Crypto Breaking

Consensys Software Inc., the Ethereum-focused firm behind MetaMask, plans to restructure by splitting its consumer-oriented business from its institutional blockchain infrastructure operations. The company says the separation is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, creating two independent companies with distinct leadership and strategic priorities.
According to a Business Wire announcement, Joe Lubin will serve as chairman and CEO of MetaMask while also taking the role of executive chairman of the new Consensys. The institutional business—focused on Ethereum protocols and infrastructure—will be led by Mike Kriak as CEO, with David Cunningham as president.
Key takeaways
Consensys will separate into two independent firms by the end of 2026: MetaMask (consumer self-custody) and a new Consensys (Ethereum protocols and institutional infrastructure).
The new Consensys will house Consensys’ protocol and infrastructure portfolio, including Linea, Besu, and Teku.
MetaMask is positioned to broaden beyond a wallet into payments, savings, investing, and other traditional financial products.
Consensys says MetaMask has surpassed 100 million downloads across about 190 countries and supported “trillions of dollars” in transaction volume.
From one umbrella to two focused companies
The planned reorganization reflects what the company describes as increasingly different objectives between its consumer-facing and institutional-facing teams. In the announcement, Consensys frames the split as a way to allow each business to pursue its own roadmap without competing for shared priorities.
Under the new structure, MetaMask will remain the centerpiece of the consumer division, with an emphasis on self-custody. Consensys also outlined that MetaMask’s expansion is not limited to crypto holdings and decentralized app access; it is intended to extend into areas such as payments, savings, and investing, as well as “traditional financial products.”
Meanwhile, the institutional infrastructure company will consolidate Consensys’ Ethereum protocol and infrastructure activities. The company says this entity will focus on Ethereum infrastructure while supporting financial institutions looking to deploy blockchain technology for tokenization, stablecoins, and other onchain financial services.
What will live under “MetaMask” vs. “the new Consensys”
Consensys’ announcement is explicit about the portfolio split. The new Consensys entity will house the company’s protocols and institutional infrastructure businesses, including Linea, Besu, and Teku.
While the announcement does not detail whether these products will change in scope after the separation, the strategic direction is clear: an infrastructure-first company designed to work with institutions, where the customer is more likely to value deployment, reliability, and enterprise integration over consumer growth metrics.
In contrast, MetaMask’s mandate centers on consumer self-custody and product-led expansion into finance-adjacent services. The company’s messaging suggests that the consumer operation will continue to evolve from a browser extension into a broader interface for onchain and finance-related experiences, including functionality connected to stablecoins and yield strategies—while remaining within a self-custody framework.
Consensys says MetaMask has been downloaded more than 100 million times across roughly 190 countries and facilitated trillions of dollars in transaction volume.
MetaMask’s push into consumer finance features
Part of the logic behind the split appears tied to how MetaMask has expanded beyond its original “wallet for decentralized applications” role. Launched in 2016 as an Ethereum browser extension, MetaMask has added new product lines over the past year, including tools associated with payments, yield, and access to tokenized real-world assets.
In June, Consensys said MetaMask launched Money Account, which it describes as allowing users to earn up to 4% variable APY on eligible mUSD stablecoin balances. The company also stated that the yield is generated through decentralized finance lending strategies rather than interest paid by MetaMask or by the stablecoin issuer.
Earlier in the year, MetaMask added access to tokenized financial products for certain users. In February, Consensys reported support for 200 tokenized US stocks, exchange-traded funds, and commodities via Ondo Global Markets, limited to eligible users outside the United States.
That same month, MetaMask rolled out a Mastercard-enabled spending card across 49 US states. Consensys said the card expanded a previously available product that had already reached markets including Europe, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.
Taken together, these updates help explain why a consumer-first business might benefit from separation: MetaMask’s expanding feature set increasingly resembles a consumer finance platform—while the institutional protocols business is oriented toward deployment infrastructure for enterprise and regulated use cases.
Why the split matters for builders and investors
Restructuring a major Ethereum software provider can matter beyond internal operations, because it shapes where resources and attention flow. A dedicated institutional infrastructure unit may allow teams behind Linea, Besu, and Teku to focus more narrowly on scaling, tooling, and integration work relevant to financial institutions and enterprise networks.
