Crypto Breaking

Tokenized stock products are gaining traction as interest spreads beyond the first wave of private-market hype. Data from RWA.xyz shows the number of tokenized stock holders has surged to 1.31 million—more than doubling over the past month.
The activity metrics are moving with the same momentum. Monthly transfer volume climbed nearly 180% to $23.13 billion, while monthly active addresses rose 34.62% to roughly 572,000. Across the market, the total distributed value of tokenized stocks increased 5.9% to $2.38 billion, according to RWA.xyz’s tracking.
Key takeaways
Tokenized stock holders hit 1.31 million, up from a month ago, per RWA.xyz.
Monthly transfer volume jumped to $23.13 billion, nearly doubling (+180%).
Total distributed value rose to $2.38 billion, with monthly active addresses approaching 572,000.
Ondo remains the top issuer by distributed value, but Kraken and Binance are close behind.
SpaceX-related tokenized exposure has continued to grow after pre-IPO campaigns were canceled and refunded.
Holder growth accelerates alongside transfer volume
RWA.xyz attributes the rapid expansion to both broader participation and increased on-chain movement. With holders more than doubling to 1.31 million, the market appears to be transitioning from early adoption into a more mainstream user base. This is reflected in transfer volume growth: monthly transfers surged to $23.13 billion, a pace far outstripping the distributed-value increase.
That mismatch—transfer activity rising faster than distributed value—can be consistent with a market that is seeing more frequent rotation among tokenized products, not just long-term accumulation. Meanwhile, monthly active addresses increased to nearly 572,000, indicating that the growth is not limited to a small set of wallets.
For investors and traders, the practical takeaway is that liquidity and participation are likely improving, but it also suggests that demand may be tactical as well as allocative. Watching transfer volume alongside distributed value can help distinguish between “churn” and genuine expansion in underlying demand.
Top issuers hold their positions—Ondo leads
At the time of writing, distributed value is still concentrated among a handful of issuers. RWA.xyz places Ondo at the top with about $872 million in distributed value. Kraken’s xStocks follows with $557.8 million, while Binance’s bStocks sits at $521.8 million.
Binance’s bStocks, launched in June, has been catching up quickly. RWA.xyz reports that bStocks is roughly $36 million behind xStocks in distributed value, despite being a later entrant. The “gap” shrinking is one of the clearest signals in the dataset that competition for tokenized stock mindshare is intensifying.
RWA.xyz also highlights which underlying assets attract the most distribution. The largest individual tokenized holdings by distributed value include Securitize at $145.2 million, Strategy PP Variable xStock at $135.6 million, and Ondo’s tokenized Circle shares at $99.7 million.
Private-market tokenization keeps expanding—despite SpaceX setbacks
The growth in tokenized equities follows a broader push by crypto platforms toward private-market and pre-IPO products earlier this year. Multiple exchanges launched offerings tied to SpaceX ahead of its June 12 public-market debut. Products ranged from tokenized pre-IPO exposure to derivatives-like structures and proxy tokens.
RWA.xyz’s figures suggest the “SpaceX moment” did not fade after the listing. Even though parts of the rollout ran into problems, tokenized SpaceX exposure in distributed value has continued to grow.
Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Binance, Bybit, and Bitget Wallet canceled their tokenized SpaceX IPO campaigns after xStocks failed to secure enough underlying shares to satisfy demand, resulting in refunds for subscribers. Despite that disruption, RWA.xyz reports that tokenized SpaceX exposure via Binance’s bStocks stands at $67.9 million in distributed value since the company’s June 12 listing—ranking seventh among the tokenized assets tracked.
This sequence matters for market credibility. Cancellations and refunds are usually viewed as setbacks, yet the remaining distributed-value growth implies that users were willing to stay in tokenized products once the underlying asset picture became clearer. It also underscores a key distinction: promotional pre-IPO products may be fragile, while ongoing post-listing or continuously available tokenized exposure can sustain demand.
Real-world asset tokenization remains a growth thesis
Tokenized equities are expanding in the context of a wider real-world asset (RWA) tokenization trend. Standard Chartered has forecast that tokenized RWAs could grow into a $4 trillion market by the end of 2028, a projection referenced in earlier coverage by Cointelegraph.
While forecasts are not outcomes, the RWA.xyz metrics provide a concrete snapshot of current momentum within one segment—tokenized stocks. The combination of rapidly increasing holders, higher transfer volume, and a growing distributed-value base suggests that tokenization products are becoming an established category rather than a purely experimental feature.
