Crypto Breaking

Trezor has warned that a third-party security breach enabled phishing emails to be sent out from the hardware wallet provider’s official domain.
The breach comes soon after a security incident at ShipMonk compromised the personal information of Trezor users.
Trezor Warns Of Third-Party Breach
Trezor issued a warning in an official X post, informing users that the email “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability” was a phishing attempt and urged them to avoid clicking any links.
“Please be aware that the email named ‘Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability’ is not coming from us, and it’s a phishing attempt. Do not click on any link.”
The compromised domain has since been taken down, and Trezor has launched a full investigation into the breach and how hackers used the company’s official domain to send phishing emails. Marcello Paz, a crypto commentator, said he received the phishing email in question and shared screenshots asking customers to update their hardware wallets due to a “critical vulnerability.” Unlike typical phishing emails, the email’s credentials showed official domain names and signatures.
“Hello @trezor, I received a “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability” email today (9 Sep 2026). Gmail shows From: Trezor Security <help@trezor.io>, Return-Path: noreply@mailing.trezor.io, Sendinblue campaign, DKIM/SPF/DMARC pass for trezor.io. Body claims a factory STM32 RNG defect (~1 in 4 devices), ~40-bit seeds, and a “check if you’re affected” link via r.mailing.trezor.io plus xPub verification. This matches the entropy-phishing wave, not any official advisory.”
Similar Attempt On BitBox
BitBox, a Swiss Bitcoin hardware wallet maker, reported a similar phishing attempt. The company shared a similar email on its official X account, warning users it was a phishing attempt and urged them to be cautious.
“There is currently a phishing email going around that’s pretending to come from us. Please do not follow the instructions in the email! We are currently investigating.”
Previous Security Incidents
Last month, Trezor’s shipping provider ShipMonk was hit by a major security breach that exposed personal information linked to its customers. Trezor initially disclosed that personal information, including names, cities, and email addresses of 13,700 users, was compromised. However, it said another 67,000 US-based users were affected by the breach.
Hardware wallets have been hit by several security vulnerabilities and breaches recently. Ledger’s security team disclosed a major vulnerability in Trezor Safe 7’s TROPIC01 chip, demonstrating how a lab-based laser attack bypassed its firmware verification system. Ledger suffered a major security breach in 2020 that exposed the personal information of over 270,000 customers, including names, email addresses, phone numbers, and even home addresses. The details were published on a dark web forum, with impacted customers receiving scam calls and physical letters even years later.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as Trezor Issues Security Warning After Third-Party Security Breach on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A revised version of the U.S. Senate’s CLARITY Act would steer regulators toward deciding when certain entities that influence “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” must follow securities, commodities, and anti-money laundering (AML) rules. The updated text, posted by Senator Cynthia Lummis, is designed to clarify how oversight would apply to protocol controllers without treating the underlying software as a regulated party on its own.
The proposal arrives ahead of a procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15. Because the bill needs 60 votes to move forward, Republicans are expected to require Democratic support—despite lingering disagreement over ethics provisions, AML protections, and elements tied to stablecoin rewards.
Key takeaways
The revised CLARITY Act defines “non-decentralized finance trading protocols” based on whether a person or coordinated group can materially change protocol functionality, rules, or user access.
Regulators would issue activity-based requirements: the SEC and CFTC would cover registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping, and supervision, while the Treasury would address how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations apply.
The bill explicitly states that software and distributed ledger systems would not need to register in their own capacity.
Participation in an incident-response or security council alone would not automatically establish “control” over a protocol.
The measure faces procedural headwinds, requiring 60 votes to advance and setting up a fast decision window before any broader legislative momentum is lost.
What the revised CLARITY Act would change
According to the revised text posted on Senator Cynthia Lummis’ website (see posted document), the central policy move is a regulator-facing determination: identifying whether those who control certain types of trading protocols—specifically those that are not fully decentralized—should be treated as regulated actors.
The proposal’s definition is not limited to whether a protocol has governance or administrative features. Instead, it focuses on control signals that regulators could evaluate, including whether a person or coordinated group can:
materially alter the protocol’s functionality, operation, or rules;
restrict users; or
operate a system where transactions are not governed solely by transparent, pre-established code.
This framing matters because it shifts the compliance question from abstract decentralization claims to measurable governance and operational power. For investors and users, the likely effect is more predictable enforcement boundaries: entities exerting meaningful influence over how protocol-based trading works would fall within a more conventional regulatory structure, while purely automated code paths would be treated differently.
How enforcement would be split across regulators
Under the bill, the SEC and CFTC would develop rules tied to specific kinds of regulated activity. The text calls for activity-based requirements spanning “registration, conduct, disclosure, recordkeeping and supervision.” In parallel, the Treasury would define how existing Bank Secrecy Act obligations apply to covered “controllers.”
That division is significant for market participants because it suggests the CLARITY Act is attempting to map responsibilities to existing U.S. agencies rather than create an entirely new regulatory body. For firms operating across spot trading, derivatives, or cross-border custody and compliance stacks, agency-by-agency guidance will likely be as consequential as the bill’s core definition.
The proposal also includes clarifications meant to reduce overreach. It states that software and distributed ledger systems would not be required to register “in their own capacity.” It further specifies that participating in an incident-response or security council would not, by itself, establish control over a protocol.
These details could be particularly important for developers, security teams, and operational incident coordinators, who otherwise might be concerned that routine cybersecurity and oversight activities could be construed as governance control.
Industry reaction: support for a framework, but ethics questions remain
Crypto Council for Innovation CEO Ji Hun Kim said the upcoming vote represents a pivotal moment for digital assets and U.S. leadership. In a statement shared with Cointelegraph, Kim argued the U.S. needs a framework that balances consumer protections with clear standards for business conduct.
Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, speaking to CNBC, said the CLARITY Act was “ready to get a yes vote.” Armstrong said the “must-have issues” Coinbase previously raised have been resolved, while negotiations over ethics restrictions were still underway and appeared close to a solution. He did not specify which provisions had changed.
Even with that optimism, Cointelegraph previously reported that the ethics section has been one of the main negotiation sticking points. The newly released text appears to preserve that section largely unchanged from an earlier version, leaving open whether the ethics dispute has truly moved from disagreement to compromise.
Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego had earlier warned against rushing ahead before lawmakers resolved issues tied to ethics and stablecoin yield, arguing that a quick vote might not produce the right result. That context helps explain why—despite broad industry interest in a clearer regulatory path—the bill may still be hard to advance without additional support.
Procedural math and what happens if the bill stalls
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that the CLARITY Act requires 60 votes to advance. With the procedural Senate vote scheduled for Sept. 15, the updated bill must clear a high threshold—meaning Republicans will still need votes from Democrats despite ongoing disagreement.
Armstrong suggested that if the legislation does not move forward, regulators could pursue alternative paths using existing authority—such as rulemaking and innovation exemptions involving the SEC and CFTC. For market participants, that matters because it frames the choice not only as “bill versus no bill,” but as “clear statutory framework versus incremental regulatory action.”
In practical terms, firms planning compliance roadmaps may be forced to decide whether to treat the CLARITY Act as an achievable near-term signal—or as a politically stalled project that could be overtaken by agency initiatives. Either way, the bill’s definitions and regulator split would likely still influence how companies describe decentralization, governance participation, and operational control, even if the statute itself fails to advance.
Readers should watch closely for whether negotiators can resolve the remaining ethics-related disagreement by the procedural vote—and, if the bill fails to clear that threshold, what specific SEC and CFTC rulemaking efforts or exemption approaches regulators choose next.
This article was originally published as Revised CLARITY Act Moves to Regulate “Non-Decentralized” DeFi Operators on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A flaw in Brevo’s email login setup allowed an attacker to access client accounts and launch phishing campaigns that targeted subscribers of multiple crypto companies, including Trezor. Brevo’s post-incident write-up says 138 client accounts were involved, with phishing messages sent through infrastructure connected to hardware wallet maker BitBox and crypto portfolio tracking and tax-reporting platform CoinTracking.
The incident matters for users because it highlights how widely used marketing and notification providers can become a bridge for account-based compromise—one that can bypass typical email authentication safeguards and reach audiences that expect legitimate updates.
Key takeaways
Brevo said an attacker used a login-system issue to gain access to 138 client accounts and send phishing emails from six of them.
Trezor reported that the initial phishing email was sent to roughly 347,000 newsletter customers, and it disabled the malicious domain within about 20 minutes.