For investors and market participants, the split also provides clearer lines of accountability: MetaMask’s leadership and product execution can be assessed primarily through consumer adoption and the rollout of finance features, while the new Consensys can be evaluated on the delivery of Ethereum infrastructure services and institutional deployment outcomes.
At the same time, Consensys’ own framing highlights that the separation is not simply organizational—it is strategic. The company says the consumer and institutional businesses have “increasingly different priorities,” and the timeline suggests it expects those differences to become more consequential as each unit pursues its own growth and partnerships.
Readers should watch how Consensys handles continuity during the transition, especially how MetaMask’s expanded financial features and the institutional protocols roadmap will evolve up to the end-of-2026 completion target.
With the split planned but not yet finalized, the key near-term question is whether the product lines will remain consistent for users while each company sharpens its focus—particularly as MetaMask continues moving into payments and tokenized asset access, and the institutional unit deepens its work supporting stablecoin and tokenization initiatives.
This article was originally published as Consensys to Separate MetaMask and Launch Institutional Blockchain Unit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Former Silvergate Bank CEO Alan Lane says the lender’s 2023 voluntary wind-down was driven less by solvency concerns and more by political pressure tied to the Biden administration. In an inaugural Substack post published Tuesday, Lane argues that Silvergate could have continued operating after meeting large withdrawal demands in late 2022—contradicting the thrust of multiple regulator reviews that pointed to funding, governance, and compliance failures.
The dispute matters beyond Silvergate’s collapse because it sits at the center of a broader, ongoing debate: whether US regulators effectively squeezed crypto-focused banks through risk management scrutiny and supervisory actions, or whether the failures were primarily internal. Lane’s account adds a firsthand perspective to a record that includes Federal Reserve and SEC enforcement actions, as well as official reviews highlighting weaknesses in how the bank managed its concentrated deposit base and compliance obligations.
Key takeaways
Alan Lane claims Silvergate remained solvent through periods of heavy withdrawals, citing liquid assets that could be sold or pledged.
Lane attributes the 2023 liquidation decision to “political pressure,” while Federal Reserve-related reviews emphasize funding risks and governance and compliance shortcomings.
A Federal Reserve Office of Inspector General review in 2023 linked Silvergate’s collapse to its dependence on crypto depositors and multilayered funding risks.
The SEC charged Silvergate Capital, Lane, and former risk officer Kathleen Fraher in July 2024 over alleged deficiencies in AML-related monitoring and investor disclosures.
Government agencies later withdrew early-2023 crypto-risk supervisory statements, but regulators’ enforcement actions continued to shape the post-mortem.
Lane argues Silvergate could withstand the withdrawal wave
Lane’s central claim is that Silvergate did not collapse because it lacked liquidity or capital to operate. He wrote that the bank had the capacity to keep running after it satisfied withdrawals equivalent to 70% of its demand deposits during the fourth quarter of 2022.
In the post, Lane argued that liquidation became the path of least resistance only after political pressure intensified. He described a “coordinated attack by the Biden Administration” as the reason Silvergate chose liquidation “in the face of political pressure.”
Lane also pointed to the bank’s reserves and balance sheet actions during the period. In a January 2023 business update, Silvergate reported that digital asset deposits declined 68% from $11.9 billion to $3.8 billion over the quarter. The bank said it sold $5.2 billion in debt securities and recorded a $718 million loss, while reporting $4.6 billion in cash and equivalents at year-end. Lane’s post leans on this picture—liquid assets were available, and funding outflows did not automatically imply insolvency.
Even if Lane’s liquidity framing is accepted, regulators’ accounts differ sharply on what ultimately caused the wind-down. Lane presents a solvency-and-strategy argument; multiple supervisory findings emphasize risk concentration, rapid funding dynamics, and compliance and governance problems.
Regulators’ assessments focus on concentration, governance, and risk controls
A September 2023 review by the Federal Reserve Board’s Office of Inspector General examined Silvergate’s failure, citing the bank’s heavy reliance on crypto depositors, rapid growth, and multilayered funding risks as key drivers behind the decision to liquidate. The review also highlighted weaknesses in corporate governance and risk management, and suggested examiners could have acted more aggressively and decisively.
Lane’s Substack post pushes back on the compliance narrative. He said no regulator had proven that Silvergate’s anti-money laundering (AML) controls failed. That assertion sits in tension with the SEC’s later enforcement actions, which specifically targeted AML monitoring practices and related disclosures.
