, revisions could emerge before leadership schedules the measure for debate.
The Senate’s decision reflects the chamber’s broader legislative calendar rather than a final judgment on the proposal. Lawmakers still retain multiple procedural options for advancing the measure after the recess. For now, the CLARITY Act remains under Senate consideration as discussions continue toward a possible September floor vote.
This article was originally published as Senate Majority Leader Thune Confirms Clarity Act Vote Moves to September on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

At just 18 years old, Efe Kelemci, better known as Crypto Kid, sat down with Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the co-founder of Binance and one of the world’s richest men.
The rare conversation took place around the launch of CZ’s book, Freedom of Money, but quickly expanded into a broader discussion about how the financial system works, the limitations of traditional money and the role Bitcoin and blockchain could play in giving individuals greater control over their wealth.
Rather than concentrating entirely on Bitcoin’s price or the next cryptocurrency market cycle, Crypto Kid asks CZ to explain the principles behind financial freedom in a way that can be understood by younger people and readers who may not yet be familiar with digital assets.
The result is a brief but substantive interview between Crypto Kid and CZ covering monetary sovereignty, inflation, cryptocurrency adoption and the importance of understanding the financial system before approaching crypto purely as an investment.
A Young Perspective on Money and Financial Freedom
Crypto Kid approaches the conversation from the perspective of a generation that has grown up alongside Bitcoin and digital assets.
At the beginning of the interview, he explains just how early his interest in the industry began:
“I’ve been in crypto since I was 12.”
Now 18, his questions reflect many of the concerns younger people have when they begin thinking about money, investing and their financial future.
What does it mean to have genuine control over personal wealth? Why can money held within the traditional financial system lose purchasing power? Should cryptocurrency be viewed primarily as an investment, or does the underlying technology serve a more fundamental purpose?
By placing these questions at the centre of the discussion, Crypto Kid gives CZ an opportunity to explain the ideas behind Freedom of Money to an audience extending beyond experienced cryptocurrency investors.
Why CZ Believes People Misunderstand Money
One of CZ’s strongest arguments is that society rarely encourages people to examine the nature of money itself.
“We’re brainwashed to think about money in a very simplistic way.”
Most people earn money, deposit it into a bank, spend it and invest what remains. Yet comparatively few stop to consider what their bank balance represents, what guarantees their access to it or how monetary policy affects its purchasing power.
CZ challenges the assumption that money held within the traditional system always provides complete ownership. He points to the possibility of frozen accounts, restrictions on certain transactions and the cost and delay involved in transferring significant amounts internationally.
He also describes conventional currency as a form of debt, arguing that what people commonly treat as money ultimately depends on promises made and enforced by institutions.
“Paper money is actually debt.”
The problem becomes even more visible when the supply of that money expands. When additional currency enters circulation, the nominal balance in an account may remain unchanged while its real purchasing power declines.
From CZ’s perspective, this creates a form of financial dependence that many people accept without questioning.
“You don’t have a lot of freedom with your money.”
This is the central problem that Freedom of Money attempts to explore. Financial freedom cannot be measured only by the amount someone possesses. It must also consider the degree of control that person has over storing, protecting and transferring it.
How Crypto Could Give People More Control Over Money
In the interview, CZ does not describe cryptocurrency merely as an asset capable of appreciating in price. He presents it as an alternative monetary infrastructure.
Blockchain enables people to hold digital assets directly, transfer value across borders and interact with a global financial network that does not operate according to all the same limitations as conventional banking systems.
That does not eliminate risk or personal responsibility. It changes where responsibility is placed.
With direct ownership comes the need to understand custody, security and the technology being used. However, it may also give individuals a level of control that is not always available when every transaction depends on an intermediary.
“You want sovereignty. You want control over your money.”
The word sovereignty is crucial here. CZ is not simply describing the ability to make profitable investments. He is describing money that individuals can store themselves, move internationally and use without another party being able to create additional units of it at will.
In that sense, the case for cryptocurrency is not solely financial. It is also technological and philosophical.
“The blockchain increases the freedom of money.”
CZ places this development within a wider historical pattern. Civilisation has repeatedly advanced by expanding different forms of freedom, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of information and access to knowledge through the internet.