Trezor, BitBox, and CoinTracking share the same email provider for newsletters, which enabled the attacker to pivot across multiple crypto audiences.
Brevo said an intended authorization boundary failed, allowing access beyond the organization where invited Brevo users belonged.
Crypto firms are treating their affected newsletter lists as potentially exposed and possibly reusable for further phishing attempts until more details emerge.
Brevo’s incident report: authorization boundary failure
In a Thursday postmortem, Brevo described how the attacker exploited a vulnerability in its login system to reach other organizations. Brevo said six accounts were used to send phishing emails. It also reported that contacts were exported from 43 accounts, while 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity. The company did not clarify whether those categories overlapped.
According to Brevo’s write-up, the attacker created a Brevo account, enabled single sign-on, and invited legitimate Brevo users into the configuration. Brevo said access should have been confined to a single organization, but the authorization boundary failed—granting the attacker access to every organization the invited users could reach.
Brevo also published its incident details through its status page, including the write-up referenced by affected companies.
Why crypto newsletters looked legitimate
The scope of the phishing effort expanded on earlier warnings from Trezor and BitBox, which had flagged that their shared email provider could be used to deliver convincing messages. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted how the attack was able to pass normal authentication checks and appear genuine to recipients.
That combination—credible branding plus delivery through a familiar provider—makes these campaigns especially dangerous. Users are more likely to trust emails that match the expected tone and format of official newsletters, even when the link or call-to-action is malicious.
Trezor: app request tied to wallet backups
In a separate blog post, Trezor detailed what it said the phishing message contained. The email, titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability,” included a link to an app that asked users for their wallet backups.
Trezor said it disabled the domain at the DNS level within 20 minutes. Even so, it reported that roughly 2,500 people accessed the link before the takedown.
A Trezor spokesperson told Cointelegraph that the initial email was sent to 347,000 customers and that all of those newsletter subscribers were later contacted about the risk. The company said its Brevo account stored only opt-in newsletter email addresses and no other customer data.
Until additional information is provided by Brevo, the spokesperson added that Trezor is treating the roughly 347,000 newsletter addresses as known to the attacker and possibly reusable for future phishing.
BitBox and CoinTracking: lists potentially exposed
BitBox said its unauthorized email was sent through Brevo and appeared to reach its full newsletter and tutorial list. In comments relayed to Cointelegraph, a BitBox spokesperson said the Brevo account stored only email addresses and language preferences.
BitBox reported that it found no evidence of compromised company credentials, did not observe downloads of contacts beyond what would be expected in normal operations, and saw no signs of lost funds or disclosure of recovery phrases. However, it said it is treating the newsletter list as potentially accessed while it awaits Brevo’s logs.
CoinTracking, meanwhile, said its Brevo account distributed an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible.” CoinTracking told recipients not to follow the email’s links.
Taken together, these responses underscore a common pattern: even when companies confirm that no funds were taken and no secret keys or recovery phrases were released, the exposure of email addresses and the ability to reach subscribers can still provide a platform for repeated social engineering.
What to watch next: breach scope and future targeting
Brevo’s report indicates that the attack relied on a failure in access controls tied to single sign-on invitations, but the company’s account-by-account impact remains partially detailed. Readers should watch for additional confirmation of which customer lists were actually exported or contacted, and whether attackers can reuse the exposed addresses for follow-on campaigns.
This article was originally published as Brevo Login Flaw Used to Phish 347K Trezor Users on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Brevo, an email delivery platform used across the crypto industry, disclosed that an attacker leveraged a login-system weakness to gain access to multiple client accounts. The incident allowed phishing messages to be sent to a combined audience of roughly 347,000 Trezor newsletter subscribers, with additional campaigns also reaching audiences tied to BitBox and CoinTracking.
In a Thursday postmortem, Brevo said the attacker used six accounts to send phishing emails. It also reported that contacts were exported from 43 accounts, while 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity—though Brevo did not clarify whether those categories overlap. Brevo added that the access-control boundary that should have limited the attacker’s reach to a single organization failed.
Key takeaways
Brevo reported that an authorization boundary failed after an attacker configured an account with single sign-on and invited real users into the setup.
At least six Brevo accounts were used to send phishing emails.
Trezor says the initial phishing email was sent to about 347,000 newsletter customers, and it is treating those addresses as potentially exposed.
BitBox and CoinTracking also confirmed unauthorized newsletter activity routed through Brevo, though they reported no evidence of lost funds or exposed recovery phrases.
How Brevo’s login flaw enabled cross-account access
Brevo’s postmortem describes a pathway in which an attacker created a Brevo account, turned on single sign-on, and then invited legitimate Brevo users into the configuration. Brevo said the design should have confined access to the organization associated with the configuration, but the authorization boundary did not hold.
As a result, the attacker was able to reach every organization the invited users could access. Brevo’s write-up links the exposure directly to this breakdown in access controls, rather than to a breach of the affected organizations’ own systems.
The incident surfaced publicly after warnings from Trezor and BitBox earlier in the week, which pointed to their shared email provider and explained why the fraudulent emails appeared credible and passed ordinary authentication checks.
Phishing mechanics: what recipients were asked to do
Trezor said the phishing email—titled “Critical Security Alert: STM32 Entropy Vulnerability”—included a link to an app designed to solicit wallet backups. According to Trezor, the company disabled the domain at the DNS level within about 20 minutes. Even with the rapid takedown, Trezor reported that about 2,500 people accessed the link before it was blocked.
Trezor also emphasized the broader risk to its subscriber list. In comments provided to Cointelegraph, a Trezor spokesperson said the initial email was sent to 347,000 customers, and that all recipients were subsequently contacted about the danger.
The spokesperson added: “Until we hear more from Brevo, we are treating all roughly 347,000 newsletter addresses as known to the attacker and possibly reusable for phishing.” Trezor further stated that its Brevo account stored only opt-in newsletter email addresses and no other customer data.
Hardware wallet and crypto services respond: exposure without confirmed credential theft
BitBox told Cointelegraph that its unauthorized email was delivered through Brevo and appeared to reach its full newsletter and tutorial audience.
In its response, BitBox said Brevo held only email addresses and language preferences for it. BitBox reported no evidence of compromised company credentials, no indication that attackers downloaded data beyond the newsletter contacts, and no signs of funds being stolen or recovery phrases disclosed. Still, it said it is treating the list as potentially accessed while awaiting Brevo’s logs.
CoinTracking, meanwhile, reported separate phishing activity. The company said its Brevo account distributed an email titled “Data Breach Notice: Please refresh API Keys as soon as possible.” CoinTracking warned recipients not to click the links in the message, indicating that the main threat was credential-related phishing rather than immediate compromise of underlying systems.
Together, the responses underline a common pattern in third-party email incidents: the most immediate harm may be messaging-based, but the bigger operational concern is whether contact lists can be reused for follow-on attacks.
What Brevo disclosed—and what remains unclear
Brevo’s incident report focuses on the account-access path, but some details remain ambiguous for downstream victims. Brevo said contact exports occurred across 43 accounts and that 93 accounts showed no meaningful activity, without specifying whether those numbers overlap or how many organizations were fully affected end-to-end.
Brevo also did not provide, in the disclosed summary, a precise mapping from the six sending accounts to the different affected crypto companies’ audiences. Cointelegraph attempted to request additional information from Brevo but received no response before publication.
For investors, traders, and builders, the relevance extends beyond the immediate phishing harm: reputable crypto firms rely on email service providers to communicate security alerts, product updates, and documentation. When those communications channels can be abused—especially when phishing content looks authentic—users may face repeated attempts that target them again using addresses already in the attacker’s possession.
Going forward, recipients of such newsletters should be cautious about any unexpected security prompts, verify warnings through official channels, and avoid entering sensitive data into links from unsolicited messages. The core uncertainty now is how thoroughly Brevo’s investigation identifies which organizations’ contacts were exported versus merely accessed, and whether the attacker obtained broader metadata that could support additional phishing campaigns.
Crypto firms and their customers should watch for follow-on updates from Brevo’s incident findings—particularly any clarification on which accounts were used for exports and whether any categories of access overlap—while continuing to educate users to treat “urgent security alerts” sent via newsletter channels as untrusted until verified independently.
This article was originally published as Brevo Login Flaw Linked to Phishing Attacks on 347K Trezor Users on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A coalition of European market infrastructure and tokenization groups is urging EU lawmakers to rethink a proposed cap on tokenized financial instruments, arguing that the current ceiling is too low for Europe to scale blockchain-based trading and settlement.