For investors, this difference is not just rhetorical. If regulators’ conclusions primarily reflect internal control failures, then industry access to banking may be constrained mainly by compliance performance. If, instead, supervisory pressure was the decisive factor, the risk lens for lenders and crypto businesses could shift toward how regulators manage institution-level risk tolerance rather than how firms execute monitoring and governance.
SEC enforcement and the AML-monitoring allegations
Lane’s account also intersects with the SEC’s July 2024 charges. According to the SEC’s press release from that time, the agency charged Silvergate Capital, Alan Lane, and former chief risk officer Kathleen Fraher with misleading investors regarding the bank’s AML program and monitoring of crypto customers.
In the SEC’s allegations, Silvergate’s automated system failed to monitor transactions worth more than $1 trillion, and the bank allegedly failed to detect nearly $9 billion in suspicious transfers involving FTX entities.
Lane later settled the SEC case without admitting or denying the allegations. The SEC reported that the settlement included a $1 million penalty and a five-year officer-and-director bar. Separately, the Federal Reserve fined Silvergate $43 million over transaction-monitoring deficiencies, according to a Federal Reserve enforcement press release dated July 1, 2024.
Taken together, these actions support the core of regulators’ post-mortem: even if deposit withdrawals accelerated stress, supervisory authorities argued the bank’s monitoring and governance posture contributed to its inability to stabilize.
Did the industry face supervisory “pressure”? The withdrawn statements
Lane also cited early-2023 interagency crypto-risk statements as evidence of pressure on the broader industry. The Federal Reserve’s regulatory materials described guidance urging banks to take a cautious approach to crypto-related activities. The Fed also stated that institutions were neither prohibited nor discouraged from serving specific customer classes based solely on that guidance.
However, that episode did not remain permanent. In April 2025, government agencies withdrew the earlier statements, according to a Federal Reserve press release about the withdrawal.
That timeline is important for readers trying to weigh Lane’s claims against the regulatory record. The supervisory stance of early 2023 may have influenced how banks managed crypto-related risk; the later withdrawal suggests agencies eventually reassessed how the guidance was framed. Still, the SEC and Federal Reserve actions tied to Silvergate’s own monitoring and risk controls remained part of the enforcement backdrop—suggesting that whatever broader pressure existed, regulators also found failures in how Silvergate operated.
What to watch next for the “regulation vs. solvency” question
Lane’s Substack post will likely intensify the split between those who view Silvergate’s liquidation as a response to external political and supervisory pressure and those who see it as the logical endpoint of internal risk concentration and control failures. The key question now is whether further filings or proceedings clarify which factors were decisive in the wind-down—and how regulators’ changing guidance will be interpreted going forward by crypto-focused lenders.
This article was originally published as Silvergate Ex-CEO Says Biden Pressure Drove 2023 Wind-Down on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. lawmakers are racing to move the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act through the Senate before congressional politics reset after the 2026 midterms. With the Senate scheduled to return to Washington on Monday, Majority Leader John Thune has set a cloture vote for Tuesday—an immediate procedural test that will determine whether the bill can clear the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster.
The timetable is tight. If CLARITY fails to advance this session, the chamber would effectively be left with less than 36 business days before the 2027 Congress is sworn in, according to earlier reporting linked in this piece. That creates a high-stakes decision point: either push the bill through now, or risk carrying it into a later Congress where party control—and priorities—may look very different.
Key takeaways
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has scheduled a cloture vote on the CLARITY Act for Tuesday, requiring 60 votes to break a filibuster.
If the vote fails, the bill may miss its remaining window and roll into the next Congress, potentially delaying meaningful progress on digital-asset policy.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, a prominent CLARITY backer, suggested the next realistic opportunity for passage could be years away if lawmakers cannot agree.
Control of the White House remains Republican until January 2029, meaning any future crypto legislation could still face veto risk.
Crypto-linked political spending continues to shape competitive races leading into 2026, with campaigns and outcomes potentially influencing the next legislative agenda.
CLARITY faces a narrow procedural deadline
After more than a month of state work periods, the U.S. Senate is set to resume session on Monday. The next step for CLARITY is a cloture vote—scheduled for Tuesday—where Republican support alone may not be enough. Under Senate rules, the bill cannot advance past a filibuster without at least 60 votes, meaning a “yes” coalition will need some Democrats to reach the supermajority.
