Crypto Breaking

Swiss cantonal bank BancaStato has gone live with regulated cryptocurrency trading through a partnership with digital-asset banking firm Sygnum, using the banks’ existing technology stack. The launch, announced this week to Cointelegraph, brings crypto buy, sell, and holding services to BancaStato clients via their current web and mobile banking apps.
BancaStato’s customers can access four crypto assets—Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), Litecoin (LTC), and Solana (SOL)—directly in their banking interface. The integration is built on Sygnum’s B2B banking platform and connected into Avaloq’s core and digital banking software, aiming to reduce operational duplication for the bank.
Key takeaways
BancaStato is now offering regulated crypto trading and custody through its existing web and mobile banking channels.
The service is powered by Sygnum’s B2B platform, integrated into Avaloq banking software rather than requiring a standalone crypto system.
Clients can trade and hold BTC, ETH, LTC, and SOL through BancaStato’s apps.
Sygnum says its approach is designed to shorten the timeline for banks to move from planning to live crypto offerings.
BancaStato joins a growing network of financial institutions already using Sygnum’s B2B infrastructure.
Crypto access embedded in BancaStato banking apps
According to BancaStato’s announcement shared with Cointelegraph, the cantonal bank for the Italian-speaking Ticino region has joined Sygnum’s business-to-business platform to provide regulated digital-asset services.
The practical change for customers is that crypto functionality is routed through the bank’s familiar user experience. BancaStato clients can buy, sell, and hold the supported assets through existing web and mobile banking applications, rather than using a separate crypto venue.
Sygnum and its technology partners also highlighted that the system is designed to integrate into BancaStato’s current banking operations. In particular, Sygnum’s trading and custody functions are connected through Avaloq’s platform, allowing the bank to offer crypto without adopting an entirely independent infrastructure stack.
How the Avaloq–Sygnum setup is intended to work
The integration links Sygnum’s application programming interface (API) to Avaloq, which develops the core banking and digital banking software used by many financial institutions. The companies said this approach connects Sygnum directly to Avaloq’s banking environment.
They also claim the design can remove the need for a separate order management system for crypto activity. If accurate in deployment, that matters for operational efficiency: order management is often one of the more complex layers in moving from “decision” to a production-grade trading and custody service. Streamlining those components can reduce implementation friction and ongoing maintenance requirements.
Fritz Jost, Sygnum’s chief B2B officer, told Cointelegraph that BancaStato is the first bank using Avaloq’s software-as-a-service model to enable customers to buy, hold, and sell crypto assets via the bank’s e-banking platforms using Sygnum’s API. Jost described the rollout as a milestone for the maturity and scalability of regulated digital-asset infrastructure.
Sygnum’s expanding European banking partnerships
BancaStato is not an isolated example of European banks using the Sygnum model. Sygnum says it has more than 25 financial institutions using its B2B platform to deliver regulated digital-asset services. In addition to BancaStato, Sygnum’s banking partners cited include Societe Generale-FORGE, PostFinance, and VZ Depotbank.
This kind of partnership structure is built around letting banks reuse a licensed and operational infrastructure layer—while banks retain responsibility for their own customer-facing regulatory decisions and arrangements.
Jost told Cointelegraph that partner banks remain responsible for their regulatory frameworks, while Sygnum provides elements including licensing, custody, and trading infrastructure. He argued that this separation is what can allow banks to move from internal planning to a live offering “in months rather than years,” reflecting the time savings compared with building crypto capabilities and obtaining approvals independently.
MiCA licensing and the post-transition ramp
The BancaStato launch arrives amid a broader shift in Europe’s crypto regulatory environment. In late June, Sygnum announced that its Liechtenstein-based subsidiary, Sygnum Europe AG, received a crypto-asset service provider (CASP) license under the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework from Liechtenstein’s Financial Market Authority (FMA).
Sygnum said the MiCA license helps enable European partner banks to “plug into” standardized bank-to-bank infrastructure without facing a multi-year process of creating and licensing their own crypto operations. As described by Jost, the licensing status supports the ability to deliver regulated services through established channels rather than starting from scratch.
The MiCA license also came shortly before the end of the transitional period for the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation on July 1, according to Cointelegraph coverage of the transition timeline. With the transitional phase concluded, regulated crypto services in Europe have more defined compliance expectations, making it more important for institutions to have a clear operational model for custody and trading.
For investors, traders, and other market participants, these bank integrations can influence the “on-ramps” available to traditional finance customers. Even when token support is initially limited, extending regulated access through mainstream banking interfaces can broaden participation and reduce reliance on separate crypto exchanges for entry-level activities.
BancaStato’s next step will likely be whether it expands beyond its initial set of four supported assets, and how quickly other Avaloq-using institutions follow the same API-based approach. Readers should also watch for future announcements on additional token support and for how partner banks refine their operational processes as MiCA compliance requirements fully settle into day-to-day business.
This article was originally published as BancaStato and Sygnum launch regulated crypto trading in Switzerland on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Cross-chain security issues remain a major pain point for crypto markets, after investigators reported two separate bridge-related exploits occurring only hours apart. According to on-chain analytics firm Blockaid, the combined theft totaled more than $31.6 million, with funds taken from bridge infrastructure used by decentralized perpetual exchange AFX and the Verus Ethereum Bridge.
Blockaid said AFX’s bridge lost $24.15 million on Wednesday, before another attack targeting the Verus Ethereum Bridge resulted in roughly $7.5 million drained from bridge reserves. The back-to-back incidents underscore how bridge operators—and the protocols that integrate them—can be exposed even when exploits are not tied to a single chain-level weakness.
Key takeaways
Blockaid reported losses of $24.15 million from an AFX-operated bridge on Arbitrum and about $7.5 million drained from the Verus Ethereum Bridge within hours.
Offchain Labs co-founder Stephen Goldfeder said Arbitrum’s native bridge was not hacked, pointing to activity originating from a third-party protocol.
Security researchers suggested the AFX incident may have involved compromised keys rather than a smart contract logic flaw.
Blockaid said the Verus exploit appears to mirror a prior May incident, using a similar method while involving a different attacker wallet.
Both cases highlight that bridges remain high-value targets because they custody large asset pools and move value across ecosystems.
AFX bridge exploit on Arbitrum: what was targeted
Blockaid said it detected an exploit at 9:30 pm UTC aimed at a bridge operated by AFX, a decentralized perpetual exchange running on Arbitrum. The investigation framed the event as a bridge compromise affecting a third-party integration rather than a breach of Arbitrum’s core bridging infrastructure.
According to Offchain Labs co-founder Stephen Goldfeder, a bridge hack report circulating online had impacted a transaction originating from a third-party protocol, and that the Arbitrum native bridge itself had not been exploited. Goldfeder stated that the transaction in question originated from another protocol and emphasized that Arbitrum’s native bridge “has not been hacked or exploited in any way.”
Additional analysis from SunSec, the founder of the DeFi security community DeFiHackLabs and a contributor to SEAL, suggested that the evidence pointed more toward compromised keys than toward a vulnerability in smart contract logic. While that distinction matters for incident response—key compromise typically demands urgent credential rotation and broader access review—it also signals that the weakest point may not always be the bridge contracts themselves.
Cointelegraph sought comment from AFX regarding the reported exploit, but the additional reporting available here centers on what Blockaid and affiliated investigators observed during the incident.
Verus Ethereum Bridge attack: a similar method to May
In a separate incident, Blockaid reported an exploit targeting the Verus Ethereum Bridge that drained approximately $7.5 million across multiple assets held in bridge reserves. The listed tokens included Ether (ETH), tBTC, USDC, USDt, EURC, MKR, and scrvUSD.
Blockaid said the attack method appears similar to a previous Verus Ethereum Bridge incident reported in May, which resulted in the theft of $11.58 million. In that earlier case, Blockaid said the same overall approach was used, but by a different attacker wallet.
According to Blockaid, the attacker used the bridge “import path” to trigger “unbacked Ethereum-side payouts.” In practical terms, this points to a workflow-level weakness: attackers may be able to induce the bridge to release assets on one side of the system without corresponding backing on the other side, creating a direct path to reserve depletion.
For users and integrators, the repeated nature of the tactic raises a persistent risk: even when teams patch one vulnerability, the operational mechanics of how imports and payouts are handled can remain exploitable if the underlying assumptions aren’t fully addressed.
Why bridge failures keep recurring
Bridge exploits are difficult to eliminate entirely because cross-chain infrastructure often combines multiple components: custody of assets, message passing or import/export mechanisms, and permissioning for triggering settlement flows. When attackers find a seam between those elements—whether through compromised credentials, incorrect authorization, or weaknesses in how cross-chain states are validated—the result is frequently rapid draining of funds.
On-chain investigator TheCrypticWolf summarized the broader issue in a post on X, arguing that bridges remain a weak link until “security is upgraded.” While that statement reflects a general view rather than new incident-specific evidence, the two reported attacks within the same day give it concrete support: high-value bridge reserves make the system attractive, and high complexity makes comprehensive hardening challenging.
There is also an important asymmetry across the two incidents. Blockaid’s reporting on the AFX case was paired with Goldfeder’s clarification that Arbitrum’s native bridge was not compromised, suggesting the problem lay in third-party integration or bridge controls tied to a particular protocol. In contrast, Blockaid’s description of the Verus incident emphasizes how the bridge import mechanism can lead to Ethereum-side payouts that are not properly backed—an issue that may relate more directly to settlement logic and state assumptions.
What to watch next for affected ecosystems
Bridge-related incidents typically lead to emergency measures such as pause controls, increased monitoring, and changes to custody or authorization workflows. Readers should watch for follow-up disclosures from AFX and the Verus ecosystem, especially around what Blockaid and other investigators determine about root cause—whether it’s key compromise, an authorization failure, or a repeatable weakness in import/export settlement.
More broadly, these events reinforce that cross-chain exposure isn’t limited to the bridge operators alone: decentralized applications and traders relying on bridges for liquidity and settlement should treat bridge security as a continuously evolving risk, not a one-time checkbox.
This article was originally published as Hackers Drain $31.6M After Two Crypto Bridge Breaches in 7 Hours on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A senior official from the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy has accused the Chinese AI firm behind Kimi K3 of using “covert industrial distillation” techniques to replicate capabilities from U.S. models. The allegation, posted to X on Wednesday by Michael Kratsios, underscores how U.S. concerns about AI competitiveness are increasingly blending with fears of large-scale intellectual property (IP) theft.
Kratsios said the company built an internal platform to distill U.S. models “at scale,” specifically using methods intended to evade detection. While he argued that distillation—compressing a model into a smaller one—can be legitimate and part of open innovation, he framed the alleged approach as unacceptable because it targets proprietary American technology rather than improving models through transparent research.
Key takeaways
White House OSTP Director Michael Kratsios alleged Chinese firm Moonshot AI used large-scale covert distillation tied to the Kimi K3 release.
Kratsios contrasted legitimate model distillation with alleged industrial-scale techniques aimed at stealing U.S. IP and avoiding detection.
Some AI researchers dispute claims that Anthropic’s Fable was used to produce Kimi K3’s performance, citing technical plausibility and timing constraints.
U.S. officials warned that sanctions and Entity List designations could follow IP-theft-style distillation attacks.
Why the allegation matters beyond headlines
AI distillation is not inherently controversial. In general terms, distillation helps create smaller, more efficient models by training them on outputs generated by a larger “teacher” model. The White House’s argument, as stated by Kratsios, is that scale and secrecy change the nature of the activity—turning a common engineering practice into something closer to a targeted extraction of proprietary capability.
That distinction is critical for investors, developers, and researchers because it signals a potential shift in how regulators and governments may view certain AI training pipelines. If authorities treat “covert industrial distillation” as IP theft, it could influence enforcement priorities, compliance expectations, and the willingness of model providers to share weights, outputs, or licensing terms—especially across geopolitical lines.
Timing and the dispute over Anthropic’s role
Kratsios’s claim places particular focus on the question of whether U.S. model technology was used in the preparation of Kimi K3. Cointelegraph previously reported that Anthropic’s Fable 5 was taken offline quickly due to U.S. export controls, then re-released on July 1. Kimi K3, meanwhile, launched on July 16—creating what critics describe as a narrow window for any distillation-derived transfer.