Blockchain, in his view, represents another step in that progression by expanding the freedom associated with owning and transferring value.
Financial Freedom Is Not the Same as Getting Rich Quickly
Crypto Kid then raises a question that reflects how many newcomers first approach the industry.
“How do I get rich quick?”
It is a simple question, but it exposes one of the biggest contradictions in cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin was created as an alternative to a monetary system based on centralised control. Yet many people enter the market with the sole objective of accumulating more of the same fiat currency from which Bitcoin was designed to provide an alternative.
CZ’s response redirects the discussion away from rapid gains.
“The freedom is really the key.”
Someone may generate a large profit and still remain dependent on a system capable of restricting access, expanding the money supply or reducing the value of their savings.
From this perspective, wealth without sovereignty is incomplete. The real objective is not simply to increase the number displayed in an account, but to gain greater control over what that value represents and how it can be used.
CZ argues that when people focus exclusively on maximising their holdings in traditional currency, they remain trapped within the same framework they claim to be escaping.
The conversation therefore reframes financial freedom. It is not a winning trade, an early retirement target or a particular Bitcoin price. It is the ability to make informed decisions about money while reducing dependence on systems over which the individual has little influence.
CZ’s Advice to Young People: Understand the Financial System First
The interview becomes especially relevant when Crypto Kid asks what younger people should do when entering the industry.
Cryptocurrency content aimed at new investors often concentrates on charts, tokens and opportunities to generate rapid returns. CZ gives almost the opposite advice.
Speaking about highly speculative trading, he says:
“I would actually recommend youngsters not to try that.”
Instead of beginning with price speculation, CZ encourages young people to learn how money and blockchain technology work, experiment on a small scale and explore the problems the technology could solve.
He points towards practical applications such as micropayments, international transfers and payments performed by artificial intelligence agents.
“Look at more of the utility value of crypto.”
This distinction between utility and speculation may be one of the most valuable lessons in the interview.
Trading asks what an asset might be worth tomorrow. Building asks what the technology could make possible over the next decade.
For young people entering the space, the second question may create far more meaningful opportunities. The cryptocurrency industry still needs developers, entrepreneurs, educators, researchers, product designers and creators capable of turning blockchain infrastructure into applications that ordinary people can use.
CZ compares the present stage of crypto development to the earlier days of the internet, when the basic protocols existed but many of the products that would eventually transform everyday life had not yet been created.
His message is not that young people must ignore cryptocurrency markets entirely. It is that they should first develop a strong understanding of the financial system, the technology and its possible uses, so that price is no longer their only reason to participate.
Bitcoin’s Price May Be Disappointing, but Adoption Is Still Early
Towards the end of the conversation, Crypto Kid asks CZ about Bitcoin’s recent price performance and the frustration felt by investors who expected the market to move higher.
CZ acknowledges that he shared those expectations. He had also believed Bitcoin would be trading at a higher level.
However, he notes that a significant amount of speculative capital moved towards artificial intelligence. While this may have weakened crypto momentum in the short term, he suggests that it could ultimately allow the market to grow on more stable foundations.
The more important point is that CZ does not measure Bitcoin’s future solely through its latest market cycle.
“Less than 1% of the world” currently uses cryptocurrency.
Whatever the precise figure, his broader point is clear: CZ believes the industry remains far from mass adoption.
Billions of people still do not directly own cryptocurrency, use blockchain-based payments or interact with decentralised financial infrastructure. Many businesses and institutions are also only beginning to explore how digital assets could fit into their operations.
From that perspective, Bitcoin’s present price becomes one data point inside a much larger adoption story.
The long-term opportunity depends less on whether the market reaches a particular target this year and more on whether blockchain technology becomes genuinely useful to a wider section of the global population.
The Story Behind Freedom of Money
The interview also briefly addresses the personal circumstances surrounding the creation of CZ’s book.
CZ explains that he began writing its first draft while in prison, where the lack of distractions gave him time to reflect on his journey and the evolution of the cryptocurrency industry.
The conversation does not remain focused on that period. Instead, it uses the experience as context for understanding why the themes of freedom, uncertainty and personal control became central to the book.