That procedural math is central to why the current session matters. As noted in earlier coverage referenced in the article, a failed push would reduce the Senate’s remaining effective calendar before the 2027 Congress begins. In practical terms, it turns CLARITY from a policy target into a scheduling challenge: even if lawmakers agree on direction, they still must align on timing, floor strategy, and the votes required to move the legislation forward.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, one of CLARITY’s best-known advocates, warned on Sept. 6 that the “next real opportunity” for the bill to pass might not come until much later if lawmakers cannot reach an agreement in the near term. She also indicated she is not running for reelection in 2026, underscoring that the political incentives for individual lawmakers could shift as the calendar turns.
Midterm elections could reset the negotiating dynamics
The midterms are a major variable in how quickly—if at all— CLARITY (and other crypto legislation) could proceed. The 2026 election will determine all 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats. Event contracts referenced in the article currently suggest Democrats have the odds on retaking the House, while their chances of controlling the Senate are described as close to a coin flip.
This distinction matters because the Senate is often the harder venue for major regulatory legislation to clear. A potential change in chamber control could also change leverage: if Republicans lose their legislative trifecta after the midterms, bills like CLARITY may face a different set of priorities, committee dynamics, and negotiating positions.
The backdrop for this urgency is that Republicans previously captured unified control after the 2024 elections. The article notes that this gave the party significant influence over legislation favored by parts of the crypto industry, including the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act. If political control shifts next year, the balance could move toward Democrats’ preferences instead.
Crypto-backed political spending and competitive races
Beyond Capitol Hill procedural votes, 2026 is also shaping up as a test of how much influence crypto-aligned advocacy and political spending can translate into electoral outcomes. The article points to Senator Sherrod Brown, a former chair of the Senate Banking Committee, describing how his 2024 race involved substantial spending by cryptocurrency-backed political action committee (PAC) Fairshake and others. Brown was voted out in 2024 by Republican Bernie Moreno.
Brown is now back in a special election race, the article says, running against Republican Jon Husted to finish the term won in 2022 by now-Vice President JD Vance. That puts a familiar storyline in play: crypto industry-aligned groups seek to support candidates perceived as more receptive to digital-asset regulation, while opponents sometimes become the target of attack ads.
The article also highlights that industry-aligned spending does not always guarantee victory. It cites an example from March, when Illinois Lieutenant Governor Juliana Stratton won a Democratic primary for a U.S. Senate seat despite being the target of attack ads funded by industry-linked interests.
In Massachusetts, the article references commentary by Jason Poulos, a Democratic candidate who previously ran against Rep. Jake Auchincloss in a primary for the state’s 4th congressional district. Poulos attributed Auchincloss’s reelection support among crypto-industry groups to his prior vote on CLARITY, while also noting that a Fairshake-affiliated PAC spent about $189,000 on ads supporting Auchincloss.
“The influx of outside crypto industry cash means that these oligarchs have an outsized influence on our representation and federal policies. It is why we need to get big money out of politics […]”
Whether one agrees with that critique or not, the practical takeaway for traders and investors is that legislative timelines are tied to electoral incentives. As these races settle, the coalitions needed for future regulatory bills could either consolidate or fragment.
Presidency and regulators likely keep the pressure on timing
Even if Democrats were to retake one or both chambers in November—or if they fail to win either—one constant remains: Republican control of the White House is scheduled to persist until January 2029. The article explains that this continuation keeps veto power on the table. It also notes that overriding a veto would require a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers, a high bar for major regulatory legislation.
Regulatory leadership adds another layer. The article says the heads of key U.S. financial agencies—specifically the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—are unlikely to change while Trump remains in office. It further states that President Trump nominated Paul Atkins to chair the SEC and Michael Selig for the CFTC, both of whom have indicated plans to proceed with digital-asset regulation even if Congress does not advance CLARITY this year.
That combination—an enduring executive branch, potential gridlock risk, and regulators signaling continued action—helps explain why CLARITY is being treated as a narrow opportunity rather than a flexible target. Investors often assume regulatory clarity follows legislation, but this story highlights how the absence of congressional momentum can shift the center of gravity toward executive and agency rulemaking.
What to watch next
All eyes are on Tuesday’s cloture vote: whether the CLARITY Act can reach 60 votes will largely determine if lawmakers can lock in statutory clarity during this session or whether the bill becomes a casualty of election-year arithmetic. After the vote, the next question is how quickly—if at all— both parties can align on a path forward, especially given the uncertain control landscape after the 2026 midterms.