Elie Bakouch, a researcher at Prime Intellect, publicly questioned whether the technical story matches the observed outcomes. In an X post referenced in the original reporting, Bakouch argued that there are only “15 days between fable 5 ban removal and kimi K3 release,” and he added that the performance “could” not be explained in a straightforward way by distillation from Fable.
Dean Ball, head of strategic futures at OpenAI, also pushed back. On Friday, Ball said he did not believe K3’s performance could be “explained away by distillation or anything like that.” Both responses reflect a broader point: even if distillation happened, it may not be the sole—or even the primary—reason for a model’s capabilities, and establishing a clean causal link can be technically difficult.
In the absence of publicly available technical evidence, these disputes matter because they highlight uncertainty. Government accusations may have intelligence backing, but for the wider AI community, the plausibility and traceability of model-to-model influence is a separate question from whether the activity would violate policy or law.
Washington escalates from concerns to potential enforcement
The posture from U.S. officials appears aimed at deterrence. In addition to Kratsios’s claim that “covert industrial distillation” intended to steal U.S. technology is unacceptable, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warned that sanctions and restrictions could be pursued.
Bessent said the U.S. supports open-source AI and the innovation it enables, but he argued open source does not mean “open season” on American IP. He also warned that if firms conduct covert, industrial-scale distillation attacks that cross into IP theft, consequences could include sanctions and Entity List designations.
That statement suggests the U.S. may attempt to treat certain distillation behaviors under the same enforcement logic used for other technology-transfer and IP-protection efforts. For AI companies, the practical takeaway is that even widely used ML techniques could be reinterpreted depending on intent, transparency, and scale.
It also raises a policy tension: distillation can improve accessibility and efficiency, but enforcement actions could push industry toward more restrictive handling of model outputs and training procedures. Developers may respond by tightening documentation, auditing data provenance, or changing how they handle third-party model access.
What to watch next
Whether the dispute becomes a broader enforcement campaign will likely depend on what additional evidence, if any, is made public and how regulators define “industrial-scale” and “covert” distillation in measurable terms. For now, observers should watch for any formal government actions tied to Kimi K3 and for further clarification from researchers on what technical signals can reliably connect teacher models to student performance.
This article was originally published as White House Claims Moonshot AI Copied Anthropic Technology for K3 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has agreed to pay $150,000 in legal fees to settle a dispute with Coinbase over the regulator’s internal records. The settlement ends a lawsuit that Coinbase filed two years ago seeking access to SEC materials related to what it described as an enforcement-led approach to crypto regulation.
According to a filing made Wednesday in the case docketed at CourtListener, the SEC will also compensate Coinbase with the fee award while stating it has addressed its record-retention practices. Coinbase’s legal chief, Paul Grewal, framed the settlement as part of a broader accountability effort over document retention inside the agency.
Key takeaways
The SEC will pay Coinbase $150,000 to resolve the records-access lawsuit.
The case centered on Coinbase’s request for internal SEC documents during the period of heightened crypto enforcement.
Coinbase says the dispute helped uncover material it views as evidence of an enforcement strategy.
Coinbase’s top legal executive announced a leadership transition to take effect on July 31.
The settlement is also presented as reflecting a shift toward a more crypto-friendly enforcement posture at the SEC.
What the SEC–Coinbase settlement covers
The dispute arose after Coinbase sought internal agency documents from the SEC, alleging that the regulator’s recordkeeping did not provide the transparency Coinbase believed it was due. The complaint targeted access to materials that Coinbase argued were important for understanding the SEC’s approach at the time.
In coverage of the settlement, Coinbase leadership pointed to what it said were documentation and retention problems. Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday that the SEC—responsible for policing corporate recordkeeping—had effectively lost significant portions of its own communications during what Coinbase characterized as the SEC’s most intense period of anti-crypto activity.
Grewal also stated that the SEC has fixed its record retention policies as part of the resolution. The settlement agreement, as reflected in the docket, brings the two-year legal fight to a close.
Record retention controversy and the 2025 internal report
A central element in Coinbase’s argument was not only the availability of records, but the adequacy of the SEC’s retention of its own correspondence. The article’s account references an internal report released in 2025 indicating that the SEC deleted nearly a year of former Chair Gary Gensler texts due to “avoidable” errors.
Coinbase’s position is that such losses matter because they could prevent outside parties from obtaining a complete picture of how enforcement-related decisions were discussed inside the agency. Grewal’s op-ed also emphasized that message deletions occurred during the most aggressive phase of the SEC’s crackdown on crypto.
As part of the settlement, the SEC will pay the $150,000 fee award and has reportedly updated its record retention practices, addressing one of the core practical concerns that drove the lawsuit.
A legal win for Coinbase amid a changing SEC
Coinbase has portrayed this outcome as another favorable development in its litigation strategy. The settlement comes as the SEC’s leadership and approach to crypto enforcement have shifted.
The article notes that the settlement occurred under the Trump administration, characterizing it as a “legal victory” within a wider transition in how the SEC pursues crypto cases. It further states that under the SEC’s leadership—identified in the article as Paul Atkins—the agency has dropped multiple high-profile enforcement actions against crypto companies, including Coinbase, during 2025.
While the settlement resolves this particular records case, the broader implication for industry watchers is that disputes over enforcement process and documentation remain a recurring theme. Even as enforcement posture changes, Coinbase’s case underscores how document access, retention policies, and internal compliance practices can become legally consequential.
Grewal steps back from Coinbase’s legal role
Coinbase’s legal leadership is also in transition. According to the article, Paul Grewal, who has served as chief legal officer since 2020, is set to transition into an advisory role starting July 31.
The article says Coinbase will elevate two executives into expanded leadership roles: Molly Abraham will become general counsel, and Ryan VanGrack will move into the position of vice chair.
For observers, the timing matters because legal strategy has been central to Coinbase’s relationship with regulators. Leadership continuity—via internal promotions—suggests the company plans to maintain institutional knowledge as it navigates the ongoing evolution of U.S. crypto oversight.
As the settlement takes effect, the next question for market participants is how the SEC’s updated retention practices will function in practice and whether similar records disputes emerge elsewhere—especially as enforcement priorities continue to evolve under the current SEC leadership.
This article was originally published as SEC Resolves Coinbase Case Over Alleged Missing Text Messages on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senate Republicans have published the full text of the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a 616-page bill that pairs market-structure provisions with a sweeping ethics package aimed at conflicts involving public officials and the digital-asset ecosystem.
In the draft released Wednesday, the ethics language would bar U.S. federal officials—and their spouses—from issuing or sponsoring digital assets and would also prevent crypto platforms from listing assets that are issued or sponsored by those officials. The restriction is framed as temporary, set to expire on Jan. 20, 2029.
Key takeaways
The CLARITY Act draft includes an ethics ban covering federal officials (and their spouses) who would be prohibited from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.
The draft also extends the restriction to crypto platforms, blocking listings of assets issued or sponsored by covered federal officials.
Senator Cynthia Lummis says the ethics provisions are intended to apply to President Donald Trump and would be enforced largely by the U.S. Department of Justice.
Democratic support remains uncertain: multiple Democrats have indicated they will not vote for the bill without strong ethics language tied to alleged “crypto corruption.”
The bill still needs to clear a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, and it is not yet clear the chamber has enough votes before it recesses.
What the CLARITY ethics provisions would do
The ethics section in the CLARITY Act draft is described by the White House as “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history.” According to the bill text released by Senate Republicans, the ban would apply to all public officials and employees, as well as their spouses. Covered individuals would be prohibited from “issuing or sponsoring” digital assets.
The draft goes further by attempting to control downstream market behavior: crypto platforms would be blocked from listing assets that are “issued or sponsored” by federal officials within the scope of the restriction.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, a leading advocate for the measure, said the provisions are meant to apply to President Trump as well. In explaining the intent behind the language, Lummis pointed to enforcement and penalties and referenced the president’s financial situation as lawmakers continue to scrutinize his crypto involvement.
Lummis also tied the ethics package to a timeline: the ban on public officials would be temporary and would end on Jan. 20, 2029.
Enforcement hinges on the Justice Department
Rather than relying primarily on state authorities, the draft assigns significant enforcement responsibility to the U.S. Attorney General and the Department of Justice.
As of the day the text was published, Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal attorney and acting Attorney General—was reportedly awaiting Senate confirmation to lead the Justice Department permanently. That matters because, under the CLARITY draft, DOJ would play a central role in making the ethics restrictions operational.
The enforcement design is also part of the political debate over whether Democrats will support the bill. Senator Angela Alsobrooks, in remarks reported by Politico, indicated she would want agreement on the bill’s enforcement architecture. She told Politico that she “wouldn’t support the bill” if DOJ enforcement language were as proposed, but said negotiations could still bring a version that “holds us all accountable.”
Democratic math: ethics language may determine the vote
Even if Senate Republicans move quickly, passage is not guaranteed. The CLARITY Act requires at least 60 votes in the Senate to advance, meaning it likely needs backing from some Democrats to meet the threshold. The bill would then return to the House of Representatives and, if approved, would go to President Trump for signature.
Democrats have already telegraphed conditional support. Multiple Democrats have said they will not vote for any version of a crypto bill unless it includes strong ethics language aimed at the conflict-of-interest concerns raised around the president.
There is also a potential flashpoint in how the draft defines the scope of the restrictions. The ethics ban, as described in coverage of the bill text, did not appear to include children of public officials in its temporary ban. That omission becomes salient given public reporting that members of Trump’s family are involved in crypto-related businesses, including World Liberty Financial and a Bitcoin mining company.
Lummis defended the approach as applying “one ethics standard to everyone,” saying the bill “backs it up with real enforcement, real penalties, and a Department of Justice mandate to act.”
Beyond ethics: disclosure, illicit finance provisions, and market structure
The CLARITY Act is not solely an ethics measure. One analyst reaction quoted in coverage emphasized that the Senate draft adds multiple components beyond conflict-of-interest rules, including a disclosure regime, an illicit finance section, and improved regulation for spot markets.
Kirstin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, said the Senate has a “real chance” to pass durable, bipartisan market-structure legislation—framing CLARITY as a broader attempt at statutory clarity rather than a single-issue bill.
That distinction may be important for investors and builders watching the policy process: market structure rules can affect how digital assets are categorized, how exchanges and intermediaries comply with U.S. requirements, and how enforcement priorities are expected to shift under a new framework.
What happens next
With Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly planning to bring CLARITY to the floor next week, the central question for lawmakers—and for the industry—is whether the ethics provisions can attract enough Democratic support to reach the 60-vote threshold. The bill’s success may ultimately come down to whether negotiations around DOJ enforcement and the ethics scope leave enough lawmakers satisfied to back the measure before the Senate’s window to vote narrows.
This article was originally published as US Federal Ethics Rules Would Block Crypto Token Issuance Until 2029 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

An affiliate of Fairshake—an influential cryptocurrency-aligned political action committee (PAC)—is spending heavily in Michigan ahead of the Aug. 4 Democratic primary for the U.S. House seat in the 13th congressional district. According to filings with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Protect Progress PAC has reserved roughly $1 million for television and other media aimed at boosting incumbent Democrat Shri Thanedar while attacking his primary challenger, Donavan McKinney.
The campaign effort comes at a critical moment: the primary will decide who moves on to the November general election. The latest spending figures underscore how crypto-aligned political groups are tying financial resources to lawmakers’ voting records and the direction of digital-asset policy in Congress.
Key takeaways
Protect Progress PAC says it has spent over $986,000 on messaging supporting Shri Thanedar and opposing Donavan McKinney in Michigan’s 13th district primary.
The expenditures were filed two weeks before Aug. 4, when voters will determine the Democratic nominee for the November general election.
The Michigan push mirrors Protect Progress’ 2024 spending, when it also backed Thanedar with about $1 million.
Fairshake affiliates reported a combined $191 million war chest intended to influence key elections, including through multiple PACs.
Fairshake-aligned spending extends beyond Michigan, with similar activity reported in Arizona and potential spillover into Washington state.
Protect Progress targets the Michigan primary
FEC documentation filed as of Tuesday shows that Protect Progress PAC has spent more than $986,000 on ads. The PAC’s messaging is designed to be pro-incumbent—supporting Democratic congressman Shri Thanedar—and anti-challenger, Donavan McKinney.