CZ later spent considerable time revising and completing the manuscript. The finished work combines his personal experience with his perspective on how cryptocurrency has developed since he entered the industry in 2013.
For readers, the book provides CZ’s personal account of a period that took Bitcoin from a relatively small technological experiment to a globally recognised financial asset and infrastructure layer.
Financial Freedom Begins With Better Questions
The strongest message from the conversation is not that people should buy cryptocurrency immediately or expect Bitcoin to make them rich.
It is that they should understand the money they already use.
Who controls it? What can reduce its value? Under what circumstances can access to it be limited? How easily can it move across borders? And which alternatives now exist?
Blockchain does not automatically answer every financial problem. It does, however, introduce new choices around custody, scarcity, payments and ownership.
For CZ, those choices are the foundation of monetary freedom. For Crypto Kid and the younger generation he represents, the opportunity is to understand that technology early enough to help shape what comes next.
The conversation ultimately encourages viewers to replace the question “How quickly can crypto make me rich?” with a more important one:
How much freedom do I really have over my money?
Watch the Full Interview
Watch Crypto Kid’s complete interview with Binance co-founder CZ on YouTube.
Follow Crypto Kid
Learn more about Efe Kelemci and his work through the official Crypto Kid website. You can also follow Crypto Kid on X, Instagram and LinkedIn.
Follow CZ
Follow Changpeng Zhao on X for his latest perspectives on Bitcoin, cryptocurrency adoption, entrepreneurship and the future of finance.
This article was originally published as Crypto Kid Interviews Binance Founder CZ on Financial Freedom and Bitcoin’s Future on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A bipartisan ethics proposal aimed at unlocking progress on the US crypto market-structure bill could also produce a large potential tax advantage for President Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported Thursday. The reported benefit centers on how taxes would be handled if the president is required to divest from crypto-related interests under the ethics plan.
According to Bloomberg, an ethics addendum that has not been made public would require Trump to divest from crypto-related businesses. The filing reportedly includes a mechanism that would allow the president to defer capital gains taxes tied to those divestitures, potentially resulting in tax savings in the millions.
Key takeaways
Bloomberg reports the proposed ethics addendum would require presidential divestment from crypto-related businesses as a condition for advancing the market-structure bill.
The same proposal reportedly includes a tax-deferral feature that could reduce capital gains taxes, creating a potential windfall for Trump.
Democrats have raised conflict-of-interest concerns as a major barrier to passing the bill, and the reported tax benefit could renew scrutiny.
Trump’s most recent financial disclosure (for 2025, released in late June) shows substantial crypto-related earnings tied to licensing of memecoin brands and token sales via World Liberty Financial.
Ethics rules meet a tax question
The market-structure legislation has faced political resistance, largely because of Democratic worries that Trump’s financial involvement in crypto could conflict with the White House’s position on the bill. In an effort to overcome the stalemate, senators have been working on an ethics addendum intended to clarify and narrow potential conflicts.
Bloomberg’s report suggests that the addendum goes beyond divestment requirements by also addressing the tax treatment of any assets the president would have to sell or transfer. “People familiar with the matter,” Bloomberg wrote, indicated the plan would permit Trump to defer capital gains taxes on mandated divestitures, which could translate into substantial savings.
That structure could become a point of contention. While divestment requirements are designed to reduce perceived conflicts, a tax deferral that benefits the president may lead Democrats to argue the ethics safeguards are not strong enough—or not strong in the ways they prefer—despite the divestment trigger.
Why Democrats’ concerns remain central
Democratic objections to Trump’s crypto relationships have been described as a key obstacle to moving the market-structure bill forward. The ethics addendum was reportedly conceived to address those concerns directly, but Bloomberg’s account indicates the reported tax angle may reintroduce doubt about whether the measures genuinely neutralize the president’s incentives.
For readers tracking the bill, the key issue is not only whether divestment occurs, but how effectively the proposed framework separates presidential actions from personal financial exposure—and whether the tax treatment is viewed as consistent with that separation.
Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
What Trump’s filings show about crypto exposure
Trump’s disclosures provide context for why the ethics debate has been so politically combustible. His annual financial disclosure report for 2025, released at the end of June, showed Trump received about $1.4 billion in income from crypto-related ventures last year.