This article was originally published as CLARITY Act 2026: Potential outcomes if the bill fails to pass on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin traded in a cautious range under $80,000 on Wednesday, weighed by a broader risk-off mood driven by escalating tensions tied to Iranian oil shipping and renewed pressure on macro liquidity conditions. At the same time, the Japanese yen strengthened sharply, keeping traders focused on the mechanics of the yen carry trade and the possibility of further currency market intervention.
Market moves unfolded as US stocks drifted lower and crude oil pushed higher after fresh US strikes on Iranian-linked oil tankers. Brent crude climbed above $101 per barrel for the first time since late July, while WTI traded above $96, according to price levels cited alongside TradingView charts.
Key takeaways
Bitcoin struggled to regain $80,000 after a short-term bounce attempt, while BTC/USD remained roughly flat to slightly lower on the day.
Oil’s jump—Brent above $101 and WTI above $96—added to pressure on risk assets amid US-Iran developments.
The yen moved to its strongest level against the dollar since February, trading around 153 per USD, with yen shorts still positioned near record levels.
Comments from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent revived attention on possible additional yen intervention, potentially accelerating an unwind in leveraged positions.
Traders are also watching the Bank of Japan’s next decision, with expectations for a 0.25% rate hike on Sept. 28.
Bitcoin stalls as oil and equities soften
According to TradingView data referenced in the report, BTC/USD’s local upside attempt faded as the pair tried to retest $80,000. At the time of writing, Bitcoin was down about 0.4% on the day, signaling a lack of momentum rather than a decisive breakdown.
That hesitation tracked with weaker sentiment elsewhere. Fresh US strikes on Iranian oil tankers contributed to lower trading in US equities at the Wall Street open, while oil prices printed new three-month highs. The move in energy markets mattered for crypto largely because it reinforced the same macro mix investors often react to: geopolitical shocks, higher near-term inflation expectations, and tighter financial conditions.
Oil has been acting as a transmission channel for risk appetite this week. The article notes Brent’s surge above $101 per barrel, building on gains from the previous session, while WTI held above $96.
Yen strength returns carry-trade risks to the foreground
While oil set the tone for risk assets, the yen’s renewed strength became the centerpiece for traders watching cross-currency liquidity. The Japanese currency was cited as trading around 153 per dollar—its highest level versus the USD since February—and up significantly since early August (the report states a 6.5% rise from the start of August).
The underlying concern is the yen carry trade: when the yen strengthens, positions that borrow yen and buy higher-yielding assets can become vulnerable, forcing reductions and moving liquidity across markets. The article points back to earlier reporting that Japan and the US conducted repeated joint interventions in foreign exchange markets, which helped drive the yen higher rapidly.
That dynamic has also been complicated by speculation that Washington could limit Japan’s selling of US Treasuries as part of future intervention operations—an angle that, if true, would directly connect global reserve flows with yen liquidity.
Near-record yen short positioning raises the stakes
Wednesday’s focus intensified after Barchart flagged record yen short positioning at the start of September, citing Bloomberg data. The report says total yen shorts hovered above 5 trillion yen, a scale large enough to matter if price action forces an orderly unwind to turn into a faster scramble for exits.
In comments to Reuters, Charu Chanana, chief investment strategist at Saxo, argued that the yen’s continued climb could change the pace of de-leveraging. She noted that the carry trade may be particularly exposed because the unwind could be occurring before the Bank of Japan delivers the rate hike investors were expecting.
Chanana’s warning, as quoted in the article, was that while some yen shorts may already have been cut, positioning still appears sizable—meaning further yen gains could shift a gradual reduction in leverage into a more self-reinforcing unwind.
That matters for crypto because many traders treat liquidity conditions—especially those tied to global funding currencies like USD and JPY—as a key input for volatility and risk-taking. If leveraged positions unwind quickly, correlation spikes and sudden repricing can follow across multiple asset classes, including digital assets.
Scott Bessent renews intervention signals ahead of BOJ decision
The yen story also gained a political and policy dimension after renewed hints from US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Earlier coverage cited in the article described how Bessent suggested the “door was open” to future yen intervention operations, and the current reporting says he reinforced those themes this week.