In a draft letter dated Sept. 7 and addressed to EU Council members and the European Parliament’s Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, the signatories ask that a proposed limit of 100 billion euros be either removed or lifted to at least 500 billion euros if lawmakers decide to keep any cap at all.
Key takeaways
A Sept. 7 industry letter calls the EU’s proposed 100 billion euro cap on tokenized financial instruments “insufficient” for scaling.
The coalition proposes 500 billion euros as a baseline threshold if a cap remains.
Signatories argue the EU limit is tied to market value of instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure, which they say makes it small versus global equity markets.
The letter points to differences with the US approach, where it claims tokenization can proceed without comparable volume caps.
The push follows earlier EU industry campaigns in February and April aimed at expanding the DLT Pilot Regime’s scope and thresholds.
Why the coalition is targeting the 100 billion euro threshold
The letter—available via industry site ADAN—states that some existing European tokenized-finance initiatives already reach a scale of roughly 350 billion euros and are planning further growth. Against that backdrop, the coalition says the European Commission’s proposed 100 billion euro ceiling would constrain development during a period when tokenized markets are still trying to find liquidity, operational scale, and investor reach.
Rather than focusing on trading activity, the letter highlights that the regime’s thresholds are applied to the market value of financial instruments admitted to DLT infrastructure. The groups argue that, in practice, this design makes the proposed 100 billion euro figure look relatively small when compared with the size of global equity markets.
Among the signatories are Nasdaq, Boerse Stuttgart Group, Securitize, the European Ethereum Institute, and Axiology. The groups frame the request as a practical issue for regulated tokenization, not a theoretical policy debate about whether digital securities should exist.
Reference points: Europe’s DLT Pilot Regime vs. US tokenization capacity
One of the letter’s central comparisons is with the United States. The signatories claim that in the US, “a dominant settlement platform is enabled to tokenise US equities and other assets without volume caps,” adding that such a structure could support tokenization exposure on the order of 150 trillion euros in assets.
While the EU coalition’s statement is written as an argument for policy adjustment, it is also a signal about where scaling pressure is heading. If European rules impose tighter quantitative limits than US arrangements, tokenized issuance, settlement, or liquidity development may be more attractive elsewhere—especially for institutions that want to operate across jurisdictions using consistent infrastructures.
The coalition also notes that the EU Commission’s broader revision effort is part of its Market Integration and Supervision Package. That package includes changes to the Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) Pilot Regime—an EU framework designed to let regulated firms test blockchain-based trading and settlement under exemptions from certain financial rules.
What the EU regime currently allows—and what’s proposed
The DLT Pilot Regime, according to ESMA, took effect in 2023. It enables financial firms to trial blockchain settlement for assets including stocks and bonds under specific conditions, with regulatory exemptions meant to reduce friction while authorities observe how onchain systems perform.
Under the Commission proposal referenced in the industry letter, the regime’s current 6 billion euro limit could rise to as much as 100 billion euros. The coalition argues that any meaningful scaling step should correspond better to market reality—especially if the limit is assessed based on admitted instrument market value rather than transaction volume.
In its Sept. 7 draft letter, the industry group suggests that lawmakers should adopt 500 billion euros as an interim “baseline” threshold if they retain a cap at all. The request effectively pushes for a step-change in the headroom available for tokenized financial instruments rather than a modest increase.
The pressure campaign: from February warnings to April and now September
This Sept. 7 intervention follows earlier public pushes from the same broad ecosystem of tokenization and market infrastructure firms.
In February, tokenization and market infrastructure companies—including Securitize, 21X, and Boerse Stuttgart—warned that existing asset limits, volume caps, and time-limited licenses were preventing regulated onchain markets from scaling within Europe. That earlier warning also argued that, without policy changes, liquidity could migrate to US markets as regulators there move toward larger-scale tokenization and onchain settlement.
In April, the effort broadened to include 39 financial firms and industry groups. That campaign, which included Nasdaq and Boerse Stuttgart, urged EU policymakers to fast-track changes to the DLT Pilot Regime and raise its overall limit to between 100 billion euros and 150 billion euros. The April letter also asked for broader asset eligibility and for removing time limits on licenses issued under the regime.
By Sept. 7, the coalition’s requested threshold has moved higher—shifting from an upper band of 100–150 billion euros previously to a minimum baseline of 500 billion euros, or no cap at all.
The underlying context for these arguments is that distributed real-world assets (RWA) are growing but remain concentrated in a limited set of categories. A frequently cited industry metric, RWA.xyz, places the total value of distributed RWA at about $39.15 billion (excluding stablecoins), with US Treasury debt described as the largest category at roughly $15.8 billion.
What to watch next
Lawmakers now have competing inputs: the Commission’s proposed 100 billion euro ceiling inside the Market Integration and Supervision Package, and the industry coalition’s demand for either removal of the cap or a substantial increase to at least 500 billion euros. The next key question for market participants is whether EU regulators will treat capacity limits as a temporary pilot constraint—or as a scaling throttle—and how that choice affects where liquidity and tokenized issuance concentrate as the DLT Pilot Regime evolves.
This article was originally published as EU Finance Groups Urge Removal of Cap on Tokenized Securities on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Liquid Network has restarted block production after a major Bitcoin withdrawal from its federation wallet, but it is still operating in a limited recovery mode. According to a Thursday update posted on X by Liquid_BTC, the network resumed producing blocks “without transactions” while teams monitor the system for “full stabilization.”
Peg operations—including peg-outs authorized via PAK—remain suspended as Liquid works to restore its BTC/L-BTC reserve. The restart comes after emergency software changes to Elements, the open-source platform that underpins Liquid.
Key takeaways
Liquid resumed block production, but transaction processing and peg-outs are still paused during recovery.
Liquid says functionary and bridge node updates have been deployed, with functionary nodes now signing and validating blocks.
Peg operations remain halted until the network can rebuild its BTC/L-BTC reserve.
The incident was tied to a vulnerability involving proof verification cache handling in Elements, addressed by an emergency update.
Block production returns—transactions stay paused
Liquid’s latest status update emphasizes caution. In the X post, Liquid states that block production has resumed as a precautionary measure, but “without transactions.” The network is being monitored to confirm that it has fully stabilized before broader functionality is restored.
Alongside the operational restart, Liquid says required upgrades to critical infrastructure nodes have already been pushed. Functionary nodes are now signing and validating blocks “as intended,” which suggests that core consensus duties are functioning again—even though user-facing activity is still constrained.
For participants, this distinction matters. Restarting block production can help ensure the system remains synchronized and responsive, but pausing transactions and peg operations reduces the risk of further complications while the reserve and related state are repaired.
Elements emergency update addressed a proof-verification cache issue
A day before the block production restart, Liquid issued an emergency update to Elements, the software underlying the network. In an earlier X update from Liquid_BTC, the organization described the fix as a response to a vulnerability involving proof-verification cache handling tied to the incident.
Liquid’s recovery plan includes hardening cache keys used for range proofs as part of the software update. The post states the new release is Elements v23.3.4, designed to strengthen how the system verifies proofs during recovery-related operations.
From an investor and builder standpoint, the key takeaway is that Liquid is not just “restarting”—it is changing the underlying mechanics that were implicated in the exploit pathway. That generally reduces the likelihood of a repeat incident once peg functions and transaction handling return.
What happened to the federation wallet balance
The operational pause was triggered on Sept. 6 after actors described as “white-hat hackers” withdrew approximately 4,000 BTC—valued around $320 million at the time—from Liquid’s federation wallet, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph.
Liquid previously indicated that the withdrawal involved L-BTC originating from a bug in Elements. The withdrawing portion represented about 95% of the federation wallet’s balance, which was roughly 4,200 BTC.
Subsequently, Cointelegraph reported that 3,400 BTC—worth about $270 million at the time—was returned after Blockstream confirmed that affected bridge nodes had been patched. Even with the return, 598 BTC—roughly $46 million at current prices—remained outstanding as of Sept. 7.
Liquid’s current emphasis on rebuilding its BTC/L-BTC reserve aligns with that earlier balance reality: peg operations are effectively the bridge between the reserve and minted/burned representations. Until the reserve is restored to safe levels and the system’s node components are verified to be operating correctly, resuming peg-outs would create avoidable settlement and redemption risk.