The primary is scheduled for Aug. 4. Because the seat’s Democratic nominee will be selected through that vote, the spending suggests the crypto-aligned political operation is focused on shaping outcomes early rather than waiting for the general election.
Why Thanedar and McKinney have become the center of this fight
The spending contrasts with McKinney’s comparatively limited public footprint on digital-assets policy. The article notes that McKinney did not run against Thanedar in 2024 and had not made significant public statements centered on crypto before entering this race. Thanedar, by comparison, has a documented legislative record from his time in Congress.
According to earlier coverage referenced in the report, Thanedar voted in favor of several crypto-related measures during his House tenure, including the CLARITY Act, the GENIUS Act, and the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act.
At the same time, the challenger’s critique is rooted in campaign finance and campaign spending decisions connected to crypto companies. The report says Thanedar reportedly lost more than $600,000 in the second quarter of 2026 after investing $3.7 million of campaign funds into crypto-related companies.
McKinney also criticized the role of the broader crypto political network in a Tuesday statement tied to the PAC’s spending. In a video posted online, he argued that crypto-aligned groups were “paying” for political leverage and linked that activity to the Trump administration’s record on cryptocurrency and related policy. The statement was presented alongside the PAC spending coverage, reinforcing the narrative that this primary is as much about political access as it is about policy outcomes.
A familiar playbook: repeating the spending pattern from 2024
The Michigan operation is not new. The report notes that Protect Progress spent about $1 million supporting Thanedar in 2024. That year, Thanedar won the Democratic primary with 54.9% of the vote and later captured the general election with 68.6% against Republican and other party challengers.
Re-running a similar level of spending—now in a primary rematch context—suggests Protect Progress and its allies view Thanedar as a key legislative proxy. For investors and political observers, this matters because recurring investment patterns often indicate where crypto-aligned groups expect the policy agenda to move. It also hints at what they may do if a candidate with a less crypto-friendly record attempts to displace an incumbent.
Broader influence strategy: Fairshake affiliates and multiple states
Beyond Michigan, the report describes a larger effort by Fairshake and associated entities. It states that Fairshake and its affiliates reported having $191 million available to influence voters in major elections.
Protect Progress is part of a broader ecosystem of PACs. The report also points to other industry-aligned groups, including:
Fellowship, described as backed by Cantor Fitzgerald and Anchorage Digital.
The Blockchain Leadership Fund, described as a hybrid PAC backed by Anchorage and Chainlink Labs.
In Arizona, Protect Progress reportedly spent more than $100,000 on media supporting Representative Greg Stanton’s reelection bid. The report says Stanton voted in favor of CLARITY and GENIUS while in the House and that he won his primary on Tuesday in Arizona’s 4th congressional district with 65% of the vote.
In Washington, the report adds another layer: it says party primaries scheduled for Aug. 4 could be influenced by a Fairshake affiliate. According to the cited FEC filings, the Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media supporting Amanda McKinney, a Republican running for Washington’s 4th district. The report also references a public statement from the candidate supporting crypto and notes that Representative Dan Newhouse announced in 2025 that he would not seek reelection.
Taken together, the geographic spread suggests a strategy aimed at maintaining momentum across multiple congressional districts—especially where lawmakers have been active on crypto legislation or where challengers are willing to campaign on a pro-crypto agenda.
As Aug. 4 approaches, readers should watch whether similar spending schedules translate into durable primary results, and how the messaging ties specific legislators’ votes and campaign financing decisions to digital-asset policy. The next signals will likely come from additional FEC disclosures and the outcomes of primaries in other states where crypto-aligned PACs have already placed media buys.
This article was originally published as Crypto PAC Spends $1M on Michigan Democratic Primary Race on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

S&P Dow Jones Indices and Pantera Capital have launched a new rules-based digital asset index designed to evaluate blockchain networks and protocols using protocol revenue rather than token prices or pure market capitalization. The move signals a continued shift toward “productive activity” metrics as institutional players look for benchmarks that better reflect real-world usage.
In an announcement on July 21, the firms said the index is intended for institutional allocation and could be used as the basis for investment products or as a reference portfolio for actively managed strategies. The methodology also aims to help investors distinguish established on-chain business activity from more speculative exposure.
Key takeaways
Protocol revenue is central: networks are selected and ranked based on aggregate protocol revenue over the prior two quarters.
Liquidity and size gates apply: eligibility requires minimum thresholds for protocol revenue, market capitalization, and liquidity.
Concentration is controlled: the largest holding is capped at 35%, while most other constituents are capped at 20%.
Quarterly rebalancing: the index is recalculated and rebalanced on a quarterly schedule.
Bitcoin and XRP are not included at launch: per S&P’s methodology discussion, BTC and XRP are the largest non-constituents versus the S&P Cryptocurrency Broad Digital Asset Index.
A revenue-based benchmark for “productive” blockchain activity
Traditional crypto benchmarks often track assets using market capitalization or token price movements. By contrast, S&P and Pantera’s index focuses on protocol revenue to measure how much economic value is being generated by the networks and the applications built on them. The firms draw from the S&P Cryptocurrency Broad Digital Asset Index, but filter the eligible universe using minimum thresholds for protocol revenue, market capitalization, and liquidity.
After networks pass the eligibility requirements, they are ranked by aggregate protocol revenue across the previous two quarters. Weighting then uses adjusted market capitalization, subject to portfolio construction rules. According to S&P, the framework is designed to emphasize established blockchain activity and reduce reliance on exposure that may be driven mainly by speculation.
This distinction matters for investors because protocol revenue is intended to function as a proxy for sustained usage and monetization, whereas market cap and token price can reflect expectations and sentiment even when on-chain monetization is weaker. The index’s quarterly rebalancing also means the benchmark can respond to changes in protocol performance over time, rather than remaining tied to a static basket.
Initial constituents and what’s different versus a broad benchmark
The index launched with 18 constituents. In S&P Dow Jones Indices’ Indexology blog post, the five largest holdings at launch were Ether (ETH), BNB (BNB), Solana (SOL), TRON (TRX), and Hyperliquid (HYPE).
The blog post also highlights a key selection contrast: Bitcoin (BTC) and XRP (XRP) were identified as the largest non-constituents compared with the S&P Cryptocurrency Broad Digital Asset Index. That outcome is consistent with a methodology that prioritizes protocol revenue-based eligibility and ranking. In other words, assets can be large by market cap yet still fail to become constituents if they do not meet the index’s revenue criteria as defined under the benchmark rules.
For allocators, this is one of the index’s most practically important implications. A revenue-driven selection mechanism changes not only what investors own, but also what risks the benchmark is implicitly targeting—shifting away from pure token beta toward networks whose protocol economics are feeding the index construction process.
Why institutions are pushing beyond market-cap indexes
The launch comes as the broader industry continues to develop institutional-grade crypto benchmarks. These efforts are unfolding alongside traditional finance firms expanding crypto capabilities and the growing adoption of tokenized assets, which increases demand for standardized measurement frameworks.
In the US, ETF and index activity has accelerated. Hashdex launched the Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF on Feb. 14, 2025, which was described as the first multi-asset spot crypto exchange-traded fund in the United States. Franklin Templeton followed six days later with the Franklin Crypto Index ETF, tracking Bitcoin and Ether through the US CF Institutional Digital Asset Index, which is market capitalization-weighted.
Other benchmark approaches have also emerged. In April, MarketVector Indexes and Coinbase Asset Management launched the Coinbase Store of Value Index, which combines Bitcoin with tokenized gold using an inverse-volatility weighting model—an example of how benchmark design can shift exposure toward different portfolio goals.
Market participants have argued that as crypto ecosystems evolve, diversification across networks and strategies may become more operationally attractive. Earlier coverage referenced Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan stating that crypto index funds are expected to be a major theme in 2026 as investor needs grow and the market becomes more complex. The core rationale, as described, is that it is increasingly difficult to predict which blockchain networks will prove durable winners, making diversified index solutions a pragmatic way to obtain broad exposure.
S&P’s latest step in digital asset benchmark expansion
Beyond this new product, S&P Dow Jones Indices has been broadening its digital asset benchmark footprint. Last October, S&P introduced the S&P Digital Markets 50 Index, which combines 15 cryptocurrencies with 35 publicly traded companies tied to the crypto ecosystem. That earlier index illustrates how S&P is experimenting with different ways to connect crypto exposure to both on-chain activity and publicly traded crypto-adjacent equities.
With the new protocol-revenue index, the emphasis is narrower and more specific: measure blockchain networks through the economics of their protocols. Investors watching for benchmark evolution should pay attention to whether revenue-based methodologies gain traction in index-tracked products, and how issuers translate those rules into investable strategies—particularly in terms of transparency around revenue estimation and how methodology changes affect index constituents over time.
Next, investors and portfolio managers will likely focus on how the benchmark performs as protocols’ monetization trends shift quarter to quarter, and whether the revenue-based framework attracts liquidity and product sponsorship comparable to traditional market-cap indexes.
This article was originally published as S&P Launches Blockchain Fundamentals Index Based on Protocol Revenue on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Galaxy Digital has launched a new push to accelerate post-quantum security work for Bitcoin, pledging up to $5 million in grants for open-source developers. The initiative is designed to support research and engineering across quantum-resistant upgrades, including cryptography research, migration tooling, and formal security reviews.
Alongside the funding, the company announced the formation of a quantum advisory council as part of its Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative. Galaxy said Tuesday that the council will bring together researchers with backgrounds spanning cryptography, applied security, and academic computing—an attempt to turn abstract “quantum risk” discussions into concrete development roadmaps.
Key takeaways
Galaxy Digital is offering up to $5 million in open-source grants aimed at post-quantum cryptography work for Bitcoin-related systems.
The grant scope covers more than algorithms, including Bitcoin signature schemes, wallet/custodian migration tools, and security audits.
A new quantum advisory council under the Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative includes researchers from the University of Calgary, MIT, and Boston University.
Market debate over timelines remains unsettled, with some executives arguing there’s decades before a meaningful threat while other research emphasizes preparation windows.
Existing standards momentum matters because NIST has already published post-quantum encryption standards that could inform future Bitcoin migrations.
What Galaxy Digital is funding
Galaxy’s announcement ties its grant program to practical components of a potential Bitcoin post-quantum transition. According to the company’s statement, the funding will support “quantum-resistant upgrade proposals” and post-quantum cryptography research, with additional emphasis on Bitcoin signature schemes.
The proposal also explicitly targets the implementation layer that many teams often treat as an afterthought: wallet and custodian migration tooling. That matters because even when a cryptographic replacement is theoretically possible, moving users, keys, and custody infrastructure to new standards typically requires careful engineering, operational planning, and risk-managed rollouts.
Galaxy also said the grants include support for formal security audits—an area that can be decisive for institutional adoption, especially when new cryptographic constructions may be unfamiliar to auditors or deployed systems.
Who is on Galaxy’s quantum advisory council
Galaxy Digital’s Quantum Readiness Initiative adds an advisory layer through a council that includes Barry Sanders, professor and scientific director of Quantum City at the University of Calgary; Damien Bérubé, an MIT Sea Grant Knauss fellow; and Eran Tromer, professor of computer science at Boston University.
While advisory councils don’t directly change Bitcoin protocol code, they can influence which research paths are prioritized, how proposals are evaluated, and what “readiness” criteria developers should meet. For builders, that can reduce uncertainty by clarifying the kinds of cryptographic schemes and migration methods most likely to survive scrutiny.
Galaxy’s earlier announcement of the Bitcoin Quantum Readiness Initiative provides the broader context for this step: the new grants and council are positioned as ways to convert readiness planning into deliverables that can be used by open-source contributors.
https://www.galaxy.com/newsroom/galaxy-launches-bitcoin-quantum-readiness-initiative
How much Bitcoin could be exposed?
Concerns about quantum risk have sharpened around how future quantum computers could affect cryptographic systems currently used to secure Bitcoin. Analytics provider Glassnode has argued that a sizable portion of Bitcoin’s supply could be exposed if “cryptographically relevant” quantum computers emerge.
As reported by Glassnode via a Cointelegraph-linked analysis, around 30% of Bitcoin’s supply could be at risk. Glassnode’s breakdown further distinguishes between coins it considers “structurally unsafe” (about 10% of supply due to output type) and “operationally unsafe” (about 20% of supply tied to key or address management practices).