According to the Financial Times, Bessent made remarks at Southern Methodist University in Texas in which he suggested he has “asymmetric information” about how Japanese policymakers might respond if the US intervenes in the Japanese yen market. The quote, as presented in the report, framed intervention as something he can anticipate—particularly relative to traders positioned in the FX market.
These comments come alongside expectations for the Bank of Japan’s next meeting on Sept. 28. The article notes that traders are looking for a 0.25% interest-rate hike, and it also explains that the yen’s strength has been occurring while the market waits for BOJ action.
In practice, the timing is important: if intervention talk and yen strength persist while the rate decision draws near, the incentive for additional yen-short exposure may drop, while pressure to reduce carry-related leverage could rise.
For investors, the key takeaway is that Bitcoin’s lack of momentum near $80,000 is occurring in a macro environment where both geopolitical risk (via oil) and funding stress (via the yen carry trade) are moving in the same direction—toward tighter conditions for risk assets.
Traders should watch how quickly yen shorts unwind and whether Bessent’s intervention signals translate into more concrete FX-market actions, while also tracking oil’s trajectory and the lead-up to the Bank of Japan’s Sept. 28 decision, which could determine whether current volatility remains contained or escalates.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin misses $80K as Bessent-driven yen strength hits $153 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kalshi filed with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to launch two new perpetual futures contracts. The prediction market plans to list GOLDPERP and SILVERPERP on September 9. Both contracts settle in cash and carry no expiration date.
Gold Perpetual Futures Enter Kalshi’s Lineup
Kalshi submitted its filing under CFTC Regulation 40.2(a). This self-certification path lets exchanges list products without prior agency approval, so Kalshi confirmed compliance with the Commodity Exchange Act directly. No separate review step was required before the listing date.
The gold perpetual contract tracks the spot price of one troy ounce. Traders hold a single position instead of rolling between dated contracts, and Kalshi set the reference price through Pyth Network. Settlement stays entirely in cash, with no physical metal changing hands.
A periodic funding payment keeps the contract price near the spot rate. Kalshi said the structure can cut roll costs and basis risk for hedgers. Fabricators, bullion desks and producers may benefit most from that continuous exposure.
Silver Perpetual Futures Add New Options
The exchange also plans to list a silver perpetual contract on the same day. SILVERPERP tracks the spot price of silver in U.S. dollars, and settlement remains fully in cash. No physical delivery applies to this contract either.
Kalshi cited consecutive annual supply deficits in silver dating back to 2021. It also noted tightness in the market during late 2025 and early 2026. Cash settlement removes any risk of delivery pressure tied to those shortages.
The contract trades continuously, without daily or weekend closures. Kalshi set the schedule wider than its earlier proposal from July, which had suggested a five-day trading week. The final structure instead runs seven days a week, around the clock.
Kalshi Builds on Earlier Crypto Perps Success
Kalshi first launched a Bitcoin perpetual contract in May this year. The CFTC approved it as the first such product in the country. The exchange then expanded to eighteen crypto assets, including Ethereum and XRP.
The company also added contracts tied to Hyperliquid, BNB and Cardano. Kalshi separately sought approval for metals, copper and equity-index products. Gold and silver perps mark the next step in that broader plan.
CME Group has sued the CFTC over how it classifies Kalshi’s Bitcoin perps. The dispute centers on whether the product counts as a future or a swap. Kalshi’s existing gold and silver event contracts remain separate, short-dated products with fixed expiries.
This article was originally published as Kalshi Files to Launch Gold and Silver Perpetual Futures on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Consensys Software Inc., the Ethereum-focused company best known for MetaMask, plans to split into two standalone businesses—separating its consumer-oriented MetaMask platform from its institutional infrastructure and protocol operations. The company says the restructuring is expected to be completed by the end of 2026, with MetaMask led by Joe Lubin as chairman and CEO of the consumer company and Lubin also serving as executive chairman of the reorganized Consensys.
In the new structure, the remaining Consensys entity will focus on Ethereum protocols and institutional infrastructure. Its portfolio includes Linea, Besu, and Teku, and leadership will be handled by CEO Mike Kriak and President David Cunningham. The company frames the move as a response to diverging priorities between consumer products and enterprise blockchain deployment.
Key takeaways
Consensys will split into two independent companies by the end of 2026, separating MetaMask’s consumer business from institutional infrastructure and protocols.
MetaMask will stay focused on self-custody for users, while expanding into broader finance use cases such as payments, savings, and investing products.