Still, the data also highlights what investors should monitor closely: whether distributed value keeps rising at a steady rate, and whether activity growth translates into durable allocation. The market can look “hot” on transfer metrics even when underlying distributed value grows more slowly.
Going forward, readers should watch whether the competitive gap between issuers continues to narrow—especially between Binance’s bStocks and Kraken’s xStocks—and whether post-listing tokenized exposure maintains traction after earlier pre-IPO campaigns were disrupted.
This article was originally published as Tokenized Stock Holders Rise 2× as Monthly Trading Volume Jumps on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Tokenized stocks are seeing a rapid rise in participation and liquidity, according to new on-chain market tracking from RWA.xyz. The number of tokenized stock holders has more than doubled over the past month to 1.31 million.
RWA.xyz also reports that monthly transfer volume climbed nearly 180% to $23.13 billion, while monthly active addresses increased 34.62% to just under 572,000. The total distributed value of tokenized stocks rose 5.9% to $2.38 billion.
Key takeaways
Tokenized stock holders grew to 1.31 million—more than double month-over-month, per RWA.xyz.
Monthly transfer volume surged to $23.13 billion (+~180%), suggesting stronger usage beyond just new wallets.
Total distributed value increased to $2.38 billion (+5.9%), even as the sector remains competitive.
Ondo leads by distributed value at about $872 million, followed by Kraken’s xStocks and Binance’s bStocks.
SpaceX tokenization saw heightened activity around its June 12 public listing, despite earlier campaign issues.
Growth metrics: more holders, higher activity, rising value
The latest RWA.xyz figures point to broad-based momentum rather than a narrow spike in one product. Alongside the sharp jump in holders, the increase in monthly active addresses indicates that more participants are actively transacting during the period, not merely registering.
Liquidity also appears to be strengthening. With monthly transfer volume up by nearly 180% to $23.13 billion, tokenized equities are generating materially more on-chain movement than they did just a month prior. At the same time, total distributed value rose 5.9% to $2.38 billion, reflecting a net expansion in the value of tokenized stock instruments distributed through the ecosystem tracked by RWA.xyz.
In terms of market leadership, Ondo remains the largest issuer by distributed value, sitting at roughly $872 million. Kraken’s xStocks follows with about $557.8 million, and Binance’s bStocks is close behind at $521.8 million.
Who’s leading: Ondo, xStocks, and bStocks close the gap
RWA.xyz’s distribution rankings show a fairly tight race among the largest tokenized stock programs. While Ondo holds a clear lead, Binance’s bStocks has moved into the same competitive tier as Kraken’s xStocks.
bStocks launched in June and is already within approximately $36 million of xStocks in distributed value, according to RWA.xyz. That proximity matters for investors and market participants because it suggests the category’s growth is not confined to one dominant issuer; multiple providers are attracting demand quickly enough to reduce relative gaps.
RWA.xyz also lists several of the largest underlying tokenized assets by distributed value. Among them are Securitize at $145.2 million, Strategy PP Variable xStock at $135.6 million, and Ondo’s tokenized Circle shares at $99.7 million.
Private-market demand and the SpaceX test
The current expansion in tokenized equities aligns with a broader push by crypto platforms into private-market and pre-IPO products earlier this year, with attention particularly focused on SpaceX. In the months leading up to SpaceX’s June 12 public-market debut, multiple platforms—including Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bybit, Bitget, and Blockchain.com—rolled out products tied to SpaceX. These ranged from tokenized pre-IPO exposure to perpetual futures and proxy-style tokens.
Some of the activity was clearly driven by substantial investor interest. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that a Binance campaign drew about $557 million ahead of the listing, highlighting strong demand for exposure to the pre-IPO and transition period.
However, not all parts of these efforts worked smoothly. Cointelegraph previously reported that Binance, Bybit, and Bitget Wallet canceled their tokenized SpaceX IPO campaigns after xStocks failed to secure enough underlying shares to satisfy demand. Refunds were issued to subscribers, underscoring how tokenization outcomes can be constrained by real-world share availability and allocation mechanics—despite high on-chain interest.
Still, even after the campaign cancellations, tokenized SpaceX exposure persisted. RWA.xyz data shows that tokenized SpaceX exposure via Binance’s bStocks has grown to $67.9 million in distributed value since the June 12 listing, placing it seventh among individual tokenized assets tracked by RWA.xyz.