That split matters for investors and developers because it suggests two different problem categories. “Structural” concerns relate to the cryptographic assumptions embedded at the protocol or script level, while “operational” concerns point to practices that exchanges, custodians, and wallet operators can potentially adjust faster than they can rewrite protocol fundamentals.
The timeline fight: “decades” vs “years”
Perhaps the biggest unresolved question behind any post-quantum plan is timing. The community’s debate remains active, with different researchers and executives placing drastically different weights on when quantum capabilities could become dangerous to today’s signature schemes and related cryptographic assumptions.
Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued in November 2025 that Bitcoin faces no “meaningful quantum threat” for at least the next 20 to 40 years. He framed this as sufficient runway for adoption of post-quantum cryptography standards approved by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
At the same time, other research emphasizes a shorter preparation horizon. NIST released its first set of finalized post-quantum encryption standards for key establishment and digital signatures in August 2024, including algorithms that could support future migrations across industries and potentially Bitcoin-related upgrades.
NIST’s standardization is important to the debate because it reduces the “unknown unknowns” around what algorithms might be considered credible at the cryptographic policy level.
Beyond general standards, practical migration proposals are already circulating. In December 2025, Blockstream Research published a paper proposing a hash-based signature scheme as a “promising path for securing Bitcoin in a post-quantum world.” The proposal, as described in coverage, targets replacing Bitcoin’s ECDSA and Schnorr signatures with a scheme designed so that security relies solely on cryptographic hash functions.
And while Back’s long timeline suggests extensive lead time, Bernstein has argued for a shorter window: in an April report referenced in coverage, Bernstein suggested Bitcoin “has about three to five years to prepare” for a post-quantum security upgrade.
Why this matters now even if the threat is distant
Even if quantum breakthroughs are decades away—as some industry leaders expect—the hard part is rarely the cryptography alone. It’s the migration: coordinating changes across wallets, custodians, infrastructure providers, developer ecosystems, and the security processes that institutions use to deploy and maintain cryptographic systems.
Galaxy’s grant design reflects that reality. By funding not only quantum-resistant proposals but also wallet and custodian migration tooling and formal audits, the program acknowledges that “readiness” is an engineering and operational challenge, not just a theoretical one.
For Bitcoin holders, the near-term takeaway is less about expecting immediate protocol changes and more about watching whether the community converges on migration paths that can be implemented safely and iteratively—without forcing rushed transitions if timelines shift.
Readers should watch how Galaxy’s grants translate into concrete open-source deliverables—especially any proposals that connect signature-layer changes to realistic wallet and custody migration plans—and whether ongoing research narrows the gap between long-range quantum timelines and shorter “prepare now” arguments.
This article was originally published as Galaxy Commits $5M to Help Developers Quantum-Proof Bitcoin on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A cryptocurrency-aligned political action committee (PAC) affiliate is spending heavily in a Michigan Democratic primary that will decide who advances to the November general election. According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings posted as of Tuesday, Protect Progress PAC has poured more than $986,000 into ads backing Rep. Shri Thanedar while also funding messaging against his challenger, Donavan McKinney, ahead of an Aug. 4 primary.
The spending comes at a moment when crypto industry-linked political groups are working to shape which candidates reach Congress. The Michigan race is one of several contests referenced in recent FEC disclosures showing continued efforts by Fairshake and related entities to influence elections on “pro-crypto” policy priorities.
Key takeaways
Protect Progress PAC reported spending over $986,000 on ads supporting Shri Thanedar and opposing Donavan McKinney ahead of Michigan’s 13th district Democratic primary on Aug. 4.
The PAC’s approach mirrors its 2024 spending, when it backed Thanedar with about $1 million before he won both the primary and the general election.
Fairshake and affiliates have reported a sizable political “war chest,” with filings indicating $191 million available to influence key races.
In addition to Michigan, Protect Progress PAC activity cited in FEC data includes Arizona media buys supporting Rep. Greg Stanton.
Other Fairshake-linked groups referenced in FEC reports are also active in Washington primaries, including a media spend to support a candidate described as publicly supportive of crypto.
Protect Progress steps up in Michigan’s 13th district
FEC paperwork filed by Protect Progress PAC shows that, as of Tuesday, the committee had spent more than $986,000 on advertising tied to Michigan’s 13th congressional district. The ads were described in filings as supporting Democratic incumbent Shri Thanedar and opposing his Democratic primary challenger Donavan McKinney.
Those expenditures were reported roughly two weeks before the scheduled primary on Aug. 4. The timing is notable because primary races often hinge on relatively short bursts of messaging that can define a candidate’s perceived record and priorities for voters before ballots are cast.
Protect Progress’ media push in Michigan also reflects its earlier investment in Thanedar’s political trajectory. In 2024, the PAC reportedly spent about $1 million supporting Thanedar. That year, he won the Democratic primary with 54.9% of the vote and then carried the general election with 68.6% against Republican and other opponents.
Crypto policy backdrop: votes, investments, and campaign narratives
The Michigan ads and counter-messaging are unfolding against a record that has been used by both sides to frame the race as a referendum on crypto-related legislation and financial ties.
The article notes that Thanedar previously supported multiple crypto-related bills while serving in the House, including the CLARITY Act, the GENIUS Act, and the Promoting Innovation in Blockchain Development Act. Those policy positions have been a consistent element in how “pro-crypto” advocacy groups portray candidate alignment.
For his part, McKinney has not been described in the filing coverage as having made prominent public statements directly supporting or opposing digital assets before this campaign. By contrast, the coverage describes Thanedar as having invested campaign funds into crypto companies while in office, citing reporting that he lost more than $600,000 in the second quarter of 2026 after investing $3.7 million of campaign funds into crypto-related companies.
McKinney’s response to the Protect Progress spending was pointed. In a Tuesday statement referenced in the coverage, he argued that “the crypto lobby” was effectively backing his opponent, accusing it of seeking to stop his movement in the race.
Election influence spreads beyond Michigan
The Michigan primary is only one piece of a larger map of political spending. FEC reporting referenced in the coverage indicates that Fairshake and affiliated entities have reported having $191 million available in a “war chest” intended for election influence across multiple key races.
That broad capacity is linked to a network of PACs connected to the crypto industry’s political engagement. The coverage points to other groups including Fellowship, which is described as backed by Cantor Fitzgerald and Anchorage Digital, and the Blockchain Leadership Fund, described as a hybrid PAC backed by Anchorage and Chainlink Labs.
Even within the same Protect Progress ecosystem, the cited FEC activity goes past Michigan. According to the article, Protect Progress PAC also spent more than $100,000 on media supporting Representative Greg Stanton’s reelection bid in Arizona. It further notes that Stanton voted for CLARITY and GENIUS while in the House and that he won his Tuesday primary in Arizona’s 4th district with 65% of the vote.
In Washington, the primary calendar listed for Aug. 4 is also tied to possible Fairshake-affiliated involvement. FEC filings cited in the coverage indicate that the Defend American Jobs PAC spent more than $65,000 on media to support Amanda McKinney, a Republican candidate running for Washington’s 4th congressional district. The reporting also notes that she has made at least one public statement supporting crypto.
The article further states that Representative Dan Newhouse announced in 2025 that he would not seek reelection in that district, underscoring why outside spending could matter more in open-seat or competitive races.
What to watch between now and the primary
With Protect Progress’ reported advertising push arriving just weeks ahead of Michigan’s Aug. 4 primary, the most immediate signal for voters and campaign strategists will be how quickly counter-arguments—particularly around crypto policy alignment and campaign-finance-related claims—gain traction in the same short window.
Readers following crypto-linked political spending should also watch whether Fairshake-affiliated committees continue to shift focus across multiple states on the same calendar, and whether forthcoming reporting from election filings adds clarity on how far these media buys extend as the primaries near.
This article was originally published as Crypto PAC Pumps $1M Into Michigan Democratic Primary Race on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

S&P Dow Jones Indices and Pantera Capital have launched a new rules-based digital asset index designed to measure protocol activity using blockchain revenue rather than token prices or pure market-cap rankings. The move signals a broader push in crypto benchmark design: shifting from “token-driven” to “product-driven” metrics that aim to capture which networks are generating sustained economic usage.
According to a joint announcement from the firms, the index’s starting point is the S&P Cryptocurrency Broad Digital Asset Index, but it filters and ranks only networks that clear minimum thresholds for protocol revenue, market capitalization, and liquidity. Networks that qualify are then ranked by aggregate protocol revenue over the prior two quarters and weighted using adjusted market capitalization, with portfolio concentration controls including a 35% cap on the largest holding and generally 20% caps on the rest. The index is rebalanced quarterly and is positioned for institutional allocation, potentially serving as a reference for investment products and actively managed digital asset portfolios.
Key takeaways
S&P Dow Jones Indices and Pantera Capital created an index that prioritizes protocol revenue—attempting to reflect real network activity beyond token price movements.
The methodology screens for protocol revenue, market capitalization, and liquidity before ranking networks by revenue over the previous two quarters.
Weights are derived from adjusted market capitalization, with concentration limits (35% for the top holding and generally 20% for others) and quarterly rebalancing.
The index launched with 18 constituents, topped by Ether, BNB, Solana, TRON, and Hyperliquid.
The launch adds to S&P’s expanding suite of digital-asset benchmarks and aligns with a wider industry trend toward institution-oriented crypto indices.
A benchmark built on protocol revenue
The core difference between this new product and many traditional crypto indexes is its selection logic. Rather than treating the market as a direct proxy for network value, the S&P Pantera Digital Asset Index is built to distinguish established blockchain activity from speculative exposure by focusing on protocol revenue generation.
In practical terms, the index starts from the S&P Cryptocurrency Broad Digital Asset Index universe, then applies eligibility thresholds for protocol revenue, market capitalization, and liquidity. Only networks that meet those requirements proceed to the ranking stage. The ranking itself uses aggregate protocol revenue over the prior two quarters, which helps smooth short-term spikes in activity while still tying inclusion to measurable economic output.
The weighting approach then blends that revenue filter with market-scale considerations: after ranking, constituents are weighted by adjusted market capitalization. The index’s structure includes explicit limits to reduce the risk of any single network dominating performance—an important feature for institutional users accustomed to diversified benchmark behavior.
For readers, the key implication is that this index may behave differently than market-cap-led benchmarks during periods when token prices and on-chain economics diverge. By construction, the methodology aims to reduce reliance on token market sentiment as the primary inclusion and weighting driver.
What the initial portfolio looks like
At launch, the index included 18 constituents. S&P Dow Jones Indices’ Indexology blog post, published alongside the rollout, listed Ether (ETH), BNB (BNB), Solana (SOL), TRON (TRX), and Hyperliquid (HYPE) as the five largest holdings.
That same blog post compared the new revenue-based selection against the S&P Cryptocurrency Broad Digital Asset Index and identified Bitcoin (BTC) and XRP (XRP) as the largest non-constituents under the new framework. The contrast highlights the asymmetry created by protocol-revenue methodology: even when a token is highly liquid or widely traded, it may be excluded if it does not meet the index’s protocol revenue criteria and related eligibility thresholds.
In other words, this benchmark is not attempting to replicate “the biggest coins by market size.” Instead, it is explicitly designed around a different question: which blockchain networks generate enough protocol revenue—relative to their market presence—to qualify for institutional-style basket inclusion.
Institutional use cases and the ETF backdrop
In its announcement, S&P positioned the index for institutional allocation and noted that it may serve as the basis for investment products or act as a reference benchmark for actively managed portfolios. While the filing does not automatically mean a spot ETF or any particular product will follow, it does reflect the growing role of index providers in turning crypto market theory into investable benchmarks.
This launch arrives as major market participants continue building multi-asset and rules-based frameworks that can be used by asset managers operating under traditional risk and governance expectations.
Cointelegraph previously reported that Hashdex launched the Nasdaq Crypto Index US ETF on Feb. 14, 2025, described as the first multi-asset spot crypto exchange-traded fund in the United States. Shortly afterward, Franklin Templeton introduced the Franklin Crypto Index ETF on Feb. 20, 2025, tracking Bitcoin and Ether via the US CF Institutional Digital Asset Index, which is market-cap weighted.
The sector’s “index first” momentum has also extended beyond the strict boundaries of spot crypto. Earlier reporting cited MarketVector Indexes and Coinbase Asset Management launching the Coinbase Store of Value Index in April, a benchmark combining Bitcoin and tokenized gold using an inverse-volatility weighting model—an example of how crypto benchmarks are increasingly packaged alongside traditional diversifiers.