The new institutional Consensys will concentrate on Ethereum infrastructure and enterprise adoption, including tokenization and stablecoin-related services.
Consensys says the consumer and institutional units have increasingly “different priorities,” a key justification for the corporate restructuring.
How the split reshapes Consensys’ operating model
According to Consensys’ announcement released via Business Wire, the company’s planned separation aims to give each business line room to pursue distinct strategies. In practice, the restructuring divides what has historically been one integrated Ethereum software ecosystem into two corporate entities with separate leadership teams and clearer mandates.
Consensys says the institutional company will house its protocols and enterprise infrastructure businesses, explicitly including Linea, Besu, and Teku. The stated focus goes beyond protocol development alone, extending to helping financial institutions deploy onchain capabilities for tokenization, stablecoins, and other onchain financial services.
Meanwhile, MetaMask is positioned as the home for consumer self-custody and a widening set of products meant to interact with mainstream financial activities. The company’s framing suggests a continued push for MetaMask to operate as more than a wallet—an interface through which users can access payment and investment-like functionality—while the enterprise-focused Consensys entity advances infrastructure and institutional use cases.
MetaMask’s expansion beyond a browser extension
MetaMask began in 2016 as an Ethereum browser extension for accessing decentralized applications and managing crypto assets, according to Consensys’ own historical account of the platform’s evolution. Over the past year, the company says MetaMask has added products that extend its role into payments, yield, and tokenized traditional assets.
One of the most notable developments described in the company’s coverage is the launch of MetaMask Money Account in June. The feature allows users to earn “up to 4% variable APY” on eligible mUSD stablecoin balances and spend those funds using the MetaMask Card. Consensys indicates that the yield is sourced from decentralized finance lending strategies rather than interest paid by MetaMask itself or by the stablecoin issuer.
In February, Consensys also pointed to MetaMask adding access to tokenized US stocks, exchange-traded funds, and commodities through Ondo Global Markets for eligible users outside the United States, referencing coverage that discussed the availability of 200 tokenized instruments. Later in February, it expanded MetaMask’s Mastercard-enabled spending card across 49 US states, building on earlier availability in other regions including Europe, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.
Taken together, these product moves help explain why Consensys’ leadership appears to be treating the consumer business as something that increasingly looks like a retail financial application layered over Ethereum infrastructure, rather than a pure crypto tooling product.
Why Consensys says the separation makes sense now
Consensys states that the restructuring reflects increasingly different priorities between its consumer and institutional businesses. While the announcement is explicit about what each company will contain and what each will pursue, the underlying implication for investors and industry observers is that the risks, regulatory pressures, and product timelines for consumer finance features may differ sharply from those tied to enterprise protocol infrastructure.
The institutional unit’s focus—helping financial institutions deploy blockchain technology for tokenization and stablecoins—suggests a nearer-term path centered on integrations, enterprise adoption cycles, and infrastructure reliability. By contrast, MetaMask’s consumer roadmap described in the company’s rollout includes yield-bearing stablecoin access and card-based spending, areas that typically demand a strong user experience and careful alignment with payment rails and consumer-facing compliance expectations.
Separating the companies could therefore reduce internal tradeoffs: product teams can pursue roadmaps optimized for their user segments without competing for shared corporate bandwidth. It also creates a more straightforward way to evaluate each business line independently once the split is completed at the end of 2026.
What to watch as the companies operate independently
With completion targeted for the end of 2026, the most immediate question for users and builders is how the split affects product continuity—especially for MetaMask features that rely on Ethereum infrastructure and for institutional tools such as Linea, Besu, and Teku.
For the consumer side, attention will likely focus on whether MetaMask’s card, savings/yield functionality, and access to tokenized traditional assets continue expanding on a timeline comparable to the past year’s rollouts. For the enterprise side, the market will watch whether the reorganized Consensys institution continues to accelerate its work on deploying Ethereum infrastructure for tokenization and stablecoin use cases in collaboration with financial institutions.
In the months ahead, readers should look for clarifications from Consensys on how assets, roadmaps, and leadership responsibilities will transition through the separation process—because the core operational details will determine how smoothly both MetaMask’s consumer ambitions and the institutional unit’s infrastructure focus can scale after the split.