What it may mean for the real-world assets market
The rapid increase in holders, activity, and distributed value suggests tokenized stocks are becoming a more established on-ramp into real-world assets for crypto users—especially when packaged as liquid, transferable tokens.
This momentum also fits into larger industry forecasts. Standard Chartered has projected that tokenization could reach a $4 trillion market by the end of 2028, as highlighted in earlier Cointelegraph reporting. While forecasts don’t guarantee outcomes, the recent performance tracked by RWA.xyz indicates that at least one segment of real-world assets—tokenized equities—is gaining measurable traction.
For market watchers, the key question is whether the growth is durable beyond short-term thematic surges. SpaceX-related campaigns illustrate both the appetite for tokenized exposure and the operational friction that can occur when real-world supply (like underlying shares) doesn’t match token demand. Going forward, investors may want to monitor whether issuers improve allocation reliability and whether new launches can sustain user activity once the initial hype around major corporate events fades.
Next, readers should watch how quickly distributed value and active address growth sustain over subsequent months, and whether new tokenized stock launches narrow the gap between the top issuers—or trigger renewed allocation challenges when demand spikes around real-world listings.
This article was originally published as Tokenized Stock Holders More Than Double as Monthly Volume Rises on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin’s next major move could be shaped by a seasonal pattern, according to Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten. Speaking to Cointelegraph, Klippsten suggested that BTC may form a bottom in October before staging a recovery toward roughly $130,000 ahead of the 2028 halving.
Klippsten’s framing also includes a potentially painful downside scenario: in his view, Bitcoin could drop to the $57,000 area—or even as low as $53,000—before any rebound. At the same time, other market analysts are watching for signs of an earlier bear-market bottom, pointing to an August threshold based on monthly closes.
Key takeaways
Klippsten expects Bitcoin could bottom in October after a peak above $126,000 in early October 2025, then recover toward about $130,000 before the 2028 halving.
In his downside scenario, BTC may fall to around $57,000 or even $53,000 before a “quick recovery.”
Klippsten argues long-term holder accumulation could shift timing earlier than past cycles, referencing a record share of supply held by long-term investors.
Markus Thielen of 10x Research says a bear-market bottom could be confirmed in August if Bitcoin posts a monthly close above $63,000.
Klippsten believes altcoins are unlikely to compete with Bitcoin as “money,” while noting that centralized crypto firms may ultimately be pulled under traditional finance regulation.
Why October is on the table for Bitcoin’s “cycle bottom”
Klippsten’s October call is rooted in what he says is a recurring timeline across prior bull-market peaks. He argued that Bitcoin has tended to bottom roughly 12 months after each previous bull-market top. However, he also warned that relying on only a handful of completed cycles is risky—implying investors should treat this as a hypothesis rather than a guaranteed schedule.
The timing he referenced is anchored to BTC’s performance in early October 2025, when Bitcoin reportedly peaked above $126,000. From that peak, Klippsten’s expectation is that the market should bottom in October, followed by recovery into the next phase of the broader cycle.
Importantly, Klippsten’s view is not simply “up from here.” He also pointed to a possible deeper drawdown before a rebound, saying Bitcoin could fall to about $57,000 or potentially $53,000—suggesting that any October bottom would likely arrive after further weakness rather than immediately.
Holder accumulation and the possibility of earlier bottoms
Klippsten’s September-to-October thesis builds on an earlier argument he made in a June conversation with Cointelegraph. In that earlier interview, he suggested BTC might bottom earlier than in past cycles if long-term holders continue accumulating record levels of supply.
Cointelegraph previously reported that Klippsten tied the idea to “record” long-term holder participation, citing 14.7 million BTC as a share held by long-term investors. In the latest discussion, he maintained the idea that accumulation could influence the timing of a bottom—one reason why other analysts may be looking at earlier confirmations than October.
The practical takeaway for market participants is that timing indicators may depend on whether distribution versus accumulation dominates during the downturn. If long-term holders continue to absorb supply, the market could transition faster than a strict historical average would suggest—though Klippsten’s range still includes a potential late-cycle risk floor around the low-$50,000s.
Other analysts target August with a simple monthly signal
While Klippsten focused on October, not every analyst agrees on the month. Markus Thielen, founder of 10x Research, told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin could confirm a bear-market bottom in August if BTC achieves a monthly close above $63,000.
Thielen’s argument is tied to how certain cycle indicators react to key trend confirmations. According to Cointelegraph, a successful August close above $63,000 would turn several of 10x Research’s indicators bullish—essentially framing $63,000 not just as a number to watch, but as a trigger that could change the model’s stance on the market’s trend.