Separately, Cointelegraph noted remarks from Bitwise chief investment officer Matt Hougan arguing that crypto index funds would be “a big deal in 2026” as the market grows more complex and investors seek broader exposure rather than trying to predict which networks become long-term winners. While Hougan’s comments were framed as forward-looking, they map closely to the rationale behind S&P and Pantera’s protocol-revenue approach: diversification is easier to justify when the benchmark rules are transparent and grounded in a defined economic metric.
S&P’s expanding crypto benchmark lineup
This new index is also part of a wider pattern inside S&P Dow Jones Indices: the provider has been building digital-asset benchmark offerings intended to translate crypto performance into familiar institutional product structures.
In October, S&P Dow Jones Indices introduced the S&P Digital Markets 50 Index, a composite that combines 15 cryptocurrencies with 35 publicly traded companies tied to the crypto ecosystem. The contrast with the new revenue-based index is instructive. The Digital Markets 50 Index uses a cross-asset structure spanning token networks and equity exposure, while the S&P Pantera Digital Asset Index focuses on network economic activity and liquidity criteria—narrowing the lens from “crypto as an industry” to “crypto as protocol usage.”
Both initiatives reflect the same broad direction: building benchmarks that can support institutional research, portfolio construction, and eventually product engineering.
Looking ahead, investors and index users will likely focus on two practical questions: how the protocol revenue thresholds and revenue-based ranking hold up as network economics evolve, and whether future constituents shift meaningfully as quarterly rebalancing updates the revenue inputs. The index’s concentration caps should help manage risk, but the biggest watch item will be whether the revenue filter consistently separates durable network activity from short-lived speculative cycles.
This article was originally published as S&P Launches Blockchain Fundamentals Index for Digital Assets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s largest, won-based crypto exchanges have seen a steep drop in trading activity over the past year, coinciding with a sharp rebound in the country’s stock market, according to an analysis cited by Cointelegraph. The shift suggests some retail speculative attention may be moving toward equities instead of crypto.
Cointelegraph reviewed CoinGecko historical 24-hour volume data for Upbit, Bithumb, Coinone, Korbit, and Gopax, comparing seven-day periods in July 2025 and July 2026. Using the average daily volume for each exchange and then taking a simple unweighted average of the five year-over-year declines, it arrived at an estimated average drop of about 77% across platforms. On a combined basis, average daily volume fell by roughly 89%, from $2.82 billion to $305 million over the comparable July windows.
Key takeaways
Across five major won-based exchanges, Cointelegraph’s analysis using CoinGecko data shows an average year-over-year daily volume decline of about 77% in July 2026 versus July 2025.
On a combined basis, average daily volume dropped about 89%, falling from $2.82 billion to $305 million.
KOSPI reportedly rose more than 114% over the 12 months to July 22, pointing to a stronger alternative investment environment for domestic retail.
Separate Korean reporting from ZDNet Korea cited an 88% year-on-year fall in combined daily volume and noted that weaker fee income has led some exchanges to sell crypto holdings.
A Tiger Research report highlighted investor fatigue from failed narratives and projects, while arguing that institutions may be taking up some of the slack.
Crypto volumes fall as equities surge
The timing matters: South Korea’s benchmark stock index, the KOSPI, rose 114.44% over the 12 months to July 22, according to Yahoo Finance data, even after easing back from a June peak. Cointelegraph frames the contrast—shrinking trading activity on won-based crypto platforms alongside a rising equity market—as evidence that retail investors may be reallocating attention toward stocks.
ZDNet Korea reported separately that daily volume across the five exchanges was down 88% year-on-year on Monday. It also connected the volume contraction to weaker fee income, saying some platforms have responded by selling portions of their crypto holdings. ZDNet Korea specifically mentioned Korbit, which reportedly raised about 1.6 billion won (around $1 million) by selling 15 Bitcoin (BTC) and 60 Ether (ETH).
For market participants, this matters less as a short-term trading story and more as a liquidity and business-model question. In retail-heavy markets like South Korea, exchanges often depend heavily on trading fees; sustained volume declines can tighten revenue for platforms across the board, making it more difficult for smaller operators to compete or invest through quieter periods.
How the numbers were calculated
Cointelegraph’s approach was intentionally straightforward. After collecting CoinGecko’s historical 24-hour volume readings for each exchange, it compared seven-day periods in July 2025 and July 2026. It then calculated average daily volume and the year-over-year percentage change for each platform. Finally, it used a simple unweighted average of the five declines—meaning each exchange contributed equally to the “average drop” figure, regardless of its baseline trading volume.
That distinction helps readers interpret the results. The “about 77%” figure represents the arithmetic average of declines across exchanges, while the “about 89%” combined figure reflects the total contraction when aggregating average daily volume across platforms. Both point in the same direction—less activity—but they do so through different weighting methods.
Retail fatigue and competition for capital
A separate report from Tiger Research, published on CoinGecko and updated April 17, argued that the decline in South Korea’s crypto activity likely reflects more than just market price movements. The report pointed to “recycled narratives” and projects that failed to deliver as contributors to investor fatigue, which can reduce willingness to engage even when opportunities exist.
At the same time, Tiger Research said the KOSPI rally expanded the set of return options available to retail traders. While the widening gap between equity turnover and crypto volume does not necessarily mean Koreans have lost interest in crypto entirely, the report suggests the opportunity cost of staying in crypto has risen—investors have more alternatives competing for their attention and capital.
In practical terms, that can shift behavior across cycles. When stocks perform strongly, retail participation may become more selective in crypto—favoring only particular themes or entry points—rather than sustaining broad, continuous trading volume. That kind of selectivity can reduce average liquidity on exchanges, even if overall crypto sentiment remains intact.
Institutions step in, but the transition is uneven
Beyond retail, Tiger Research characterized the market as being in a “structural transition,” with retail activity stepping back while institutions move in. The report said banks and financial groups have been positioning around won-denominated stablecoins, tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), and exchange investments even before final legislation was finalized.
Still, Tiger Research cautioned that institutional participation is not a clean replacement. The report described institutions as “finding their footing,” implying a gradual and uneven shift rather than an immediate volume equalization. For exchanges and investors, the key uncertainty is whether institutional flows can scale fast enough to offset the liquidity gap created by reduced retail trading.
Watch how volume evolves beyond headline percentages and whether fee-dependent business models stabilize. If the equity/crypto attention gap persists, South Korea’s exchange landscape could see further consolidation pressure, while tokenized asset rails and stablecoin-linked products may gain relative importance as builders and financial players look for activity beyond spot retail trading.
This article was originally published as South Korean Crypto Trading Volume Falls as Retail Turns to Stocks on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Senate Republicans have released the full proposed text for the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a wide-ranging bill intended to establish a clearer US regulatory framework for digital assets. The 616-page document, published Wednesday, includes a particularly forceful ethics section that would bar US federal officials from issuing, sponsoring, or otherwise promoting digital assets.
According to the bill’s text—posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis—public officials, their spouses, and federal employees would be prohibited from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. In parallel, the legislation would prevent crypto platforms from listing assets that are issued or sponsored by covered federal officials. Lummis described the ethics package as “the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history,” language that the White House also highlighted around the proposal.
Key takeaways
The CLARITY Act’s ethics rules would restrict covered federal officials (and their spouses) from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.
Crypto platforms would face a related prohibition on listing assets that are issued or sponsored by those federal officials.
The ethics ban would be temporary, ending on Jan. 20, 2029, coinciding with the end of a second presidential term.
Enforcement would largely fall to the US Department of Justice rather than state regulators, elevating the role of federal prosecutors.
Passage still appears uncertain because Democrats must support the bill to reach a 60-vote Senate threshold.
Ethics provisions at the center of the debate
The ethics section is the headline-grabbing part of CLARITY, largely because it attempts to directly tie conflict-of-interest rules to digital asset activity by senior federal actors. Under the proposed language, a broad group of federal officials, their spouses, and public employees would be barred from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.
The bill goes further by addressing market access: crypto platforms would be blocked from listing assets issued or sponsored by those same federal officials. That structure matters because it doesn’t just restrict official conduct—it also attempts to constrain the flow of capital and attention toward assets that would otherwise benefit from federal ties.
Senator Lummis, a key advocate for the bill, said the provisions would apply to President Donald Trump, who has faced criticism from lawmakers over the scope of his crypto-related financial interests while in office. In earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, lawmakers have pointed to reporting that Trump earned more than $1.4 billion in 2025 from his crypto ventures. Lummis framed CLARITY as applying a uniform ethics standard to everyone, including the President.
At the same time, the temporary nature of the prohibition stands out. The ban would expire on Jan. 20, 2029—described in the bill context as the day a second presidential term ends. That design could influence how both supporters and skeptics assess the bill: for supporters, it offers a near-term deterrent backed by enforcement; for opponents, it may raise questions about what happens after the expiration date.
Department of Justice enforcement and the confirmation question
Another crucial aspect of the ethics language is where enforcement would sit. The bill assigns primary responsibility to the US Attorney General and the federal Justice Department rather than leaving implementation primarily to states. As of Wednesday, reporting in the crypto space indicated that Todd Blanche—Trump’s former personal attorney and the acting Attorney General—was awaiting a Senate confirmation vote to lead the Justice Department.
That federal enforcement focus appears to be one of the reasons the bill’s ethics provisions are drawing intense scrutiny. In comments reported by Politico, Senator Angela Alsobrooks said she would not support the bill if the ethics language did not include the Justice Department behind enforcement, adding that Democrats would continue working from the Senate floor to reach an agreement that holds everyone accountable.
Lummis, speaking on behalf of the Senate Banking Committee’s digital assets subcommittee, emphasized that the proposal is not merely symbolic. She said the bill would be “backed up with real enforcement, real penalties, and a Department of Justice mandate to act.”
What’s missing—or at least not included—in the text
While the ethics rules are extensive, the bill’s boundaries are also being parsed by observers. Notably, the ethics provisions described in coverage of the proposal do not appear to include children of public officials in the temporary ban.
That omission is politically meaningful given that two of Trump’s sons are described as co-founders of a family business tied to the crypto sector. The article coverage also referenced that three of Trump’s sons are co-founders of World Liberty Financial, and that two launched a Bitcoin mining company, American Bitcoin. For Democrats who have demanded strict ethics language, the lack of coverage for children could become a focal point during negotiations—especially if lawmakers argue that indirect conflicts should be treated the same as direct ones.
Meanwhile, even supporters who back the bill’s overall ethics thrust still face a broader question: will the final package be strong enough, and structured enough, to satisfy lawmakers who have said they will not vote for any version lacking meaningful ethics reforms addressing “crypto corruption.”
Senate math and the path to a vote
CLARITY is not expected to move quickly through Congress without bargaining. The bill still requires Democratic support to achieve the 60-vote threshold in the Senate. Coverage has noted that many Democrats have explicitly tied their willingness to vote to the strength of the ethics language, suggesting that negotiations—particularly around enforcement details and who exactly is covered—could determine whether CLARITY can reach the level needed for passage.
There is also a procedural clock. Senate Majority Leader John Thune reportedly plans to put CLARITY up for a vote on the Senate floor sometime next week, according to coverage of the proposal. The Senate’s calendar is tight: the chamber has only a few weeks to hold votes before breaking for state work periods.
Political and policy observers are also framing CLARITY as more than an ethics bill. According to Kristin Smith, president of the Solana Policy Institute, the Senate version adds not only ethics and enforcement language but also a broader set of provisions, including a full disclosure regime, expanded illicit finance measures, and improved spot market regulation. That view suggests the core argument for moving forward is not limited to the ethics section—it is also about whether the overall market-structure framework can become durable, bipartisan legislation.
Whether CLARITY ultimately lands on President Trump’s desk will likely hinge on negotiations over the ethics boundaries, the enforcement mechanism, and what Democrats consider sufficient to address conflict-of-interest concerns in the digital asset industry.
For now, readers should watch the next procedural steps in the Senate—especially whether enough Democrats commit their votes before the chamber’s schedule constrains further bargaining—and closely monitor whether any amendments emerge that expand (or narrow) who is covered by the ethics restrictions and how strictly the Justice Department would be expected to enforce them.