Why the “no transactions” restart is a meaningful step
The move to resume block production—while still withholding transactions—signals that Liquid believes its recovery controls are working, but that it is not yet comfortable restoring normal user workflows. In practice, it lets the network keep progressing at the protocol level, while limiting the number of moving pieces that could interact with remaining reserve and peg-state uncertainty.
As Liquid continues monitoring, the next practical question for market participants is whether peg operations will resume once reserve restoration is confirmed and node updates have been validated under real operating conditions.
Readers should watch Liquid’s follow-up status updates for any change in peg-out authorization and for confirmation that transaction processing can safely return—especially after the Elements v23.3.4 fix and the earlier bridge-node patching are fully validated against the incident’s root cause.
This article was originally published as Liquid Network Restarts Block Production After $320M Exploit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The UK’s House of Lords has backed a push for a clearer government roadmap on digital assets, approving an amendment to require the Treasury to produce and consult on a formal strategy. The measure passed on Wednesday in a 194–138 vote, despite opposition from the Labour government.
The amendment was inserted during the Report Stage of the Financial Services and Markets Bill as it continues through Parliament. If the change survives further scrutiny in the House of Commons, it would set a timeline for policy work that currently relies largely on the government’s existing approach to digital assets.
Key takeaways
The House of Lords approved an amendment (88) requiring the Treasury to publish and consult on a digital asset strategy within 12 months of the bill becoming law.
The proposed strategy would cover cryptoassets, stablecoins, and tokenized securities, and is meant to address both innovation and consumer protection.
The vote highlights ongoing UK political disagreement over whether current policy is sufficient or whether a statutory, cohesive framework is needed.
The bill still returns to the House of Commons, where MPs can accept, modify, or reject the Lords’ changes.
What the Lords voted for
The amendment in question is Amendment 88, introduced by Conservative peer Baroness Neville-Rolfe. It would oblige the Treasury to prepare a digital asset strategy, publish it, and run a consultation process within 12 months after the Financial Services and Markets Bill becomes law.
According to the amendment’s scope as described in the Parliamentary material, the strategy would extend across multiple parts of the token economy: cryptoassets broadly, stablecoins, and tokenized securities. It is also intended to address practical questions firms face in the real economy—such as access to banking, payment, and settlement services—alongside broader regulatory themes like consumer protection.
That combination matters for market participants because policy clarity can shape everything from product design to compliance planning. A strategy framed not only around token issuance and trading, but also around payment rails and settlement access, points to regulators grappling with how digital assets fit into existing financial infrastructure.
Why the amendment became a flashpoint
The Lords’ vote follows months of discussion in the UK Parliament about how to handle digital assets and whether the government should move beyond its existing framework. In an earlier July debate on the bill, the Treasury’s Minister for Investment, Lord Stockwood, pushed back against calls for a statutory scheme. He said the government believed it already had a digital asset strategy and was executing it.
Labour opposed the amendment, according to the bill debate record and reporting of the vote, arguing it did not sufficiently reflect the pace of development in digital assets and the need for a more unified regulatory structure.
The tension here is essentially about framing and certainty. Supporters of the amendment want a strategy with a defined legal requirement and a clear consultation process. Critics argue the government already has a plan in motion, and that codifying additional requirements could lag behind fast-moving market changes. The result is not just a procedural amendment—it’s a debate about how the UK should balance responsiveness with rule-making clarity.
Industry reaction and the “strategy vs. ecosystem” question
One of the clearer signals from the crypto industry came from the UK Cryptoasset Business Council (UKCBC), which said it worked with lawmakers on the amendment. The group welcomed the Lords’ vote on Thursday, emphasizing a question raised by Lord Chris Holmes: whether the UK is “simply regulating digital assets” or “building a digital assets economy.”
That distinction is more than rhetorical. If policy is perceived as purely compliance-driven, firms may focus on defensive legal positioning. If it is seen as ecosystem-building—covering access to banking and payments, along with consumer protections—participants may be more willing to invest in longer-term product development and institutional partnerships.
The Lords’ amendment explicitly references those operational concerns, which may explain why industry groups viewed the vote as a step toward a broader policy posture rather than a narrow rule update.
Next steps: Commons vote will determine whether it becomes law
The bill has not reached final approval. The Financial Services and Markets Bill must still return to the House of Commons, where MPs may accept the Lords’ changes, amend them further, or reject them altogether.
For investors, traders, and builders, the near-term watch item is whether the Commons chooses to keep the 12-month requirement and the consultation mandate intact. Even if the amendment survives, the content of the eventual strategy—especially how it addresses stablecoins, tokenized securities, and firms’ access to banking and settlement—will likely be the real determinant of how quickly the UK’s regulatory approach becomes operational.
As Parliament moves forward, the key uncertainty remains whether lawmakers align on the level of statutory certainty they want versus the flexibility the government says it already has. The outcome of the Commons vote will reveal how much momentum the Lords’ digital asset strategy push gains—and how soon market participants can expect a more concrete policy roadmap.
This article was originally published as UK House of Lords Supports Mandatory Digital Asset Strategy, Beats Labour on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Europe’s securities regulator is warning that the lines between crypto markets and traditional finance are getting thinner—and that this could make systemic shocks travel farther. In a new risk monitoring report, the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) says the growing linkage between vulnerable crypto-asset markets and the wider financial system deserves closer watch.
ESMA’s report, published Thursday, highlights tokenized equities and ongoing decentralized finance (DeFi) vulnerabilities as key channels through which shocks could spill over. It also flags prediction markets as an emerging concern, citing risks around insider trading, wash trading, and coordinated manipulation—issues that may be harder to detect when crypto is involved.
Key takeaways
ESMA warns that increasing connectivity between crypto and traditional finance could amplify the impact of financial shocks.
Tokenized equities are still small in global terms, but ESMA says they are gaining traction and could change market structure over time.
Recent DeFi exploits are viewed as a factor that may deepen crypto’s links to broader markets.
Prediction markets face heightened regulatory scrutiny, with ESMA concerned that crypto involvement can obscure trading misconduct.
In the US, an ongoing jurisdiction dispute over event contracts could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
ESMA’s systemic-risk warning on crypto–traditional finance links
ESMA’s latest assessment focuses on the “growing linkage” between crypto-asset markets—described as increasingly vulnerable—and the broader financial system. The regulator argues that greater adoption of crypto-adjacent instruments can introduce new pathways for stress to move between sectors, potentially affecting market participants beyond the crypto ecosystem.
The report points to two developments in particular: the spread of tokenized equities and the continued problem of DeFi exploits. ESMA does not suggest tokenization has already reshaped global equities markets, but it emphasizes that momentum matters because infrastructure and participant behavior tend to evolve quickly once adoption takes hold.
Tokenized equities: still small, but becoming more consequential
ESMA says tokenized equities remain negligible compared with global stock markets. Still, it notes that the segment is gaining traction, with the possibility of drawing in new participants and building additional market infrastructure. That combination—more entities connected to more rails—can increase the complexity of market plumbing and raise the risk that problems elsewhere propagate into equity-linked products.
For investors and market operators, the practical takeaway is that “small today” does not necessarily mean “irrelevant tomorrow.” ESMA’s framing implies that regulators are watching early-stage adoption not only for fraud or conduct issues, but for how rapidly the market’s risk surface could change as participation broadens.
DeFi exploits as another spillover channel
Beyond tokenization, ESMA also highlights decentralized finance (DeFi) exploits as another factor that could strengthen the bond between crypto markets and the traditional system. While DeFi largely operates on its own rails, losses from hacks and vulnerabilities can still reverberate through liquidity conditions, counterpart risk, and sentiment—especially as some financial services and investors increasingly interact with crypto venues and products.
ESMA’s risk monitoring approach indicates that the regulator views these events not as isolated incidents but as part of a broader linkage story: shocks that start in crypto can gain traction if they affect liquidity, exposure, or cross-market positioning.
Prediction markets: tougher oversight, harder detection
ESMA also flagged prediction markets as an emerging risk area. The regulator warned of heightened concerns about insider trading and market manipulation. In particular, ESMA said crypto use in prediction markets can make it harder to detect behaviors such as insider trading, wash trading, and coordinated manipulation.
That caution matters because prediction markets are designed to reflect and trade on information about future events. If trading misconduct becomes harder to identify, regulators may face a steeper enforcement challenge—especially where on-chain activity and cross-border trading blur investigative boundaries.