According to the 927-page disclosure, the largest share of income came from licensing and sales tied to memecoin activity. Trump reportedly earned roughly $635 million from “royalties” in a “license agreement with Celebration Coins,” with “Official Trump (TRUMP)” cited as an example.
The filing also identified World Liberty Financial as the second-biggest source, generating about $588 million through “proceeds from token sales.”
Beyond those major categories, the disclosure reportedly included $197 from the sale of an equity interest in a stablecoin venture.
Those numbers are likely to shape how lawmakers assess whether any divestment requirement would materially reduce Trump’s financial connection to crypto. If the president’s exposure is largely tied to licensing and token-sale-related income, divestment details—such as what must be sold, what can be retained, and how quickly—become crucial.
World Liberty ownership details add complexity
Alongside the financial disclosure, additional information connected to World Liberty Financial’s corporate structure appears to reinforce the idea that Trump-adjacent entities maintain significant involvement. Disclosures on World Liberty’s website indicate that DT Marks DEFI LLC, described as an entity affiliated with Trump and certain family members, holds “approximately 38% of the equity interests” in the parent company of World Liberty.
This matters for the ethics argument because divestment requirements—if they apply broadly—may need to cover not only direct business operations, but also equity stakes and other positions that could benefit from the success of crypto-related initiatives.
At the same time, the reported tax deferral mechanism highlighted by Bloomberg introduces a separate layer of complexity: even if divestment reduces future exposure, how taxes are handled in the transition could still be perceived as aligned with the president’s personal financial interests.
As senators continue negotiating the bill and the ethics addendum, the next thing readers should watch is whether the divestment and tax-handling provisions are finalized and publicly clarified—and whether Democrats, who have already questioned Trump’s conflicts, accept that the safeguards adequately change the underlying incentives around the market-structure legislation.
This article was originally published as Bloomberg: CLARITY Ethics Deal Could Cut Trump Taxes by Millions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senate Republican leaders are expected to head into the August recess without bringing the CLARITY Act to a vote, according to a report from Politico. Senate Majority Leader John Thune confirmed the chamber would not vote before the recess, setting up a renewed push for consideration when senators return next month.
The delay leaves a major legislative milestone unresolved for the U.S. crypto sector’s most prominent push for a clearer market-structure framework. It also compresses the remaining calendar for lawmakers to secure enough support for a measure that—absent broader consensus—may face procedural hurdles that typically require a high voting threshold.
Key takeaways
Senate Majority Leader John Thune said the CLARITY Act will not be voted on before August recess, with action expected when senators return next month.
Politico reports Democrats have not yet provided sufficient support, and negotiations over timing arrangements have not closed.
Without adequate backing, Republicans may struggle to reach the level of support often needed to overcome a filibuster.
The CLARITY Act’s goal is to establish a federal framework for digital asset markets and clarify SEC vs. CFTC oversight.
Thune confirms no pre-recess vote
Thune’s position, as described in comments his office provided to Cointelegraph, centers on Senate scheduling and the current state of bipartisan agreement. He pointed to Democratic opposition to procedural timing and said the bill would be prioritized when senators return.
“The Dems are insistent on no Clarity vote,” Thune said, according to remarks his office shared with Cointelegraph. He also indicated that work with the bill’s sponsors is close enough to move quickly once the chamber is back in session, adding that Sen. Cynthia Lummis “was great” during the negotiations and that the effort is “queued up first thing when we come back.”
That matters for investors and developers because the CLARITY Act is intended to reduce uncertainty in U.S. digital-asset market oversight—particularly how regulatory responsibilities are divided between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. While market participants have long navigated a patchwork of guidance and enforcement, a statutory framework would potentially offer a more durable basis for compliance planning and product design.
Republicans race a shrinking timetable
Politico’s reporting suggests Democratic support remains the central bottleneck. The outlet cited three people familiar with the matter in saying the CLARITY Act lacks Democratic support and that negotiations were still underway as the August schedule tightened.