For investors, the difference between “October likely” and “August possible” is more than calendar trivia. It can affect how people manage exposure during drawdowns, how they interpret risk levels, and how quickly they expect liquidity to return. Until BTC clarifies its direction through those month-end thresholds, any month-by-month bottom narrative remains conditional.
Klippsten’s take on altcoins: fewer bets, more regulation
Beyond timing, Klippsten argued that altcoins are losing their credibility as alternatives to Bitcoin as a medium of value. He described them as “basically dead” as competitors to Bitcoin as money and said the “best outcome” for crypto and decentralized finance would be integration into traditional finance—what he referred to as “TradFi.”
Asked about altcoins that may still outperform, he pointed to Hyperliquid as an example of a centralized business that could eventually be treated like part of the traditional financial system. In a quote carried by Cointelegraph, Klippsten said that if a centralized business has a token, regulators and traditional finance may eventually absorb it, viewing it as an exchange and a bank.
That view aligns with how some market observers are interpreting institutional involvement: regulatory pressure and compliance frameworks could determine which crypto products survive and how tokens are structured. Even when an altcoin sees strong traction, the question becomes whether it can evolve into something that fits existing regulatory categories.
Hyperliquid has recently attracted measurable attention on-chain and in DeFi revenue rankings. Cointelegraph cited DefiLlama data showing Hyperliquid generated $5.9 million in revenue during the past week and ranked as the industry’s fifth-largest DeFi protocol by weekly revenue. Cointelegraph also reported that the Hyperliquid HYPE token was up 130% year-to-date, while Bitcoin fell 28% over the same period, according to TradingView.
At the same time, Cointelegraph included a separate perspective from market maker Wintermute. In a July report, Wintermute argued that institutional participation has narrowed altcoin rallies. The firm said liquidity tends to concentrate in assets that institutions favor, while activity across crypto’s “long tail” weakens—suggesting that “altseason” dynamics may be changing from broad-based rotations into more selective bursts.
What to watch next: bottoms versus triggers, not narratives
Whether Bitcoin bottoms in August or October, the most actionable signal may be confirmation through month-end levels and follow-through after sharp selloffs—especially if long-term holder accumulation continues to provide structural support. Separately, Klippsten’s warnings about altcoins “as money” raise a distinct question for traders and builders: will performance continue to be driven by liquidity and token incentives, or will regulation and institutional frameworks progressively reshape what survives in practice?
This article was originally published as Swan CEO: Bitcoin May Bottom in October as Altcoins Languish on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Predictions that Bitcoin could hit $1 million by 2030 are drawing fresh skepticism from industry research chief Markus Thielen, head of research at 10x Research. In an interview with Cointelegraph, Thielen argued that the forecast is not just ambitious—it is mathematically inconsistent with how much capital markets would need to add in a short time to lift Bitcoin’s price to that level.
Thielen’s core claim is straightforward: the capital inflows required to support a $1 million per-coin target would need to be far larger than anything Bitcoin has historically attracted during comparable periods. He also warned that even if Bitcoin continues to rebound from cycle lows, investors may be underestimating how much time and liquidity it typically takes to push prices to new highs once the asset’s market capitalization grows.
Key takeaways
Markus Thielen says a $1 million Bitcoin by 2030 “doesn’t add up” mathematically, based on historical capital inflow comparisons.
He estimates Bitcoin would need roughly $15 trillion in additional capital to reach a $1 million price per BTC, assuming current supply and valuation logic.
Thielen argues that because Bitcoin is already valued at over $1 trillion, major price moves require “trillions” rather than smaller inflow waves.
He cautions that retail investors’ expectations may be distorted by round-number narratives—and that a rapid return to extreme highs may be unlikely.
Industry figures including Brian Armstrong, Jack Dorsey, and Cathie Wood have publicly endorsed $1 million-style targets, which Thielen views as media-friendly but potentially harmful.
Why Thielen challenges the $1 million-by-2030 math
Thielen’s argument begins with the relationship between Bitcoin’s market value and the scale of new money needed to change its price meaningfully. At the time of the interview, Bitcoin’s market capitalization was around $1.28 trillion, with the BTC price reported at $63,868, according to CoinMarketCap.
Against that baseline, Thielen estimated that achieving a $1 million per Bitcoin outcome would require another approximately $15 trillion in capital entering Bitcoin. In his view, that total is not a minor extension of prior years’ trends, but a large step beyond what has historically been seen.