ESMA’s warning arrives as prediction markets continue to face regulatory conflict in the United States. The dispute centers on whether “event contracts” should be treated as federal derivatives or fall under state gambling laws.
US jurisdiction fight over event contracts continues
In the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has issued guidance for prediction markets throughout 2026 while maintaining what it says is exclusive jurisdiction over federally regulated event contracts. The agency has also pursued legal action against multiple states after authorities attempted to apply state gambling laws to prediction market operators.
Earlier coverage noted that the litigation includes efforts involving Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Illinois, and Connecticut. The overall dispute could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court.
According to reporting in the broader US context, New Jersey officials petitioned the Supreme Court on September 2 to determine whether states can enforce sports gambling laws against prediction markets registered with the CFTC. The petition is described as referencing litigation spanning at least 20 states. Whether the Supreme Court will take up the issue remains unclear, but any ruling could reshape which regulatory regime governs event contracts nationwide.
What to watch next for EU and cross-border markets
ESMA’s report suggests regulators are preparing for a world where tokenized instruments, DeFi liquidity flows, and crypto-enabled market platforms could intersect more often. Investors and builders should watch how enforcement and surveillance capabilities evolve—especially around prediction markets—while US jurisdiction developments may further determine how participants design compliant products across borders. The key uncertainty remains the speed at which early crypto adoption turns into mainstream market infrastructure, and how regulators will manage systemic-risk spillovers as that happens.
This article was originally published as ESMA Warns Crypto-Market Linkages May Heighten Risks for TradFi on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Japanese Bitcoin treasury company Metaplanet is facing renewed shareholder criticism after it continued expanding an executive share option pool that automatically grows as new shares are issued to support the company’s Bitcoin accumulation strategy. Multiple investors have raised dilution concerns and are urging the company to rescind the additional shares created under the plan.
Across Asia, the crypto sector also saw a mix of regulatory movement, enforcement actions, and corporate dealmaking—from Singapore granting Gemini a payment license to South Korea laying out a roadmap for tokenized securities and India moving forward with a tokenization test for grain warehouse receipts.
Key takeaways
Metaplanet shareholders are objecting to dilution tied to a 20% fully diluted share executive option pool that expands when new shares are issued for Bitcoin buying.
Singapore’s crypto funding performance strengthened sharply in 2026, with private market data cited as showing 25 rounds totaling $680 million.
Gemini received a Singapore Major Payment Institution (MPI) license from MAS, removing the earlier “in-principle” approval step.
South Korea’s Financial Services Commission introduced a three-phase plan for legally recognizing tokenized securities and eventually enabling stablecoin-linked onchain payments.
US authorities moved to restrain over $52 million in crypto linked to alleged scam marketplace Xinbi Guarantee and related wallets; OFAC also designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization.
Metaplanet executive pool under scrutiny as dilution concerns escalate
Metaplanet’s executive stock pool has again become a flashpoint among shareholders, according to reporting linked by Cointelegraph. The plan in question is the company’s 10th Series executive option pool, structured to represent 20% of fully diluted shares and to expand automatically as Metaplanet issues additional shares to fund its Bitcoin (BTC) accumulation.
According to investor posts referenced in the coverage, some shareholders are asking Metaplanet to cancel an additional 273 million shares created from changes tied to the pool. They are also requesting greater transparency around future decisions, arguing that the mechanism’s built-in growth can materially dilute existing holders.
In response to the backlash, Bitcoin Magazine CEO David Bailey defended the approach, characterizing the allocation of 20% of the cap table over a five-year period as not “crazy.” Still, the disagreement underscores the tension common to treasury-style Bitcoin strategies: while token issuance can fund BTC purchases, investors may view the share mechanics as insufficiently predictable or too aggressive relative to what they believe is warranted for long-term alignment.
Funding momentum in Southeast Asia tilts toward Singapore
In Southeast Asia, investment activity in crypto-related firms accelerated over the past year. A report cited by Cointelegraph states that funding doubled between 2025 and 2026, reaching 25 funding rounds and $680 million in 2026, based on private market data from Tracxn.
While the headline growth is notable, the data cited also suggests concentration risk: the number of rounds fell compared with the previous year (46 funding rounds reported for 2025), implying that more capital is flowing into fewer companies. Singapore, in the same coverage, is described as taking the lead as a regional crypto hub, with 2,285 of 3,957 blockchain companies in the region and 82.5% of all time blockchain equity funding tracked.
For investors and founders, the implication is straightforward: capital availability appears stronger, but competition for funding may be more intense as fewer deals capture larger sums. Builders looking for traction may need to sharpen their differentiation while fund managers may focus on a narrower set of “wins” as funding concentrates.
Singapore and other regulators: licensing upgrades, tokenization roadmaps, and enforcement actions
Singapore added regulatory clarity for crypto services when Gemini received a Major Payment Institution (MPI) license from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), completing a transition that had been underway since the exchange received in-principle approval nearly two years earlier. Cointelegraph’s coverage notes that MPI license holders can provide regulated payment services without the transaction-volume limits that apply to standard payment institutions.
Gemini has served Singapore customers since 2020, with the company describing Singapore as a strategic hub for both retail and institutional clients in its commentary as reported. The development matters because payment licensing often affects how quickly regulated exchanges and wallet providers can scale product features, especially where transaction processing and cross-border settlement capabilities are involved.
Meanwhile, South Korea’s Financial Services Commission introduced a three-phase roadmap to build infrastructure for tokenized securities issuance for assets such as stocks, bonds, and funds. Cointelegraph reports that starting February 4, 2027, tokenized securities will be legally recognized as digitized forms of securities following an update to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds.
The plan is staged: the first phase covers legal recognition for certain tokenized products (including institutional money market funds, bonds, unlisted stocks, and fractional investment securities). Phase two would broaden recognition to all publicly offered securities, while phase three targets onchain payments linked to stablecoins. This sequencing is important for market participants because it indicates where compliance and infrastructure investment may land first—legal status tends to precede broader market rollout.
Related to payments economics, the South Korea National Assembly Budget Office estimates that won-denominated stablecoins could reduce merchant payment fees by between $275 million and $3.8 billion annually, as cited in the same coverage. Whether those savings materialize will likely depend on adoption and competitive dynamics among payment rails.
Enforcement also featured prominently. According to Cointelegraph, US authorities restrained more than $52 million in crypto linked to the alleged scam marketplace Xinbi Guarantee and its vendor network. The US Justice Department said its Scam Center Strike Force seized two wallets used by Xinbi to collect vendor payments containing about $12 million, and sought restraints against 47 additional wallets believed to be connected to money laundering across Xinbi’s network. Separately, OFAC designated Xinbi as a significant transnational criminal organization and sanctioned SafeW Technology (Singapore-based) and Anwen Technology (Cambodia-based) for allegedly providing technological and financial support to Xinbi.
Corporate and cross-border moves: payments, tokenization pilots, and treasury expansion
Several business developments highlighted how crypto is being tested and integrated into traditional finance workflows. Citi plans to offer Japanese companies near-instant international payments using blockchain-based infrastructure, including outside standard banking hours, according to Cointelegraph’s report.
In Singapore, Circle agreed to acquire Tazapay for $400 million, with the company described as having more than 60 bank and fintech partners across 100 markets. The reported strategic logic is to deepen cross-border payments capability, an area where stablecoins and compliant rails often intersect.
In India, Arya.ag is testing a system to tokenize warehouse receipts representing ownership of stored grain on a dedicated Avalanche layer-1 blockchain, according to Cointelegraph. The coverage states Arya.ag is working with Finternet to connect grain deposits, warehouse receipts, collateral commitments, and loan status through the network. Devika Mittal of Ava Labs’ India team said each tokenized receipt would represent ownership of the stored commodity, while the companies did not disclose an expected launch date or the scale of the initial deployment.
Separately, the Indian Financial Intelligence Unit issued non-compliance notices to 15 offshore virtual digital-asset service providers for alleged AML failures and sought takedowns of relevant applications and URLs, accusing them of serving Indian customers without proper controls. And India’s Finance Ministry is expected—per Cointelegraph’s coverage—to appear before a parliamentary panel on September 16, with discussion focusing on taxation and regulation of virtual digital assets.
In Hong Kong, Circle’s USDC jersey sponsorship with Chelsea Football Club created complications, with the issue reportedly linked to the jurisdiction’s stricter approach to unlicensed crypto promotions and local merchant hesitation to sell the jersey. In another corporate treasury item, Hong Kong-listed gaming company Boyaa Interactive purchased an additional 115 Bitcoin, adding to its existing treasury holdings, as cited by Cointelegraph.