In the reporting, the challenge is not only whether the bill can reach the floor, but whether Senate leaders can move the remaining pre-recess business without extending the session deeper into the next week—something Politico says would generally require unanimous consent from all 100 senators to complete outstanding items.
One possibility discussed in the reporting is whether Thune could file cloture before the recess. Cloture, if pursued, can be used to limit debate and set up a floor vote later; however, Politico reported that even if cloture were filed, it would not itself be a direct vote on the legislation before senators depart.
Cointelegraph also reported that it requested clarification from Thune’s office on whether he intended to file cloture before the Senate leaves for recess, but did not receive a response by publication.
What the CLARITY Act would change
The CLARITY Act would create a federal framework for digital asset markets and—importantly—clarify how oversight is allocated between the SEC and the CFTC. That division has been a continuing focus for the industry, as regulatory treatment can affect everything from token classification and custody rules to the structure of trading venues and derivatives products.
From an editorial perspective, this is the heart of why the scheduling matters: when lawmakers cannot align quickly enough to bring the bill forward, the U.S. regulatory timeline remains dependent on ongoing agency interpretations and enforcement actions. Those are often slower to resolve and can vary in application, increasing compliance uncertainty for market participants operating in a highly competitive global environment.
Industry reaction: urgency persists
Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim called the postponement “disappointing,” according to comments provided to Cointelegraph. He said the legislation’s direction has not changed, but warned that delays continue to impose real-world costs on U.S. users and builders.
“Every day without such a framework pushes American users and builders offshore and leaves consumers at risk,” Kim said.
That critique reflects a common argument within the industry: when legislative clarity stalls, companies may rationally consider relocating or prioritizing non-U.S. markets to reduce regulatory exposure and uncertainty. At the same time, policymakers opposing the bill may be concerned about how any statutory language would codify regulatory power or shift responsibilities between agencies.
Next steps after the recess
Thune’s statement, combined with Politico’s reporting, points to a renewed attempt to move the CLARITY Act when senators return in mid-September. Readers should watch whether Republicans can secure Democratic buy-in for procedural timing—especially any time agreements needed to reach the floor—and whether the chamber can gather the level of support likely required for the bill to advance without running into the most difficult Senate obstacles.
This article was originally published as US Senate Delays CLARITY Act Vote to September on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A bipartisan ethics proposal being discussed as a potential path to advancing the US crypto market-structure bill could offer a major tax benefit to President Donald Trump, Bloomberg reported on Thursday.
Bloomberg said the proposal—an addendum tied to ethics rules intended to address Democratic concerns about conflicts of interest—would require Trump to divest from crypto-related businesses. According to people familiar with the matter, it may also allow him to defer capital gains taxes on any divestitures, potentially resulting in tax savings in the millions.
Key takeaways
Bloomberg reports a new ethics addendum could be linked to passage of the US crypto market-structure bill.
The proposal would reportedly require presidential divestment from crypto-related business interests.
A reported option to defer capital gains taxes on divestitures could create millions in potential tax savings.
Democrats have previously flagged Trump’s crypto ties as a major hurdle to moving the market-structure legislation.
Trump’s latest disclosed crypto-related income includes large revenue figures tied to token and memecoin licensing and sales.
Ethics addendum tied to market-structure push
Democratic lawmakers have repeatedly argued that the president’s financial exposure to crypto ventures makes it harder to support market-structure legislation without stronger conflict-of-interest guardrails. Bloomberg’s Thursday report frames the ethics proposal as another attempt to break that impasse.
While the addendum reportedly has not been made public, Bloomberg said it includes a divestiture requirement. The reporting also suggests an accompanying tax mechanism that would let Trump defer capital gains taxes if divestiture is required under the ethics rules.
Cointelegraph reached out to the White House for comment but did not receive an immediate response.
Why Democrats may scrutinize the tax-deferment angle
Even if divestment requirements were designed to reduce perceived conflicts, the reported tax-deferral benefit could complicate the political dynamics. Bloomberg noted that Democrats who are already wary about whether Trump’s financial interests are genuinely curbed may raise further questions if divestitures come with meaningful tax advantages.