This article was originally published as Consensys Plans Split: MetaMask Focus and Separate Enterprise Unit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

TRM Labs, a blockchain intelligence company focused on investigations and compliance, has more than doubled its valuation to $2 billion after expanding its Series C funding round. The round was led by Blockchain Capital, according to an announcement released Wednesday. TRM did not disclose the amount raised in the latest expansion.
The company says its annual recurring revenue has quadrupled over the past three years. The funding expansion builds on a separate Series C tranche announced in February, when TRM raised $70 million, also led by Blockchain Capital.
Key takeaways
TRM Labs’ valuation rises to $2 billion following an expanded Series C led by Blockchain Capital.
The company did not disclose the expansion’s size, but reported annual recurring revenue is up fourfold over three years.
TRM says its tools are used by 600+ institutions across 75 countries, including government agencies.
Recent U.S. government work and procurement scrutiny form part of the broader backdrop to the company’s growth.
TRM links demand to rising digital crime, citing FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center totals and its own AI-crime metrics.
Valuation jump and what TRM says is driving growth
TRM’s valuation increase comes after a series of milestones that the company frames as evidence of rising demand for investigation-grade blockchain analytics. In its announcement, TRM said its AI-powered products support investigations into fraud, money laundering, sanctions evasion, and other forms of digital crime.
The firm also positioned its business performance as a key factor behind the new valuation. Prior to the February Series C, data compiled by Traxcn put TRM’s valuation at $930 million. TRM later crossed the $1 billion mark in the round that included investors such as Citi Ventures and Galaxy, and the current expansion takes it to $2 billion.
For investors and customers, the more notable detail is TRM’s operating momentum: the company stated that its annual recurring revenue has quadrupled over the past three years. That figure suggests growth that is not limited to one-off government or enterprise contracts, but instead tied to ongoing subscriptions for investigation and compliance workflows.
Funding momentum: from February’s $70 million to the expanded Series C
The latest valuation update is tied directly to the expanded Series C. In February, TRM said it secured $70 million in that funding round, again led by Blockchain Capital. The Wednesday announcement confirms the Series C is being expanded, but TRM did not provide the dollar amount for the additional capital.
While the funding size is undisclosed, the valuation and revenue statements indicate the company wants to anchor this raise in measurable performance rather than only strategic partnerships. TRM’s claim of quadrupled annual recurring revenue over three years—paired with its valuation doubling—would be central to how the market interprets the round’s implications for the blockchain intelligence sector.
Who uses TRM, and how it links demand to AI-related crime
TRM said its platform is used by more than 600 government agencies and private-sector institutions across 75 countries. The company’s emphasis on investigative use cases highlights a continued shift in the crypto-adjacent compliance market toward tooling that can assist with cases involving illicit finance, fraud patterns, and cross-border enforcement.
TRM also cited broader criminal activity trends to justify its focus. It pointed to reported losses submitted to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center, saying these rose to $21 billion in 2025 from $16 billion in 2024. Separately, TRM referenced its own AI-in-Crime Adoption Index, claiming criminal adoption of AI has increased by 40% year over year in 2026.
For readers tracking the sector, the important nuance is that TRM is attempting to tie market demand to both macro indicators (higher reported losses) and a forward-looking thesis (accelerating AI adoption by criminals). Whether that AI-crime acceleration translates into sustained procurement budgets will be something to watch in upcoming contract awards and renewals.
Government contracts and the lawsuit challenging a procurement decision
TRM’s recent trajectory also intersects with U.S. government contracting. The valuation update arrives about two months after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) awarded TRM a roughly $95 million, one-year contract for forensic software and support services for Homeland Security Task Force investigations.
That contract was not without controversy. Later that month, rival blockchain intelligence firm Chainalysis challenged the sole-source award in federal court, alleging ICE’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.” The dispute adds a layer of uncertainty around how quickly TRM’s government revenue streams could stabilize or expand, particularly in procurements where alternative vendors can contest contract awards.
Even so, the fact that TRM secured a major contract—followed by an expanded funding round at a higher valuation—signals that, at least from the perspective of backers and the company’s leadership, the business case remains intact despite regulatory and legal scrutiny.
As TRM works to convert funding into continued revenue growth, the next signals for the market will likely include follow-on government awards, any developments in the Chainalysis legal challenge, and whether TRM’s AI-crime adoption metrics continue to translate into new enterprise and public-sector deployments.
This article was originally published as TRM Labs Raises Series C, Doubling Valuation to $2B on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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