This article was originally published as US Officials Face Token Issuance Ban Through 2029 Under CLARITY Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

U.S. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce has warned that crypto “vaults” and onchain lending products may fall within federal securities laws—especially when the design involves discretionary decisions about how user assets are managed. In a statement released Wednesday, Peirce focused on strategies where operators actively determine key parameters such as asset allocation, the choice of yield activities, lending terms, and even liquidation thresholds.
The remarks arrive as onchain yield products continue to proliferate and are increasingly packaged for retail and institutional users. Peirce emphasized that shifting activity onto a blockchain does not automatically remove it from securities-law scrutiny, urging developers and operators to assess compliance early rather than after launch.
Key takeaways
Peirce said crypto vaults and lending strategies that use discretionary management decisions may be subject to U.S. securities laws.
Some vault structures could potentially be treated as securities offerings or investment companies, depending on how they operate.
Operators who control allocation choices or lending parameters may also face investment adviser regulatory exposure.
Whether certain onchain loans qualify as securities depends on how they are structured, distributed, and used.
Why “onchain” doesn’t automatically mean “outside” securities law
Peirce’s statement targets a common assumption in parts of the crypto market: that moving asset-management mechanics onto a blockchain somehow changes the legal analysis. She argued that it does not, stating that moving activities that fall within federal securities laws to onchain systems does not remove those activities from the laws the SEC enforces.
Her core point is functional rather than technical. When product logic or operational design results in users’ returns being driven by decisions that resemble investment management—such as choosing where funds are allocated, what yield strategy is used, what lending terms apply, or when liquidations occur—the SEC’s jurisdiction may come into play. Peirce said the applicability of federal securities laws would vary based on the vault or lending product’s structure and operation.
How vaults and lending strategies could trigger securities-related requirements
Peirce said some crypto vaults could fall into categories that are historically associated with securities offerings or investment companies. She also suggested that the parties setting or managing vault allocations and the parameters of lending strategies could trigger investment adviser requirements, again depending on who makes the relevant decisions and how.
She further noted that even certain onchain loans may qualify as securities based on how they are structured, distributed to users, and used in practice. This matters for the industry because it reframes regulatory risk around product behavior and decision-making—rather than whether the product uses smart contracts, custody models, or decentralized interfaces.
For developers, the message is straightforward: if a product involves discretionary choices about how user assets are deployed to pursue yield, it may need legal review to determine whether it is functioning as a regulated investment product.
Onchain yield products keep expanding despite regulatory scrutiny
Vault-style yield offerings have grown rapidly this year, with companies packaging DeFi strategies into products that aim to make returns and risks more accessible. Instead of requiring each user to individually select lending venues, liquidity pools, and risk controls, these products often present strategy comparisons and automated execution.
Earlier this year, Sentora opened its Smart Yield platform to the public in April, positioning it as a way for users to compare DeFi vaults based on strategy, yield, and risk metrics. Wallet in Telegram also launched self-custodial Bitcoin, Ether, and USDT vaults earlier, offering automated yield generation while avoiding a centralized custodian model—an approach designed to reduce custody friction for users.
Separately, Kraken rolled out a Bitcoin vault in May. According to earlier coverage, the offering targeted up to 2.5% variable APY by deploying wrapped Bitcoin into decentralized lending protocols including Aave and Morpho, with rewards paid in Bitcoin and varying with borrowing demand in the underlying markets.
These developments illustrate a key tension: vault products are increasingly marketed as convenient wrappers around DeFi strategies, but Peirce’s comments suggest convenience and packaging do not necessarily limit securities-law questions if discretion or investment management-like decision-making is embedded in product design.
Operational and technical risks remain—regulation could add another layer
Beyond legal exposure, vaults and yield strategies can also create technical risk for users. In December, DeFi protocol Yearn disclosed an exploit affecting its legacy yETH yield vault, reporting roughly $9 million impacted, while stating that its V2 and V3 vaults were not affected.
If regulators determine that certain vault offerings fall under federal securities laws, operators could face additional compliance obligations—such as SEC registration or qualification for exemptions, along with disclosure requirements and related regulatory duties. For product teams, this could significantly change how they structure governance, decision-making rights, user communications, and risk disclosures.
At the same time, Peirce’s statement suggests the legal analysis is not a blanket “DeFi equals securities.” Instead, it depends on what the product does in practice—especially whether the system (or the people behind it) makes discretionary determinations that affect outcomes for users.
Going forward, market participants should watch how operators describe and operationalize decision-making in vault and lending products, and whether SEC-related guidance or enforcement actions further clarify which onchain structures meet securities-law thresholds. The uncertainty remains high for discretionary strategies, but Peirce’s framing makes the likely direction of scrutiny easier to anticipate: the regulator will focus on investment-like management decisions, not just whether the mechanics are implemented on-chain.
This article was originally published as SEC’s Hester Peirce Warns Crypto Vaults and On-Chain Lending Risk SEC Rules on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin stayed bid on Wednesday as both crypto markets and broader risk assets appeared to brush off renewed US-Iran tensions. BTC/USD held close to recent five-week highs, even as fresh threats from the US raised the stakes for Middle East escalation.
TradingView data showed BTC/USD down about 1% on the day, after earlier testing the $67,000 area. At the time of publication, it was around $65,975, while 24-hour volume topped $30.3 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
Key takeaways
BTC’s pullback remained limited despite renewed Middle East risk, suggesting markets are not yet pricing the conflict aggressively.
US equity momentum appeared to absorb geopolitical headlines, with commentary warning crowded short positioning could amplify moves if conditions shift.
Traders are watching $67,000 as a technical inflection point; a break could signal a bullish continuation pattern on daily timeframes.
Some market participants frame Bitcoin as outperforming US stocks, using relative-strength divergence arguments.
Geopolitical headlines fail to move the broader tape
Crypto and US stocks followed Tuesday’s direction, when both asset classes largely ignored escalation in the Middle East—including direct strikes involving both Iran and the United States. On Wednesday, the latest flare-up similarly did not derail risk sentiment.
US president Donald Trump said on Truth Social that the US would target Iranian bridges and energy infrastructure if Iran fired on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The post stated that the US would “bomb and destroy ONE BRIDGE OR POWER PLANT,” including those near or in Tehran.
While equity and crypto price action stayed comparatively steady, oil reacted more directly. WTI and Brent crude reached roughly $88.60 and $95.50, respectively—levels described as the highest since June 11.
Equities’ strength raises a “short squeeze” question
Beyond geopolitics, a separate dynamic in US markets drew attention: the level of short interest. Trading resource The Kobeissi Letter pointed to data indicating shorts are positioned near elevated levels, increasing the potential for sharper moves if sentiment turns.
According to The Kobeissi Letter, which cited Bloomberg data, short interest in the S&P 500 rose to about 3.7% of free float—near the top of the range in data going back to 2010. Short interest in the Russell 3000 was said to be around 6.1%, also near an all-time high. The account added that both measures have been steadily rising since the start of 2025.
“Both metrics have steadily increased since the start of 2025.”
Kobeissi’s broader message was that a “short squeeze” could punish late short positions if bullish momentum persists or accelerates.
Bitcoin’s $67,000 line in the sand
For Bitcoin, attention has centered on the $67,000 region after the asset pushed to five-week highs earlier in the session. As of publication, BTC was trading near $65,975, meaning the market was still deciding whether it could reclaim and hold above that psychological and technical level.
Trader Daan Crypto Trades said that breaking above $67,000 would create a daily bullish market structure break and establish a higher high. In his assessment, it would mark the first daily higher high since the move up in May.
“This is the first daily higher high since the push up in May.”
That framing matters for how traders interpret momentum: when resistance is treated as a structural level rather than a one-off spike, a decisive close above it can change the odds of continuation—and influence risk management around tight ranges.
Relative strength claims: BTC vs the S&P 500
Not all commentary focused on BTC’s absolute price action. Some market participants were comparing Bitcoin’s behavior against US stocks for signs of relative mispricing.
On X, an account using the name Osemka wrote that the weekly BTC-vs-S&P 500 relationship shows “strong weekly bullish divergence,” with Bitcoin “at the brink” of an RSI trend breakout. The post referenced the relative strength index (RSI) and claimed that the divergence lows are about five months apart, similar to patterns seen in 2022.
“Divergent lows are 5 months apart, similar to literal 2022 lows. $BTC should outperform the US stock market nicely for the foreseeable future from the most mis-priced territory in history, as the lows should already be in.”
The argument here is comparative rather than directional: it suggests Bitcoin may benefit even if US equities remain strong, based on how the two charts have been behaving relative to each other.
Meanwhile, Cointelegraph previously reported that the broader consensus among many observers still points to Bitcoin’s next bear-market low arriving later this year or in early 2027—an outlook that would make this phase more about positioning and risk management than chasing an immediate reversal.
What to watch next
Going forward, traders are likely to keep $67,000 in focus for confirmation on higher timeframes. At the same time, investors should watch whether geopolitical headlines continue to lift oil volatility while crypto and equities remain insulated—or whether markets eventually reprice risk if the conflict escalates further.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Holds Steady as Iran Risk Eases; S&P 500 Short Squeeze Looms on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

BitGo and OTC Markets Group have announced a proposed partnership aimed at bringing digital asset trading and custody capabilities into the broker-dealer workflow used in US over-the-counter markets. The plan is designed to let broker-dealers leverage the same electronic infrastructure for quoting, trading, and settling “digital asset securities” that they already use for conventional OTC and US equity activity.
According to the companies, the alliance would initially serve more than 150 broker-dealers connected to OTC Link ATS, an SEC-regulated alternative trading system. If the framework is implemented, participating firms would be able to route tokenized securities through familiar market channels—while BitGo would handle custody and settlement functions within the proposed operating model.
Key takeaways
BitGo and OTC Markets Group plan to integrate digital asset securities into OTC Link ATS, allowing broker-dealers to use established trading and settlement infrastructure.
BitGo Bank & Trust is intended to act as the qualified custodian, with settlement facilitated through BitGo’s Go Network.
The initial scope is digital asset securities, with room for expansion toward tokenized assets and commodities as relevant regulatory guidance evolves.
The announcement arrives amid accelerating industry focus on tokenized real-world assets and growing regulatory efforts to clarify rules for digital assets in the US.
OTC Markets Group shares rose about 2.7% to roughly $53.50 by midday Wednesday, reflecting market attention on the proposal.
A bridge between crypto infrastructure and broker-dealer rails
The core idea behind the BitGo–OTC Markets Group proposal is operational fit. Broker-dealers already operate under mature securities market rules and processes; according to the companies, the partnership would connect digital asset securities to the electronic trading ecosystem broker-dealers use today.
OTC Markets Group operates OTC Link ATS, an alternative trading system regulated by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Under the plan, broker-dealers using that venue would be able to quote and execute trades in digital asset securities using the same general infrastructure environment already in place for OTC and US equity trading and settlement.
For investors and market participants, that approach matters because it targets one of the most common friction points in institutional crypto adoption: integration complexity. Instead of requiring broker-dealers to move entirely to “crypto-native” systems, the framework aims to plug tokenized securities functionality into established brokerage workflows—potentially lowering onboarding costs and reducing the scope of operational change.
How the custody and settlement model would work
The companies outlined a two-part operational structure. Under the proposal, BitGo Bank & Trust would serve as the qualified custodian. Settlement, meanwhile, would be handled through BitGo’s Go Network.
The partnership’s initial intent is focused on digital asset securities, but the companies also indicated the framework could be expanded to support tokenized assets and commodities as regulatory frameworks develop. That conditional language is important: while tokenization is a rapidly progressing theme, the specific asset classes and the precise regulatory pathway can vary materially depending on how regulators treat different instruments.
BitGo’s role as a qualified custodian is reinforced by its recent US banking milestone. In December, BitGo received final approval from the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to operate as a federally chartered national trust bank. That approval positions the firm to provide qualified custody services under federal banking oversight—an element that may be attractive to broker-dealers and other institutional participants seeking clearer custody governance.
Why broker-dealers are central to tokenization’s next phase
Broker-dealers could become a major conduit for tokenized securities because they sit at the intersection of regulation, market access, and capital formation. The BitGo–OTC Markets Group plan effectively tries to transform tokenization from a largely experimental pipeline into something more compatible with existing market plumbing.