That tension reflects a broader challenge in conflict-of-interest policy: divestment can change exposure, but the way tax rules interact with divestment can affect how fully a candidate or officeholder is seen to be stepping away.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph has described how concerns about Trump’s crypto conflicts have been central to resistance to the market-structure bill, and how senators were working on additional ethics language to clear a path forward. The new detail Bloomberg reported—tax deferral tied to divestiture—adds a fresh issue lawmakers may debate during negotiations.
New disclosure highlights scale of crypto-related income
One reason the ethics debate has been so intense is the extent of Trump’s disclosed financial involvement. Trump’s annual financial disclosure report for 2025, released at the end of June, listed $1.4 billion in income from crypto-related ventures during the prior year.
Bloomberg’s report, drawing on the disclosure, said the largest portion came from licensing and sale of memecoins, including Official Trump (TRUMP). The disclosure reportedly showed about $635 million in “royalties” from a “license agreement with Celebration Coins.”
The filing also indicated that World Liberty Financial—Trump’s family-associated DeFi platform—was a second major earner. Bloomberg said the disclosure attributed about $588 million to “proceeds from token sales.”
In addition, the disclosure reportedly listed $197 from the sale of an equity interest in a stablecoin venture.
Cointelegraph previously reported on the disclosures and their implications for the debate around crypto oversight, including details about stablecoin-related disclosures and the president’s crypto-connected business structures.
Corporate ties and ownership stakes remain part of the story
Separate disclosures about World Liberty’s website also reportedly show that DT Marks DEFI LLC, an entity affiliated with Trump and certain family members, owns approximately 38% of the equity interests in World Liberty’s parent company.
This kind of ownership stake is likely to matter as lawmakers weigh what “divestment” should mean in practice—especially when exposure can come not only from direct business operations, but also from equity structures and downstream licensing arrangements.
With the ethics addendum not yet publicly available, it remains unclear how detailed the divestiture requirement would be and whether it would extend to every category of financial involvement reflected in the disclosure.
For now, readers should watch whether the ethics language becomes public and how it is interpreted in Congress—particularly around what divestment would cover and whether Democratic lawmakers view the reported tax deferral as compatible with the goal of reducing genuine conflict. The outcome could shape not only the market-structure bill’s prospects, but also the standard future administrations may face when crypto policy intersects with personal financial interests.
This article was originally published as Bloomberg: Proposed CLARITY ethics deal may cut Trump taxes by millions on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin miner Marathon Digital Holdings, commonly known as MARA, reported a sharp swing from profit to a large net loss in the second quarter of 2026, even as it achieved its highest quarterly Bitcoin production in more than a year. The company’s results underscore how tightly miners remain tied to Bitcoin’s market price—especially when the accounting reflects changes in the fair value of Bitcoin held on balance sheets.
In its Q2 2026 SEC Form 10-Q, MARA said it recorded a net loss of $611.3 million, or $1.60 per diluted share, compared with net income of $808.2 million, or $1.84 per diluted share, in the second quarter of 2025. According to the filing, MARA mined 2,422 Bitcoin in the quarter, up 3% year over year, but that increase was more than offset by a 28% decline in the average Bitcoin price.
Key takeaways
MARA posted a $611.3 million Q2 net loss, with the decline largely attributed to changes in the value of its Bitcoin holdings.
Bitcoin production rose to 2,422 BTC in Q2 2026, but the revenue impact was overwhelmed by a 28% drop in the average Bitcoin price.
As of June 30, MARA held 35,577 Bitcoin valued at $2.1 billion, placing it fourth among public Bitcoin holders cited in the company’s reporting context.
The company used the quarter to restructure its power portfolio and capital position, while pushing further into AI and high-performance computing (HPC) infrastructure.
MARA is targeting at least two AI/HPC data center lease signings by year-end, alongside additional Texas and Ohio expansion plans.
Profit-to-loss driven by Bitcoin’s price and holding valuation
The headline shift in MARA’s second-quarter performance is stark: profit in Q2 2025 gave way to a net loss in Q2 2026. In its 10-Q, MARA attributes the swing primarily to the impact of Bitcoin price movement on the accounting value of Bitcoin it holds, rather than to a deterioration in mining output.