He referenced Bitcoin’s earlier development period as context, noting that inflows large enough to lift the overall market capitalization by orders of magnitude have still fallen far short of what would be necessary for the next phase of growth implied by a $1 million target. Thielen summarized the difference as a gap between what the asset has historically attracted and what would be required over roughly the next four years to reach the per-coin valuation that the prediction implies.
Thielen described the resulting conclusion in absolute terms: reaching that price level, in his assessment, is “mathematically impossible.” While he did not claim a regulatory or technical barrier, his reasoning hinges on liquidity and capital requirements—how much incremental demand must show up for a large, already-established asset to move much higher.
“It would require trillions”: market cap and the liquidity problem
A key part of Thielen’s critique is about scale. As Bitcoin’s market capitalization increases, the same size of purchasing does not translate to the same percentage price move. In the interview, he argued that materially higher prices generally require materially larger inflows—especially once the market is already measured in trillions.
That is why, in his view, claims that Bitcoin can simply “continue its trajectory” underestimate the money needed at higher levels. Thielen’s framing suggests that even if investors remain bullish over the long run, the pace may look different than optimistic price charts imply.
He also tied the expected difficulty of sustained upside to investor psychology. Thielen said that as Bitcoin’s price rises, retail sentiment can weaken because many buyers appear to prefer owning a whole unit of Bitcoin rather than fractions. He described a scenario where some people reconsider participation when they feel the effort required to buy even one BTC becomes comparable to other life goals—such as saving for a car—rather than remaining a straightforward investment purchase.
In that sense, Thielen is not arguing that adoption disappears. He is pointing to a specific friction: the higher Bitcoin goes, the more the “one Bitcoin” mental benchmark can become a psychological barrier, potentially dampening some marginal retail demand.
Cycle expectations: don’t assume next year will rewrite the record
Thielen urged Bitcoiners not to treat previous cycle rebounds as a guarantee of similarly fast upside after major highs. He argued that in earlier cycles, price recovery took time partly because Bitcoin reached a higher market capitalization than before—meaning pushing it higher becomes increasingly capital-intensive.
He suggested investors should not assume that new all-time highs will arrive immediately. While he did not rule out strong performance, he implied that the timeline may stretch longer than those expecting a fast re-test of the peak would like.
Thielen specifically cautioned that the $126,000 all-time high may not reappear quickly. Asked about the possibility of reaching $100,000, he characterized a move back to that level as a “big, big achievement,” even if it does not necessarily equate to a full cycle of record-breaking behavior.
The underlying message is that while Bitcoin historically has recovered after declines, the effort required to reach substantially higher valuations changes as the asset’s size increases—both in terms of liquidity and market dynamics.
The executives behind $1 million: attention versus outcomes
The $1 million prediction has not been limited to anonymous online commentary. Thielen pointed to public forecasts made by prominent industry figures, including Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood.
Thielen’s critique focused on the incentives behind such statements. He argued that round numbers—especially large targets that attract media coverage—are more likely to be quoted widely. He characterized these forecasts as an easy way for executives to generate attention, even if the implied assumptions about future liquidity are unrealistic.
According to Thielen, the harm is not limited to academic debate. He warned that aggressive price targets can influence retail behavior by encouraging expectations of large, quick profits. In his view, if even a forecast is “halfway right,” some participants may assume the upside automatically translates into exceptional gains—an assumption he said can lead to disappointment or overconfidence.
Thielen did not present his stance as a call for pessimism. He argued that sentiment has often already become optimistic early in the year, while a more conservative approach can be the better strategy for risk management and expectation-setting. When Cointelegraph asked him what year Bitcoiners might reasonably expect $1 million, he avoided a direct prediction but reiterated that the number is extremely high.
“It would require, you know, a major credit event, implosion of everything.”
For readers following Bitcoin’s longer-term narrative, that quote points to Thielen’s view that a $1 million scenario likely depends on extraordinary macro conditions rather than “business as usual.”
For the market, the key question now is whether the next phase of Bitcoin growth is driven by sustained, large-scale capital inflows—or whether Thielen’s liquidity-based critique better reflects how price responds as Bitcoin’s valuation grows. Investors watching this debate should focus less on attention-grabbing round numbers and more on the pace and magnitude of new demand relative to Bitcoin’s already-large market capitalization.
This article was originally published as Markus Thielen Says Bitcoin’s $1M Target by 2030 Is Unfeasible on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Morgan Stanley’s latest US SEC 13F filing shows the bank increased its crypto-linked exposure in the second quarter, with the biggest lift coming from additional shares of BlackRock’s Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT). The update comes as the value of those holdings shifted with underlying market moves during the quarter.