As these stories develop, the clearest watchpoints are shareholder governance in Bitcoin-treasury companies, the pace at which Singapore and South Korea turn licensing and tokenization roadmaps into real market products, and enforcement signals that may tighten how global payment providers and tokenized finance rails operate across borders.
This article was originally published as Metaplanet Equity Fallout as SE Asia Crypto Funding Doubles on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Indian agricultural warehousing and lending provider Arya.ag is running tests for a tokenization system that would turn electronic warehouse receipts for stored grain into transferable on-chain tokens. The pilot is built on a dedicated Avalanche layer-1 network and is designed to connect digital records with the real-world lending workflow.
According to Arya.ag and its partners, the approach links grain deposits, warehouse receipts, collateral commitments, and loan status through Finternet’s infrastructure. Devika Mittal, Avalanche’s head of India at Ava Labs, told Cointelegraph that testing is underway and that each tokenized receipt would represent ownership of the stored commodity.
Key takeaways
Arya.ag is testing tokenized warehouse receipts for grain storage on Avalanche’s dedicated layer-1, aiming to strengthen the link between physical collateral and on-chain lending records.
Finternet will combine farmer, commodity, warehouse, and insurance data into a “composite token” intended to help banks evaluate collateral risk.
The pilot focuses on improving shared transparency for lenders—such as whether grain is already pledged and what debt is outstanding—rather than immediately expanding the scale of Arya.ag’s existing loan book.
Verification still depends on accurate confirmation of the underlying physical grain, keeping operational controls central to the model.
The Finternet concept traces back to a 2024 BIS paper calling for unified ledgers for tokenized assets alongside legal and regulatory support.
Tokenizing grain collateral on Avalanche
Arya.ag’s system targets a long-standing bottleneck in commodity-backed lending: lenders need reliable, up-to-date information about what collateral exists, who owns it, and whether it has already been pledged elsewhere. Electronic warehouse receipts can help by enabling financing against stored commodities without requiring immediate sale after harvest. But translating those receipts into shared, verifiable digital records becomes the next hurdle.
In the testing described by Arya.ag and Ava Labs, tokenized warehouse receipts would act as digital representations of ownership in stored grain. Mittal said each receipt token would correspond to the commodity stored in the warehouse network. The intent is for the ledger to function as a shared reference point for lenders, borrowers, and related stakeholders.
Finternet’s role is to bridge more than ownership records. Sanmesh Kalyanpur, a director at Finternet Labs, said Arya.ag’s sampling and verification process collects information about stored grain and feeds it into the company’s portal. Finternet then aggregates multiple types of data—farmer, commodity, warehouse, and insurance—into what Kalyanpur described as a “composite token” that banks can use to assess collateral risk.
How the pilot ties receipts, commitments, and loan status
The announcement frames the system as an end-to-end linkage between deposits, collateral commitments, and lending outcomes. Arya.ag and Finternet say their network connects grain deposits, warehouse receipts, commitments made as collateral, and the evolving status of loans tied to those receipts.
That design matters because collateral risk is not only about existence—it’s also about exclusivity and exposure. A lender needs to know whether the grain behind a particular receipt is already pledged, and whether related debt is already outstanding. The companies said their system is intended to provide lenders with a shared record covering what is stored, who owns it, whether it is already pledged, and what debt remains.
However, the companies also stressed that the system’s effectiveness still depends on accurate verification of the physical commodities represented by the digital records. In practice, that means operational checks and sampling procedures remain crucial. Tokenization can improve the traceability of collateral and the speed of information sharing, but it cannot replace the underlying verification that proves the stored grain exists and matches the receipt’s claims.
Arya.ag reported that it stores about $2 billion in agricultural commodities across its warehouse network and supports roughly 120 billion Indian rupees (about $1.26 billion) in loans annually. Its lending arm, Arya Dhan, issues about $230 million in loans each year. The announcement clarifies that these figures describe Arya.ag’s existing business and do not represent assets or loans already brought on-chain.
Finternet’s deeper architecture and the regulatory question
The Finternet framework behind the pilot is not presented as a purely new idea. The concept traces back to a 2024 paper from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), co-authored by Infosys co-founder Nandan Nilekani and then-BIS General Manager Agustín Carstens. The paper proposed interconnected unified ledgers for tokenized assets, while emphasizing that legal and regulatory frameworks would be required to support such systems.
According to BIS, the model is meant to enable tokenized assets to move through a connected system of records rather than isolated databases. The paper also underscored that technical alignment alone is insufficient; arrangements for legal recognition, operational responsibility, and oversight are central to adoption.
That focus on governance is particularly relevant for collateralized lending, where institutions require clarity on custody, ownership, enforcement, and dispute resolution. In a warehouse receipt context, the “source of truth” cannot be purely software if physical commodity verification is required.
Finternet’s background aligns with wider activity around tokenization on Avalanche. Earlier coverage by Cointelegraph reported that the value of tokenized real-world assets on Avalanche exceeded $1.3 billion at the end of 2025, driven by loans and tokenized money-market funds, illustrating that tokenization is already being used in parts of the on-chain finance stack.
Warehouse-backed lending momentum in India
India has been building momentum around warehouse-backed agricultural financing. The core mechanism—electronic warehouse receipts—allows farmers and businesses to borrow against stored commodities instead of selling immediately after harvest. That can help stabilize income and improve access to capital during seasonal price fluctuations.
The policy environment also matters. In 2024, the Indian government launched a 10 billion-rupee credit-guarantee program aimed at encouraging financing against electronic negotiable warehouse receipts, particularly among small and marginal farmers. This kind of program is designed to reduce risk for lenders, making warehouse receipt financing more accessible.
Arya.ag’s test can be seen as an effort to modernize how those electronic receipts are represented and shared when collateral moves into digital lending workflows. If tokenized receipts and composite collateral records function as intended, banks could gain a more synchronized view of pledged assets and associated exposure.
Still, the companies have not disclosed an expected launch date or the initial deployment’s scale—such as how much grain or lending it would cover—so investors and builders will likely need to monitor the pilot closely to understand performance, verification reliability, and how it integrates with existing lending operations.
For now, the most important question is whether the tokenized receipt model can deliver faster, more reliable collateral assessment without weakening controls over physical verification and pledge status; the next public updates from Arya.ag, Finternet, and Ava Labs will likely determine whether this remains a technical test or evolves into a productized pathway for warehouse-backed lending.
This article was originally published as Arya.ag to Store Grain Ownership Records on Avalanche in India on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s near-term sell pressure has eased sharply, with onchain data pointing to a “low sell-side risk” environment as August profit-taking fades into September. Glassnode’s latest weekly onchain report shows Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio has fallen to 7—down from 16 in September—an improvement that can matter for traders who watch realized profits as a trigger for faster, more emotional selling.
The same Glassnode update also highlights how long-term holders are realizing profits more selectively, while US spot Bitcoin ETF investors remain deeply underwater on an aggregate basis relative to their breakeven level near $86,000.
Key takeaways
Glassnode reports Bitcoin’s sell-side risk ratio reset lower, dropping to 7—among the lowest readings recorded.
Lower selling pressure coincides with Bitcoin holding most of its roughly 25% August gains.
Long-term holders’ share of realized profit fell to 47% from 88% at the August peak.
US spot Bitcoin ETF investors have spent 229 sessions below the aggregate breakeven point near $86,000, with paper losses around $3.9 billion.
Why the sell-side risk ratio matters
Glassnode frames its sell-side risk ratio (SSRR) as a measure of “realized” pressure rather than just price movement. The metric takes the total value of onchain realized profits and losses and divides it by Bitcoin’s realized market capitalization. In other words, it aims to capture how much US-dollar value has actually changed hands versus the size of the realized coin base for the period in question.
In the report, Glassnode says lower SSRR values typically align with conditions such as “macro market bottoms, accumulation phases and relatively low sell-side risk environments.” That interpretation is particularly relevant for markets that have recently rallied, because periods of heavy realized profit can increase the likelihood that holders decide to lock gains if price momentum stalls.
September cooling after August’s rebound
Glassnode ties the SSRR decline to a post-rebound shift in realized behavior. The company noted that SSRR reached 16 when Bitcoin surged to multimonth highs above $80,000 in late August. As of this week, the ratio has more than halved to 7, which Glassnode characterizes as one of the lowest readings on record.