The rationale aligns with broader market forecasts. Bernstein analysts have projected that the value of tokenized real-world assets could reach up to $4 trillion by 2030, citing expansion across equities, commodities, and other financial assets. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph also highlighted how tokenization efforts are increasingly tied to exchange and broker distribution networks.
That context matters because tokenization is not just about issuing tokens—it’s also about where they can be traded and settled. The BitGo–OTC Markets Group proposal suggests a pathway to move tokenized instruments into venues where broker-dealers already operate, rather than relying solely on separate systems.
It also follows similar initiatives aimed at bringing tokenization closer to mainstream capital markets. Cointelegraph previously reported on efforts by companies such as Securitize and Cantor Fitzgerald to pursue tokenized IPOs and follow-on equity offerings, pointing to an industry push to adapt tokenization to established issuance and trading channels.
What to watch: implementation details and regulatory compatibility
While the announcement outlines an operating framework, the most significant uncertainties for market participants are whether and how quickly the partnership can move from proposal to execution, and what the operational scope will be at each stage. The companies’ statement that the approach is “initially intended” to support digital asset securities implies a phased rollout tied to asset-class readiness and regulatory clarity.
Investors and broker-dealers watching this story should focus on three practical questions: how OTC Link ATS would be configured for tokenized securities, what operational requirements are placed on participating broker-dealers, and how BitGo’s custody and settlement services are integrated for actual trade flows. The answers will determine whether tokenized securities become meaningfully accessible through existing institutional pathways—or remain a limited pilot concept.
For now, the proposal reinforces a broader shift in the industry: tokenization is moving from isolated experimentation toward integration with regulated market infrastructure, where broker-dealer connectivity could be a decisive factor in scaling adoption.
This article was originally published as BitGo and OTC Markets to Enable Tokenized Securities for Brokers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed five civil forfeiture complaints seeking more than $25 million in cryptocurrency it alleges is linked to international romance and investment frauds that targeted victims in both Canada and the United States. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Secret Service, the case stems from separate investigations conducted by the Cyber Fraud Task Force.
Prosecutors say victims were persuaded into believing they were making legitimate digital asset investments, only for their funds to be routed through laundering networks designed to obscure the origin and movement of stolen crypto. The DOJ describes tactics that frequently blend social engineering, fraudulent trading platforms, and layered wallet transfers to make recovery difficult.
Key takeaways
The DOJ is pursuing five civil forfeiture actions targeting more than $25 million in crypto tied to romance and investment scams.
One complaint seeks about $12.1 million connected to romance schemes affecting more than 200 victims.
Another action seeks $10.4 million tied to suspected victim transactions involving more than 270 people.
Authorities allege the launderers were largely based in Southeast Asia, with related IP activity associated with China, Malaysia, and Cambodia.
International enforcement has recently intensified against similar social engineering–to-crypto laundering pipelines, including Interpol’s Operation First Light 2026.
DOJ targets crypto tied to romance and fake investment platforms
In a statement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Secret Service said the assets were recovered as part of investigations associated with the Cyber Fraud Task Force. DOJ officials allege that scammers identified thousands of victims worldwide and misled them into believing they were investing in digital assets.
The largest complaint seeks approximately $12.1 million and is tied to romance-based frauds that reportedly defrauded more than 200 victims. Prosecutors say proceeds were routed through intermediary addresses and commingled with funds from other victims—an approach that can complicate attribution and recovery efforts.
A second complaint seeks $10.4 million and involves more than 270 suspected victim transactions. DOJ also filed three smaller complaints, which prosecutors describe as involving fake investment accounts and an additional “recovery” scheme—an escalation pattern seen in many fraud ecosystems, where initial victims are later targeted again with offers to help them get their money back for a new fee or deposit.
Where laundering allegedly operated—and how identities were masked
The DOJ said the alleged laundering infrastructure was predominantly located in Southeast Asia, while related IP addresses were associated with China, Malaysia, and Cambodia. While the filing describes these characteristics at a high level, the enforcement theory is consistent: criminals sought to break the on-chain connection between victim payments and the addresses that ultimately benefited.
Prosecutors frame the problem as more than a direct “investment” fraud. They argue that crypto-enabled romance scams typically rely on social engineering to build trust, then steer victims toward fraudulent trading or investment platforms. After funds are placed, investigators say the money is moved through multiple wallet layers and networks that help conceal the stolen funds’ trail.
Interpol operation highlights the scale of social engineering to crypto laundering
This DOJ filing follows broader international enforcement activity focused on social engineering scams and the financial networks used to launder their proceeds. According to earlier reporting from Cointelegraph, Interpol-coordinated Operation First Light 2026 involved 97 countries and territories. Interpol said the operation led to 5,811 arrests and the interception of $283 million in illicit assets.
Interpol also reported that the operation identified more than 142,000 victims and blocked more than 31,000 bank accounts. Within the operation, Thai authorities reportedly uncovered a network that allegedly converted romance-scam proceeds into crypto. Investigators also described the use of cross-chain token swaps to further obscure the movement of funds.
Cointelegraph reported that a wallet associated with a suspected money launderer processed more than $122.5 million in crypto over a period of 10 months. While that figure comes from Interpol-linked reporting rather than the DOJ civil forfeiture filings themselves, the overlap underscores the same operational playbook: trust-building scams, movement of funds into crypto, then multi-step transfers and trading-like activity to frustrate tracing.
Earlier U.S. actions show stablecoin laundering patterns
The DOJ’s move also fits into a wider pattern of U.S. enforcement against crypto used in romance and investment frauds. Cointelegraph previously noted that, in February, federal agents seized over $61 million in USDT stablecoin from addresses allegedly associated with laundering proceeds tied to fraudulent investment platforms.
In that earlier account, investigators described a workflow similar to the one now reflected in the forfeiture complaints: scammers build trust through romantic relationships, steer victims to fake trading platforms, and then move funds across multiple wallets. The DOJ complaint language adds further detail about how schemes can evolve into “recovery” scams and about how funds can be commingled among victims—both of which affect how law enforcement attempts to dismantle networks and how victims may later attempt to locate assets.
For readers, the key point is practical: these cases show that the fraud often shifts from social manipulation to financial plumbing. Even when victims send funds into what appears to be a legitimate digital asset transaction, the traceable parts can be deliberately fragmented through intermediaries, layered transfers, and cross-network activity.
As the forfeiture cases proceed, the next watchpoints are straightforward: whether courts allow the government to establish ownership and tracing theories at the complaint stage, and whether additional actions follow targeting other wallets or infrastructure tied to the same alleged laundering clusters.
This article was originally published as US moves to forfeit $25M in crypto linked to romance and investment scams on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Learn the top 3 altcoins that one should accumulate in July 2026. Get to know how XRP, Solana (SOL), and Dogecoin (DOGE) stand out because of their institutional adoption, updates, and growth prospects.
Key Insights
XRP is still reaping the benefits of increased institutional adoption, regulatory support, and ETF options.
The Alpenglow update on Solana will increase the speed and efficiency of the network.
Dogecoin will be sustained by its huge community, ETF expectations, and integration with X Payments.
Market correction periods will offer excellent accumulation chances for long-term investors.
XRP: Institutional Interest Keeps Powering Up the Altcoin
XRP is still one of the dominant cryptocurrencies centered around cross-border payments and financial settlements. Ripple continues adding new banks, payment service providers, and financial firms to the list of its partners in several geographic locations, which keeps supporting XRP’s presence in the global payments space.
The regulatory picture has improved drastically. The SEC’s decision not to press its appeal was one of the biggest risks hanging above XRP. After that point, investor sentiment became much more positive because some XRP exchange-traded funds (ETFs) have been approved in several foreign countries.
Institutional interest has kept growing, but not only through ETFs. The Central Bank of Singapore has tested the technology of financial settlement on the XRP Ledger, which shows increased confidence in blockchain-based payments infrastructure. All of these factors make XRP an interesting long-term investment because they add utility to the cryptocurrency rather than just speculation. Technically speaking, XRP stays close to significant exponential moving averages.
Solana (SOL): Alpenglow Upgrade Can Boost Network Development
The Solana platform has been proving itself to be a serious competitor to Ethereum with higher transaction speeds and reduced fees. The platform remains active in attracting various developers to create DeFi protocols, games, NFTs, and other consumer applications.
The largest driver of Solana network development can be seen in an upgrade known as Alpenglow, created by Anza, the Solana Labs spinoff. This consensus protocol upgrade will replace Proof of History and Tower BFT with two new solutions called Votor and Rotor.
In particular, Votor should finalize all transactions within 100–150 milliseconds, while Rotor will boost transmission of data across the network of validators. These innovations may positively affect network performance, scalability, and other parameters.
With more decentralized apps launched on the Solana network, there could appear additional activity that can lead to increasing demand for SOL tokens. Solana remains among the most watched and promising blockchain projects for 2026.
Dogecoin (DOGE): Community Strength And Emerging Catalysts
Dogecoin is still the biggest and best-known meme cryptocurrency in terms of market presence and community activity. Despite being created as a joke, DOGE has remained relevant for many cycles and still attracts attention from retail investors.
The recent macroeconomic environment has helped Dogecoin trade in a range amid market volatility. Market participants keep monitoring important levels and trying to understand what the next step will be.
There are also several catalysts that support a long-term positive outlook on DOGE. Investors expect the creation of ETF products related to Dogecoin, and speculation about integrating X Payments has raised the possibility of using Dogecoin as a daily payment method.
Together with one of the largest communities in the whole crypto industry, these factors help Dogecoin remain relevant from a long-term perspective.
Why Are These Altcoins Special This July
There is a unique investing story behind each of these cryptocurrencies. XRP benefits from growing adoption by institutions and improving regulation. Solana keeps developing with big technology updates and increased developer participation. The uniqueness of Dogecoin comes from a combination of its great community along with new factors like payments and ETF.
Despite volatility in cryptocurrency trading, people tend to use such moments to acquire assets with good fundamentals. Those who want exposure to different parts of the crypto space, such as payments, smart contracts, and community-based tokens, can focus on XRP, SOL, and DOGE as altcoins to watch this July.
This article was originally published as Top 3 Altcoins for Accumulation in July 2026: XRP, SOL, and DOGE on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Franklin Templeton’s head of digital assets and innovation says AI agents are poised to become a major demand driver for blockchain networks—specifically the protocols that can support rapid, low-cost payments between machines.
Speaking in a long-form post on X on Wednesday, Sandy Kaul argued that the “agentic AI” economy will require settlement speeds and fee structures that legacy card rails struggle to deliver. He pointed to blockchain ecosystems such as Aptos, Solana, and BNB Chain as better aligned with that needs-based shift.
Key takeaways
Franklin Templeton’s Sandy Kaul links AI agents to increased demand for blockchain protocols that can handle machine-to-machine micropayments.
Kaul argues traditional payment cards are a poor fit for agentic payments due to fees and slow settlement compared with blockchain transaction finality.
A joint Visa and Artemis report contends card-based infrastructure is insufficient for AI agents that require near-zero fees and fast settlement.
According to that Visa-Artemis report, the x402 payment protocol processed $15 million in adjusted volume across 109 million+ adjusted transactions since its May 2025 launch.
Why AI agents change the payment requirements
The central thesis is that agentic systems—software that can act autonomously on behalf of users or other systems—will generate a different kind of commerce than today’s human-driven transactions. Kaul framed the opportunity as an evolution beyond the way investors typically approach AI: rather than focusing only on companies “aligned” with AI, he suggested the market may also reward infrastructure designed for automated execution and continuous micro-interactions.
In his view, the payment layer becomes a bottleneck if it cannot support high-frequency, small-value transfers. Agentic micropayments are likely to be time-sensitive and cost-sensitive, meaning even modest frictions—such as higher fees or longer settlement—can make recurring machine payments economically unattractive.
Legacy cards vs. settlement speed
Kaul’s argument is not that card networks are obsolete, but that they were engineered for a different pattern of usage: relatively low-frequency human commerce where settlement delays are rarely a primary constraint.
He highlighted that visa network settlement can take one to three business days, while certain blockchain networks can finalize transactions in seconds. That timing gap is likely to matter when agents are coordinating continuously, where delays can ripple through workflows and reduce the viability of rapid settlements.
Kaul also pointed to “high fees and settlement times” as the factors that, in his assessment, make traditional payment rails unsuitable for agentic micropayments.