According to Morgan Stanley’s Q2 13F filing, its reported IBIT share count rose to around 16.5 million shares from 13.4 million—an increase of roughly 23%. At the same time, the dollar value of the position fell, reflecting declines in Bitcoin over the period covered by the filing.
Key takeaways
Morgan Stanley increased its IBIT holdings by more than 3 million shares, but the reported value of the position dropped about 18% to $549 million.
The bank also reported new exposure to its own spot Bitcoin product, the Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), which began trading in April.
Ether-related ETF exposure expanded as well, including a roughly 202% increase in iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) shares to 4.6 million.
Not all crypto positions rose: Morgan Stanley reduced several holdings tied to exchanges, mining, and infrastructure.
Stablecoin issuer Circle also gained from the bank’s broader Q2 reallocation, with USDC-related holdings jumping significantly.
IBIT share growth, but lower reported value
Morgan Stanley’s filing points to a clear volume increase in BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF. The bank reported IBIT holdings rising by about 3.04 million shares to approximately 16.5 million. However, the reported value declined to about $549 million from roughly $667 million, a drop of around 18%—consistent with the broader move in Bitcoin prices during the second quarter.
The filing described increases across several other Bitcoin ETF positions as well. Morgan Stanley added to smaller spot Bitcoin ETF exposures including the Grayscale Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF (BTC) and Bitwise Bitcoin ETF (BITB), while its Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) holding rose nearly 38%.
Ether exposure expands alongside Bitcoin
Beyond Bitcoin, Morgan Stanley also increased its Ether-related ETF positions. The bank reported expanding its iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) stake by about 202% to 4.6 million shares. It also raised its Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (ETH) position by roughly 26% to about 5.1 million shares.
In addition, Morgan Stanley initiated exposure to Solana-related products. The filing showed new positions in the Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (GSOL) and Fidelity Solana Fund (FSOL), reported at about $4.25 million and $2.26 million, respectively. That combination of more traditional large-cap exposures and smaller add-ons suggests a continued effort to broaden multi-asset crypto exposure rather than concentrating exclusively on Bitcoin.
New MSBT position and Circle’s USDC-linked holdings
Morgan Stanley’s own crypto product also entered the picture more clearly in the second quarter. The filing reported about 2.57 million shares of Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), a fund that began trading in April. While the filing’s share increase reflects new participation, it also underscores how quickly large financial institutions are building internal product lines around spot crypto access.
Separately, Morgan Stanley increased its reported stake in Circle Internet Group (CRCL)—the company behind the USDC stablecoin. According to the filing, Circle holdings rose from approximately 1.46 million shares to about 8.32 million shares. That is a substantial shift and stands out because it targets the stablecoin ecosystem rather than only spot-crypto ETF wrappers.
Mining and infrastructure gains—while some equity exposure falls
While Morgan Stanley grew several crypto-adjacent positions, the filing also showed reductions in some prominent holdings. The bank reported additions to multiple Bitcoin mining and infrastructure companies, including Cipher Digital (CIFR), Core Scientific (CORZ), Hut 8 (HUT), and Bitdeer Technologies (BTDR). These increases suggest the institution was willing to add risk to parts of the sector that often move with both network economics and equity sentiment.
At the same time, not every position improved. Morgan Stanley reported cutting its Coinbase (COIN) shares by roughly 550,000. It also reduced its CleanSpark (CLSK) position by more than 3.1 million shares and fully exited a roughly 8 million-share position in Bitfarms (BITF). In other words, the second quarter did not follow a single-direction strategy across the crypto equity complex—adjustments appear to have been more selective.
Overall, the mix of increases in major ETF exposure, expanded Ether allocations, a new MSBT position, and a large rise in Circle shares—paired with declines in specific exchange and mining names—indicates Morgan Stanley used the quarter to rebalance across the crypto value chain rather than simply adding net exposure everywhere.
Investors watching this data should focus on whether the pattern continues in subsequent 13F updates: specifically, whether Morgan Stanley sustains its share accumulation in spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs while keeping selective pressure on certain crypto equities, or whether new reallocations emerge as Bitcoin and Ether prices move and as the ETF and stablecoin ecosystem evolves.