The onchain analytics platform argues that the August price rebound “drawn little supply,” referring to an absence of meaningful supply emergence in onchain activity. Glassnode also contextualizes how unusual this is versus other periods: it pointed out that similar “supply draw” conditions were not observed in the same way at later points in the year, and that only a small share of days across the past year have posted readings lower than today.
That matters because a low SSRR environment can reduce the probability that even a relatively modest pullback immediately triggers aggressive selling. It doesn’t eliminate downside risk—price can still move on macro factors or liquidity—but it can change the balance between who is likely to sell and how much profit exists to be realized.
Profit-taking shifts: long-term holders selling less
Beyond aggregate sell pressure, Glassnode also focused on who is realizing profits onchain. The report defines long-term holders as wallet entities that hold a UTXO without spending it for at least six months. According to Glassnode, these holders are realizing profits at a lower rate this month.
Specifically, Glassnode says long-term holders’ share of realized profit has fallen to 47% from 88% at the August peak. It also notes that September’s realized profit spike on September 3, 2026 was under half the size of August’s. The combined message is that the “profit who sells” dynamic appears to be shifting away from the most patient holders.
“The sellers this month are recent buyers, and even they are selling less.”
For investors, that distinction can be meaningful: recent entrants are often more sensitive to near-term price changes, while long-term holders typically respond differently. If the selling impulse is increasingly concentrated among newer holders—and even they are moderating—it can help explain why SSRR is trending down even after a strong month.
ETF breakevens remain a key reference point
Even with improving sell-side risk, the report underscores that ETF positioning is still a notable overhang. Glassnode says US spot Bitcoin ETF investors would return to aggregate profit at roughly $86,000. According to the report, Bitcoin has closed below that level for the past 229 sessions, and ETF investors’ paper losses are currently around $3.9 billion.
This doesn’t necessarily mean ETF holders are selling aggressively—paper losses can persist through drawdowns when investors maintain exposure through continued inflows or hold through volatility. But from a behavioral perspective, breakeven levels often become a psychological and institutional reference point. If prices revisit $86,000, ETF investors may face pressure to reassess risk, while the opposite scenario (further declines) could intensify the temptation to reduce exposure.
The SSRR decline may therefore help temper fears that a correction automatically forces a cascade of realized selling. At the same time, ETF breakeven dynamics serve as a reminder that a large cohort is still sitting on losses, and that sentiment could change quickly if price action approaches or moves away from that threshold.
Readers should watch whether SSRR stays near these low levels as Bitcoin’s price continues to trade relative to the $80,000 area and whether ETF performance moves ETF investors closer to—or further from—aggregate breakeven near $86,000. The key question is whether September’s “lower sell-side risk” environment persists as realized profit levels evolve.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s sell-side pressure slips to rare lows as $80K sellers exit on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

යුරෝපයේ ප්‍රධාන ආයෝජන වටිනාකම් නියාමන අධිකාරියක් (securities regulator) ක්‍රිප්ටෝ වෙළඳපල හා සාම්ප්‍රදායික මූල්‍ය අතර වැඩිවෙමින් පවතින සම්බන්ධතාවයට අදාළව එය සමීපව නිරීක්ෂණය කිරීමට හදිසි ඉල්ලීමක් කරයි. ඩිජිටල් වත්කම් පරිසර පද්ධතියේ දුර්වලතා පුළුල් මූල්‍ය පද්ධති කම්පනවලට දායක විය හැකි බවට අනතුරු අඟවයි.
බදාදා ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කළ අවදානම් නිරීක්ෂණ වාර්තාවක දී යුරෝපීය ආයෝජන වටිනාකම් සහ වෙළඳපල අධිකාරිය (ESMA) “තව තවත් අවදානමට ලක්වෙමින් පවතින ක්‍රිප්ටෝ-වත්කම් වෙළඳපල සහ පුළුල් මූල්‍ය පද්ධතිය අතර වර්ධනය වන සම්බන්ධතාවය” බව අවධාරණය කළේය. එය වෙළඳපල ඒකාබද්ධතාවයේ නව ආකාරයන් මෙන්ම ආසාදන අවදානම වැඩි කළ හැකි බව පවසන නිශ්චිත ක්‍රියාකාරකම් දෙසද යොමු කරයි.

பொது பிளாக்செயின் தளங்களில் அரசாணைக் கடன்களை டோக்கனாக்கும் நடவடிக்கை அதிகரித்து வரும் பிரபலத்துடன், XRP கடன் வழக்கைச் சுற்றியுள்ள விவாதம் மேலும் மேலும் பிரபலமடைந்து வருகிறது. ஆனால், தற்போது கிடைக்கும் தரவு பிளாக்செயின் தளங்களில் நடைபெறும் நடைமுறை செயல்பாடுகளையும், அரசுகள் XRP-ஐ பயன்படுத்தக்கூடும் என்ற சாத்தியம் தொடர்பான ஊகங்களையும் பிரிக்கிறது.
RWA.xyz வழங்கிய அளவீடுகளின்படி மற்றும் 2026 ஆகஸ்ட் 20 அன்று நடத்தப்பட்ட ஆய்வின் படி, ஸ்டெல்லர் தளத்தில் டோக்கனாக்கப்பட்ட அமெரிக்க அல்லாத அரசாணைக் கடன் அளவு சுமார் $490 மில்லியன் ஆகும். இந்த குறிப்பிட்ட வகை செயல்பாட்டில் தாம் முன்னணியாளராக மாறிவிட்டதாகவும், அந்த பகுதியில் கூட Ethereum-ஐ விட முந்திச் சென்றதாகவும் Stellar வலியுறுத்துகிறது.

ලේබර් පාලනය යෝජනාවට එරෙහිව ඡන්දය දුන්නද, එක්සත් රාජධානියේ ලෝර්ඩ්ස් මණ්ඩලය රජයට විධිමත් ඩිජිටල් වත්කම් උපාය මාර්ගයක් පිළියෙල කරන ලෙස බල කරන සංශෝධනයකට අනුමැතිය ලබා දී ඇත. මූල්‍ය සේවා සහ වෙළෙඳපොළ පනතේ බදාදා පැවති වාර්තා අවස්ථාවේදී මෙම පියවර 194–138 ලෙස බහුතරයකින් සම්මත විය.
ලෝර්ඩ්ස් මණ්ඩලයේදී පනතට එක් කළ මෙම සංශෝධනය, පනත නීතියක් බවට පත් වූ පසුව මාස 12ක් ඇතුළත භාණ්ඩාගාරය විසින් උපාය මාර්ගයක් සකස් කර, ප්‍රකාශයට පත් කර, ඒ පිළිබඳව උපදේශන පැවැත්වීමට අවශ්‍ය කරයි. එය ක්‍රිප්ටෝ වත්කම්, ස්ථාවර කොයින් (stablecoins), සහ ටෝකනීකෘත සුරැකුම්පත් ආවරණය කිරීමටත්, පාරිභෝගික ආරක්ෂාව සහ සමාගම් බැංකු, ගෙවීම් සහ පියවීම් සේවාවන්ට ප්‍රවේශ විය හැක්කේ කෙසේද යන්න වැනි ප්‍රධාන කරුණු ඇතුළත් කිරීමටත් අදහස් කර ඇත.

Elements හි සම්බන්ධක දාමය බල ගන්වන විවෘත-මූලාශ්‍ර මෘදුකාංගයේ ඇති දුර්වලතාවයකට සම්බන්ධවූ ප්‍රධාන බිට්කොයින් මුදල් ආපසු ගැනීමක් සිදුවීමෙන් පසුව Liquid Network නැවතත් බ්ලොක් නිෂ්පාදනය ආරම්භ කර ඇත. Liquid පවසා ඇත්තේ පද්ධතිය යළි ක්‍රියාත්මක කරන්නේ ප්‍රවේශමෙන්, අදියර අනුව බවයි—නව බ්ලොක් සෑදීම සක්‍රීය කරමින් නමුත් ගනුදෙනු සැකසීම සහ peg ක්‍රියාමාර්ග වසා තබාගෙන; එමෙන්ම එය යළිස්ථාපනය සහ නිරීක්ෂණ කටයුතු කරමින් සිටින අතරතුරයි.