That distinction matters for how investors interpret miner fundamentals. Production volumes increased, but the company’s overall earnings were pressured by weaker realized economics tied to Bitcoin’s price environment. Put simply, even better operational throughput did not translate into higher net earnings when the fair-value effects and average pricing moved against the company.
During an earnings call on Thursday, MARA CFO Salman Khan said, according to the company’s remarks, that “Two things defined Q2 for MARA. Bitcoin prices created a challenging revenue environment [and] we used the quarter to fundamentally transform our power portfolio and capital structure.”
Higher output, weaker average price
MARA’s mining performance in Q2 2026 was comparatively strong on the operational side. The company mined 2,422 Bitcoin, about 3% more than the year-ago quarter. However, the average Bitcoin price fell 28% over the same comparison period, which directly undermined revenue tied to the mined BTC and other Bitcoin-linked line items.
This is a recurring tension in the miner model: when BTC prices move lower, output growth can be muted by pricing and valuation effects. MARA’s quarter illustrates that point—production strength alone was not enough to counteract the market-driven decline in average pricing.
Beyond the mining figures, the company’s Bitcoin balance sheet also remained significant. As of June 30, MARA reported total holdings of 35,577 Bitcoin with a total fair value of $2.1 billion, reflecting both continued treasury accumulation and the sensitivity of the financial statements to BTC valuation changes. In that snapshot, the company was described as the fourth-largest public Bitcoin holder after Strategy, Twenty One Capital and Metaplanet.
MARA presses ahead with AI and HPC infrastructure deals
While mining remains central to MARA’s business, the company continues to frame its longer-term growth around expanding computational infrastructure for AI and high-performance workloads. Earlier in 2026, it acquired a majority stake in Exaion SaS, which operates high-performance computing data centers and secure cloud and AI infrastructure.
MARA also moved to accelerate data center development through partnerships. In February, it announced a strategic partnership with Starwood Capital Group and Starwood Digital Ventures aimed at enabling conversion of select MARA sites to meet demand from “enterprise, hyperscale and AI customers.”
On Thursday, MARA reiterated that it is pursuing near-term commercial milestones tied to those plans. The company said it is targeting at least two AI/HPC lease signings by year-end. CEO Fred Thiel said, according to the earnings call, that lease discussions are progressing across multiple sites and that MARA remains confident it can sign at least two leases before year-end.
Texas land plans and Ohio energy acquisition expand the runway
MARA’s infrastructure buildout includes both new land and additional power resources. In July, the company agreed to acquire a 1,200-acre powered site in Matagorda County, Texas, with expected access to up to 2 gigawatts of grid capacity by April 2028. MARA said the site is intended for AI and HPC workloads as well as Bitcoin mining.
The company also continues to pursue power capacity through a pending acquisition of Long Ridge Energy & Power in Ohio. MARA described the $1.5 billion deal as a potential source of up to 600 megawatts of AI and critical-IT load over time, indicating that it views energy access as a key enabler for both traditional mining operations and new revenue streams linked to enterprise computing.
Mining still the core—AI described as a complement, not a replacement
In a shareholder letter released alongside its quarterly results, Thiel said that Bitcoin mining remains the foundation of MARA’s business and that the cash flow generated by mining will continue to support other investments.
He also pushed back on the notion that MARA is shifting away from mining. “Ultimately, we do not view Bitcoin mining and AI infrastructure as competing businesses,” Thiel said, according to the letter. He further emphasized a capital allocation principle focused on deploying each megawatt into what he described as its highest-value application—sometimes mining in certain markets, and in others AI infrastructure, sovereign cloud, or enterprise computing.
For readers tracking MARA, the key question is how quickly these AI/HPC efforts can contribute stable cash flows that are less dependent on Bitcoin’s spot price. Near-term, the company’s targets—like at least two AI/HPC lease signings by year-end—will offer a clearer datapoint on whether the operational transformation hinted at in Q2 can translate into measurable commercial traction. Investors will also want to watch how future quarters reflect both mining output and the impact of Bitcoin price moves on the valuation of holdings, since that remains the dominant factor in the recent earnings swing.
This article was originally published as MARA Posts Q2 Loss as Bitcoin Declines Despite Higher Output on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.