This article was originally published as Morgan Stanley Data Shows BlackRock Bitcoin ETF Holdings Up 23% in Q2 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

A $116 million hardware wallet exploit has reignited an old Bitcoin question: what is the real risk trade-off between self-custody and using regulated products? The debate is heating up as US spot Bitcoin ETFs post strong inflows, suggesting institutional capital may be finding ways to participate in Bitcoin without directly taking on custody and operational risk.
Meanwhile, major companies across the sector are making moves that underline how intertwined Bitcoin, corporate balance sheets, and emerging AI compute demand are becoming. Strategy is preparing to resume Bitcoin purchases after a rare period of selling, Riot Platforms is reportedly pursuing a large AI-focused compute arrangement tied to its mining footprint, and Trump Media says it will rethink its crypto treasury approach after a sizable quarterly loss.
Key takeaways
A Coldcard-linked hardware wallet exploit drained about $116 million in Bitcoin, adding fresh fuel to the self-custody versus custody-by-others debate.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs reportedly saw roughly $1 billion in net inflows for the week, with Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas calling it one of the strongest periods since October.
Strategy CEO Phong Le said the firm plans to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year after selling in multiple quarters to support shareholder-related obligations.
Riot Platforms is reportedly arranging 191 megawatts of compute capacity for a “leading frontier AI” project at its Texas campus, highlighting the economic pull of power availability.
Trump Media is revising its digital asset treasury strategy after recording large unrealized losses and reshaping how it funds and manages its Bitcoin exposure.
Strategy signals a return to net buying
Strategy CEO Phong Le said the company plans to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year, aiming to reinforce its long-term position after a stretch of smaller sales drew criticism against its earlier messaging. The firm has been publicly associated with a “never sell” posture, and the shift in behavior has become a key talking point for investors tracking whether the company remains purely acquisition-led.
According to Le, Strategy bought roughly 175,000 BTC and sold about 7,000 BTC this year, a ratio that indicates it remains net-buying in magnitude even if it has been selling at notable times. Strategy currently holds more than 840,000 BTC, making it the largest institutional Bitcoin holder.
Le also pointed to a pattern of discrete sell events. The company has reportedly sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May, most recently unloading 1,690 BTC to fund preferred dividends, buybacks, and a dollar reserve. That detail matters because it shows the tension between corporate treasury behavior and a strict “hold only” narrative: shareholders still require liquidity, while Bitcoin’s role in the treasury can put firms in a position where capital needs must be balanced against accumulation targets.
Third-party analysis referenced in the report suggests this model becomes harder when companies trade below their Bitcoin net asset value, because capital raises can be more dilutive and ongoing financing may be more difficult to sustain. For Strategy, that context helps explain why investors are watching not only the size of purchases, but the timing and stated intent around future net buying.
ETF inflows rise as self-custody concerns resurface
US spot Bitcoin ETFs are reportedly seeing renewed demand even while Bitcoin’s price action remains subdued. For the week, the ETFs attracted about $1 billion in net inflows, according to the report cited, marking the third-best week since October—an interval Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas described as Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
The “silent IPO” framing refers to the idea that early holders or initial investors may sell into a rising stream of institutional buying via ETFs, helping explain why new capital can flow in without immediately lifting prices. In that sense, the ETF rebound becomes more than a headline number: it’s a reminder that ETF demand can coexist with supply dynamics that keep the market from moving as fast as some observers expect.
The timing of this demand rebound is also notable given the hardware wallet incident. Earlier coverage highlighted a Coldcard exploit tied to faulty key generation that reportedly drained around $116 million worth of Bitcoin. Balchunas said the episode could ultimately improve ETFs’ attractiveness for investors who worry about self-custody risks—though he emphasized that the relationship may be correlative rather than causal.
He cautioned against assuming causation from any single data point, but suggested that “long-term” some investors may migrate toward ETF structures if self-custody concerns persist. For market participants, the practical takeaway is that custody risk is now part of the investor conversation—not just a technical footnote. If institutional investors continue to treat ETFs as the most operationally straightforward exposure route, demand could remain resilient even when broader confidence fluctuates due to security headlines.
Riot taps power for AI compute partnerships
Riot Platforms is reportedly working on a large compute arrangement tied to Bitcoin mining infrastructure. According to the report, Anthropic struck a $9 billion deal with Riot for 191 megawatts of capacity from Riot’s Texas campus, underscoring how access to reliable power is increasingly valuable as AI data center buildouts hit constraints.