X හි බෙදාගත් බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා යාවත්කාලීනයකදී Liquid විසින් පවසා ඇත්තේ ආරක්ෂිත පියවරක් ලෙස “ගනුදෙනු නොමැතිව” බ්ලොක් නිෂ්පාදනය නැවත ආරම්භ කළ බවයි. අවශ්‍ය යාවත්කාලීන කිරීම් එහි functionary සහ bridge node වෙත යොදා තිබෙන අතර දැන් එය “සම්පූර්ණ ස්ථායීකරණය තහවුරු කර”ගැනීමට නිරීක්ෂණය කරමින් සිටියි.

යුරෝපා මූල්‍ය හා ටෝකනීකරණ සම්බන්ධ පාර්ශ්වකරුවන් යුරෝපා සංගමයේ බෙදාහැරුණු ලෙජර් තාක්ෂණය (DLT) පරීක්ෂණ (Pilot) පාලනය පිළිබඳ වෙනස්කම් සඳහා වන ඔවුන්ගේ තල්ලුව වැඩිකර ඇති අතර, යෝජනා කර ඇති යුරෝ බිලියන 100ක සීමාව වර්ධනය (scaling) නවත්වනු ඇතැයි ඔවුන් අනතුරු අඟවයි. සැප්තැම්බර් 7 දිනැති ලිපියක් මගින් යුරෝපා කවුන්සිලයේ සාමාජිකයන්ට සහ යුරෝපා පාර්ලිමේන්තුවේ ආර්ථික හා මූල්‍ය කටයුතු පිළිබඳ කමිටුවට ලිපිය යොමු කරමින්, නීති සම්පාදකයන්ගෙන් සීමාව සම්පූර්ණයෙන්ම ඉවත් කරන ලෙස හෝ එය පවතින්නේ නම් අවම වශයෙන් යුරෝ බිලියන 500 දක්වා ඉහළ නංවන ලෙස සන්ධානයක් ඉල්ලා සිටියි.
මෙම කණ්ඩායම තර්ක කරන්නේ දැනට පවතින ඇතැම් යුරෝපා ටෝකනීකරණ මුලපිරීම් අදාළව යුරෝ බිලියන 350ක පමණ පරිමාණයකට දැනටමත් ළඟාවී ඇති බවත්, තවදුරටත් පුළුල් කිරීමට සැලසුම් කරමින් සිටින බවත්ය. ඔවුන් තවදුරටත් කියා සිටින්නේ, EU යෝජනා කර ඇති සීමාව ගෝලීය වෙළෙඳපොළවල් පරිමාණනය කරන ආකාරයට නොගැලපෙන බවයි; එය DLT යටිතල පහසුකම් වෙත පිළිගන්නා උපකරණවල වෙළෙඳපොළ වටිනාකම මත පදනම් වන්නේ වෙළෙඳාම (trading) ප්‍රමාණය මත නොවන බැවින් එම සීමාව වැරදිව තීරණය වී ඇතැයි ඔවුන් පෙන්වා දෙයි.

비트코인이 목요일 미국 월가 세션 시작 무렵 77,000달러 아래로 미끄러졌으며, 이는 광범위한 위험 심리의 급격한 반전으로 인해 끌려내려갔다. 신규 미국 인플레이션 데이터와 유가 급등이 금리를 끌어올리면서 매크로 압박이 강화돼, BTC 같은 비이자(무수익) 자산을 보통 지지하는 조건이 더욱 팽팽해졌다.
시장 가격에는 연방준비제도(Fed) 정책에 대한 재차 우려도 반영됐다. 미 30년물 국채 수익률은 5.353%까지 상승했는데, 이는 2007년 6월 이후 최고 수준이며, 재무부가 부채 매입을 강화한 국면의 일환으로 국채 60억 달러를 재매입한 이후에도 이러한 흐름이 이어졌다.

Solana යනු සිල්ලර ටෝකන් අත්හදා බැලීම් සඳහා ප්‍රමුඛ දාමය ලෙස සිය ස්ථානය පවත්වාගෙන යාම පමණක් නොව—නව ටෝකන නිර්මාණය සඳහා අසාමාන්‍ය ලෙස ඉහළ දැක්මක් දැනටමත් දැක ගනිමින් සිටී. බදාදා දිනයේ ජාලය විසින් දෛනික ටෝකන් නිකුතුවේ නව වාර්තාවක් වාර්තා කර තිබුණි: නව Solana Program Library (SPL) ටෝකන 263,000කට වඩා mint කර තිබුණු බව සඳහන් වේ.
2024 වසරේ අගභාගයේ memecoin උත්පාත කාලයේ දක්නට ලැබූ පරිමාණය අභිබවා යන තරම් මෙම පරිමාව දැක්වේ. එදා දෛනික නිකුතුව ආසන්න වශයෙන් 40,000–50,000 පරාසයේ පැවතිණි. නවතම ඉහළ යෑම එය පෙන්වන්නේ meme ගනුදෙනු සහ launchpad ක්‍රියාකාරකම් වේගවත් වුණ විට Solana හි පරිසර පද්ධතිය කොතරම් ඉක්මනින් වෙනස් විය හැකිද යන්නයි.

Fnality සතුව ඇත්තේ එක්සත් රාජධානියේ නියාමනයට යටත් වන ස්ටර්ලින් පේමන්ට් පද්ධතිය පිටුපස ඇති බ්ලොක්චේන් පදනම් වූ ජනපදන සේට්ල්මන්ට් සමාගමය. යුරෝ සහ ඇමරිකානු ඩොලර් පේමන්ට් රේල්ස් වෙත යාමට අත්වැල දමමින්, එය සිය පාලන කටයුතු මෙහෙයවීමට පළපුරුදු මධ්‍යම බැංකු නිලධාරීන් පත්කර ඇත. නව අධීක්ෂණ මණ්ඩල පත්කිරීම් මගින් යුරෝපයේ ගෙවීම් සහ සේට්ල්මන්ට් පරිසර පද්ධතිය සම්බන්ධ කරගනිමින්, ඉතා මෑතම පියවරෙහි ප්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙස බ්‍රිතාන්‍ය බැංකුවේ (Bank of England) හිටපු නියෝජ්‍ය අධිපති Jon Cunliffe Fnality හි UK මණ්ඩලයේ ප්‍රධානියා ලෙස පත්ව ඇත.
බදාදා දිනයේ නිකුත් කළ නිවේදනයක සඳහන් කර තිබුණේ, මීට පෙර Deutsche Bundesbank හි ගෙවීම් සහ සේට්ල්මන්ට් පද්ධති පිළිබඳ අධ්‍යක්ෂ ජනරාල්වරයෙකු වූ Jochen Metzger, Fnality හි යුරෝපීය උපසමාගමේ අධීක්ෂණ මණ්ඩලයට එක්වෙන බවත්, ඔහු එහි සභාපතිවරයා ලෙස කටයුතු කිරීමට අපේක්ෂා කරන බවත්ය. නෙදර්ලන්ත මධ්‍යම බැංකුවේ කලින් උසස් නිලධාරියෙකු වූ Ron Berndsen ද මණ්ඩලයට එක්ව ඇත.

Farside Investors දත්තවලට අනුව, බදාදා දිනයේ එක්සත් ජනපදයේ ලැයිස්තුගත spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) තවත් වාරයක් ආපසු ගැනීම් (redemptions) දැකගත් අතර, මුළු ශුද්ධ පිටතට යෑම් (total net outflows) ඩොලර් මිලියන 120.2ක් විය. මෙය අඟහරුවාදා වූ ඩොලර් මිලියන 46.6ක පිටතට යෑමෙන් පසුව ඇති අතර, නිවාඩු කෙටි කළ සතියේ පළමු සැසි දෙක තුළ withdrawals ප්‍රමාණය ඩොලර් මිලියන 166.8 දක්වා ගෙන ආවේය.
මෙම පහළ යෑම බොහෝ දුරට ARK 21Shares හි Bitcoin ETF (ARKB) වෙතින් ආවාය—එය බදාදා withdrawals මෙහෙයවමින් ඩොලර් මිලියන 78ක් විය. Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust ETF (GBTC) ඩොලර් මිලියන 27.2ක ශුද්ධ පිටතට යෑම් සමඟ අනුගමනය කළ අතර, BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) ඩොලර් මිලියන 19.5ක withdrawals වාර්තා කළේය. දිනෙක inflows වාර්තා කළ එකම Bitcoin ETF එක Morgan Stanley’s Bitcoin Trust (MSBT) වූ අතර, එය ඩොලර් මිලියන 4.5ක් එකතු කළේය.