Visa and Artemis: infrastructure gaps for “agentic” commerce
The Franklin Templeton executive’s remarks align with a joint report released last Wednesday by Visa and investment thesis platform Artemis. In that report, the partners argue that conventional cards built for human-scale payments are not designed for the demands of AI agents.
Visa and Artemis specifically emphasize that agentic payments require infrastructure with near-zero fees and faster settlement to make micropayments commercially viable. The report’s framing reinforces Kaul’s thesis that the real battleground is payments throughput and cost efficiency—not just AI capabilities at the application layer.
Importantly for readers, this is not presented as a purely speculative concept; the report also points to existing machine-payment experimentation and early adoption signals, including activity tied to x402.
What “early adoption” looks like: x402 activity
In the Visa-Artemis report, the x402 payment protocol is highlighted as an example of a machine payment rail showing measurable usage. The report claims that x402, developed by Coinbase, processed $15 million in adjusted volume across more than 109 million adjusted transactions since its May 2025 launch.
For investors and builders, the value of that statistic is less about any single figure and more about the direction it suggests: that machine-payment protocols are beginning to attract usage under a framework designed for frequent transfers. Still, it’s also worth noting the metric is reported as “adjusted volume” and “adjusted transactions,” so readers should treat it as an operational indicator from the report rather than a direct translation into end-user revenue or broader market share.
Signals from payments providers
While the Visa-Artemis analysis criticizes card-based infrastructure as insufficient for agentic needs, the companies are also actively exploring how the broader payment ecosystem might support agentic behavior.
Visa’s crypto-related division and Stripe-backed Tempo launched AI tools in March, according to coverage referenced in the same context. Visa’s offering is described as enabling same-day payments—an attempt to address speed constraints that agentic micropayments depend on.
In parallel, Kaul’s remarks point readers to blockchain environments where settlement speed is structurally faster, suggesting a practical mismatch: even if card providers add features to move payments more quickly, the fee and settlement model may still not align with the economics of high-volume, machine-to-machine exchanges.
Going forward, the key thing to watch is whether agentic payment demand materializes in a way that drives sustained usage of low-fee, fast-settlement rails—particularly as protocols like x402 and newer infrastructure compete to serve recurring micropayment flows. The open question remains how quickly mainstream agent deployments will scale enough to make settlement and fee constraints decisive rather than theoretical.
This article was originally published as Franklin Templeton Sees Agentic AI as Blockchain’s Next Core Use on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin buyers appear to be absorbing sell pressure more effectively around the $65,000 area, according to analysis tied to exchange flow data. The signal comes after Binance posted its largest single-day net outflow in nearly two years, with more BTC leaving the platform than entering.
Onchain analytics firm CryptoQuant highlighted that Binance withdrawals have recently been running ahead of deposits—an environment traders often watch for because it can indicate reduced immediate supply on the exchange order book. Still, analysts caution that exchange outflows alone do not confirm a fresh, sustainable uptrend.
Key takeaways
CryptoQuant data shows Binance daily netflows have oscillated between inflows and outflows, with a notable outflow spike on Tuesday.
More than 9,000 BTC net left Binance in a single day, the largest tally since November 2024, suggesting significant movement toward self-custody.
Analysts frame the latest pattern as improved “absorption” near $65,000–$66,000 rather than immediate proof of a new rally.
US spot Bitcoin ETF flows remain net positive, pointing to ongoing institutional demand even as spot market momentum appears uneven.
Binance’s outflow spike draws attention
A CryptoQuant research note released Wednesday focused on Binance’s spot exchange balances, showing that daily BTC withdrawals are outpacing inflows. The takeaway is that short-term pressure from supply moving onto Binance appears to be easing—at least on the days where net outflows dominate.
CryptoQuant contributor Rei Researcher wrote that this pattern typically reflects reduced urgency to send BTC to the exchange “for potential selling.” In other words, when a large exchange sees net withdrawals, it often suggests sellers are not adding to immediate market liquidity at that moment.
The broader context from CryptoQuant is that Binance netflows have been switching signs—turning positive and negative—after a stretch of positive days that ended in early June. One day, however, stands out: on Tuesday, Binance recorded a net outflow of more than 9,000 BTC, which CryptoQuant described as the largest single-day figure since November 2024.
Ruga Research, another CryptoQuant contributor, argued that outsized outflows generally point to participants moving “serious volume” into self-custody. In a separate post, he emphasized that coins leaving an exchange are less likely to be sold directly into the order book, at least in the near term.
“When outflows hit this size, someone is moving serious volume into self-custody. Coins off exchanges are coins that won’t be sold into the order book,” Ruga Research said in that post.
Ruga also noted that on rolling 30-day time frames, netflows continue to repeat a fluctuation pattern and that sharp spikes can still reverse. His warning reflects a key nuance investors often overlook: exchange flow metrics can shift quickly, and a single dramatic day does not automatically define the next trend.
“Can this one fail? Absolutely. Momentum has been indecisive around the zero line for two weeks. It hasn’t committed. And what happens next, honestly, nobody knows,” he wrote, referring to mixed netflow days.
Absorption improves, but the trend still needs confirmation
Rei Researcher stopped short of claiming the outflow data by itself signals a durable new bull phase. Instead, he pointed to a more subtle implication: the presence of negative netflow while BTC trades around $65,000–$66,000 suggests buyers are doing a better job absorbing whatever supply remains in the system compared with an earlier weak period.
In his assessment, the key distinction is between “absorption” and a confirmed uptrend. Negative netflow can reduce exchange liquidity, but price still depends on spot demand, traded volume, and the market’s ability to maintain a stable structure.
“However, negative netflow does not automatically confirm a new uptrend. It needs to be accompanied by spot demand, volume, and a more stable price structure,” Rei Researcher said.
This framing matters because BTC’s reaction has been relatively range-bound compared to the momentum traders typically look for when a sustained move begins. If exchange outflows are rising but price remains choppy, the market may be transitioning into a steadier equilibrium rather than launching immediately into a higher trajectory.
ETF inflows remain a supportive counterweight
While exchange flow data is one part of the picture, ETF activity is another. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that consensus expectations for a full bull-market rebound have been constrained by a perceived lack of consistent spot demand. In that context, derivatives-related improvement has been easier to observe than a corresponding surge in spot buying.
Cointelegraph previously reported that net inflows into US spot Bitcoin ETFs suggest a continuation of institutional interest. CryptoQuant’s flow-focused analysis aligns with that broader narrative: even if the spot market’s immediate impulse is inconsistent, larger investors and structured products can help sustain demand.
In the current setup described by CryptoQuant and referenced by Cointelegraph, the most relevant tension is this: Binance outflows may be reducing available supply on exchanges, but the market still needs clear evidence that spot buyers are expanding participation rather than simply absorbing intermittent supply.
What to watch next for traders and long-term holders
For readers tracking whether this move becomes meaningful, the immediate question is whether Binance netflows keep favoring withdrawals and whether spot market behavior follows through. CryptoQuant contributors themselves underscored that netflow momentum has been mixed and that outflow spikes can fail. The next confirmations to monitor are steadier spot demand and improved price structure around the $65,000–$66,000 band, alongside continued net positive ETF inflows that could support broader risk appetite.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Traders Watch for “Serious Volume” After Binance BTC Outflows Rise to 9K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Talos, an institutional crypto trading platform, has integrated with Kalshi so that select clients can trade Kalshi’s event contracts and crypto perpetuals through the same infrastructure. The goal is to remove the need for a separate technical connection when firms want regulated prediction market exposure alongside their existing digital asset workflows.
The integration also adds institutional trading functionality, including algorithmic order types such as Iceberg, TWAP and POV, plus multi-leg execution for perp-to-perp and perp-to-spot spread strategies. Talos said it will support block trades in Kalshi contracts via its request-for-quote (RFQ) system, using participating over-the-counter liquidity providers.
Key takeaways
Single connection for multiple products: Talos clients can trade Kalshi event contracts alongside crypto perpetuals without switching platforms.
Institution-grade execution: The integration supports algorithmic orders (Iceberg, TWAP, POV) and multi-leg spread execution.
RFQ block trading for contracts: Kalshi contract blocks can be executed through Talos’ RFQ flow with OTC liquidity providers.
Planned broader distribution: Later this year, Talos intends to extend dealer software so brokers and other platforms can offer Kalshi contracts where permitted.
Standardized prediction market data in the works: Talos plans a unified data feed to normalize events, order books, open interest and implied probabilities across venues.
Why Talos is pulling Kalshi into its institutional stack
For professional traders and market participants, friction between trading venues can be just as important as liquidity itself. By embedding Kalshi access inside Talos’ existing crypto trading infrastructure, the company is effectively reducing operational overhead for firms that already run execution, risk and connectivity through Talos for digital assets.
Talos’ stated approach focuses on execution capabilities: algorithmic order types and multi-leg handling for both crypto perpetual pairs and combinations of perpetuals and spot. For market makers and hedge funds, those features matter because spreads and execution quality can drive outcomes as much as the underlying market.
In addition, Talos’ plan to route block trades in Kalshi contracts through its RFQ platform gives institutions another mechanism for size execution, potentially improving how large orders are filled in less transparent trading environments—though actual availability and terms depend on the participating liquidity providers.
Distribution upgrades planned: from dealer software to a unified data feed
Talos says that later this year it will extend its dealer software to brokers and other trading platforms. If markets and jurisdictions allow, that would enable intermediaries to offer Kalshi event contracts directly to their customers while keeping the same execution framework they already use for crypto assets.
The company also outlined a separate effort: a unified prediction market data feed designed to standardize key market elements—events, trades, order books, open interest and implied probabilities—across venues. In practice, a normalized feed can help firms compare markets more easily and build consistent analytics, especially when prediction market venues differ in how they structure contracts or present pricing data.
Both initiatives point toward a broader strategy: not just connecting one operator to one platform, but making prediction market infrastructure easier to integrate into professional trading ecosystems.
Prediction markets surge as institutions begin to take a larger role
The Talos-Kalshi integration lands during a period of rapidly expanding prediction market activity. CoinGecko’s 2026 Q2 crypto report, cited in the coverage, shows that total notional trading volume on prediction markets reached $113.8 billion in the second quarter, up 48.7% quarter-over-quarter. The report also notes that June alone hit $52.8 billion in notional volume, which it described as a new monthly record.
CoinGecko attributed the spike to a heavy sports calendar, including major global events such as the UEFA Champions League final, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup, FIFA World Cup and Wimbledon. It also highlighted that sports-related contracts dominated activity: on Polymarket, sports accounted for 81% of June trading volume, compared with 40% in January.
Market share data presented alongside the growth reinforces Kalshi’s momentum. According to the same CoinGecko report, Kalshi increased its share to 58.9% from 42.4% in the first quarter, while Polymarket’s share declined to 30.2% from 35.8%. The venture backed by Robinhood and Susquehanna International Group-backed interests—Rothera—ranked fourth by June, with $2.1 billion in notional trading volume after launching in May.
Growth continues, but legal and market-integrity risks remain
Even with rising activity, prediction markets are still contending with uncertainty in the United States and heightened attention from regulators and market participants. Coverage notes that Kalshi is involved in disputes with state regulators regarding whether its sports event contracts could be considered illegal gambling—an issue observers expect could eventually reach the US Supreme Court, according to earlier reporting on Cointelegraph.
Beyond the regulatory backdrop, scrutiny has also focused on market integrity. The coverage references earlier reporting that six Polymarket traders reportedly profited by about $1 million from bets on US military strikes against Iran before the attacks became public. Separately, it mentions that a White House teleprompter operator was placed on unpaid leave after allegedly betting more than $100,000 on Kalshi markets tied to President Donald Trump’s speeches.
For investors and trading firms watching the segment, these developments underscore a core tension: prediction markets are drawing more mainstream participation and institutional attention, but the credibility and long-term expansion of the space depend heavily on how law and enforcement address both the product classification question and allegations of information misuse.
As Talos expands access and moves toward standardized prediction market data, market observers will likely focus on two things: whether distribution through brokers broadens participation without running into additional compliance complexity, and how ongoing legal outcomes and integrity enforcement shape institutional willingness to scale exposure in the months ahead.
This article was originally published as Talos Integrates Institutional Trading Tools into Kalshi Markets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.