Riot said it secured a 20-year agreement to supply 191 megawatts from its Rockdale campus to a “leading frontier AI” company, with Bloomberg identifying the counterparty as Anthropic. The announcement follows Anthropic’s reported $19 billion data center lease with TeraWulf, reinforcing the broader trend of AI firms seeking additional compute capacity and predictable energy sourcing.
The report places Riot among a growing set of miners expanding toward AI-adjacent strategies, naming Bitdeer, CleanSpark, MARA Holdings, Core Scientific, Hut 8, and IREN as other examples. While Bitcoin mining remains the original mission for these companies, the convergence with AI is shifting how investors think about their long-term asset value: power availability and grid agreements can become a “platform” for multiple high-demand workloads.
The cited discussion also notes that research from Bernstein has suggested partnerships between AI companies and miners could help alleviate power bottlenecks that restrict data center expansion. Even if the details of each company’s arrangement differ, the key point for crypto investors is that miners’ balance sheets and future cash flows may increasingly depend on energy leverage rather than solely on Bitcoin’s mining economics.
Trump Media revises its crypto treasury after large losses
Trump Media says it will revamp its digital asset treasury strategy after a $238 million second-quarter net loss, pointing to balance-sheet risks created by corporate holdings of crypto and crypto-adjacent securities. The company attributes part of the loss to unrealized mark-to-market swings across its digital assets and securities.
In its quarterly reporting, Trump Media reported $190.4 million in unrealized losses across its digital assets. The company also pledged digital assets and equity securities during the second quarter, reflecting how its treasury exposure is constrained by collateral requirements and counterparty structures.
Bitcoin holdings also changed over the quarter. Trump Media reported holding 9,477.16 BTC as of June 30, down from 9,542.16 BTC in the previous quarter. In July, it sold $159.6 million in Bitcoin-related securities and used the proceeds to buy more Bitcoin, increasing holdings to about 14,139 BTC worth $890.5 million by July 31.
Management warned that generating additional income from its Bitcoin holdings could expose the company to counterparty risk—particularly if a partner were to default or become insolvent. It also noted the possibility that, in some cases, it could be unable to recover Bitcoin committed under unsecured arrangements.
The company said it plans to direct more resources toward Truth Social, Truth+ and other media operations as part of a broader shift in capital allocation. For readers, this is a reminder that corporate crypto strategies are not purely about directional exposure; they also involve liquidity management, collateral frameworks, and the operational risks of funding structures that can carry different outcomes than spot holding alone.
Going forward, the market will likely watch whether ETF inflow strength persists as more security-related events test investor comfort with self-custody. At the same time, corporate decisions—whether Strategy’s stated intent translates into consistent net buying, and how companies like Riot and Trump Media manage compute demand or custody-related risk—will continue to shape how Bitcoin is absorbed beyond crypto-native participants.
This article was originally published as $116M Bitcoin Wallet Exploit Spurs Self-Custody Scrutiny as ETF Inflows Rise on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Israel’s Bank Leumi has teamed up with Galaxy Digital to bring cryptocurrency trading to its mobile banking ecosystem, with an anticipated launch in early 2027. The deal would allow eligible customers to buy, hold, and sell Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana via Leumi’s existing trading interface.
Leumi said customers of the bank and its mobile banking arm, Pepper, will be able to access the service through a dedicated area in the Leumi Trade app. If the timeline holds, Leumi would become the first Israeli bank to offer direct digital asset trading to customers through its platform.
Key takeaways
Bank Leumi plans to enable cryptocurrency trading for Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana through the Leumi Trade app.
The service is expected to launch in early 2027 for Leumi and Pepper customers.
Galaxy Digital will provide trading via GalaxyOne Institutional, while its custody infrastructure platform (formerly GK8) will support Leumi’s digital asset infrastructure.
Galaxy’s wider performance has included a recent quarter with a reported $85 million net loss, though its digital assets segment still posted adjusted gross profit growth.
Leumi Trade expands into digital assets
The partnership centers on integrating crypto trading directly into Leumi’s customer experience. Under the agreement, Leumi customers will be able to access the purchase, holding, and sale of three major cryptocurrencies—Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Solana (SOL)—through a dedicated section of the Leumi Trade app.
Leumi’s announcement frames the offering as a broad retail and business upgrade: the bank said it serves millions of customers across its retail and commercial operations. For users, the main practical difference is convenience—rather than routing activity through separate crypto platforms, customers would be interacting with crypto functions inside a familiar banking app.
Galaxy Digital’s infrastructure powers the rollout
Leumi said it will use GalaxyOne Institutional for trading and related services. On the custody side, Galaxy will support the bank’s digital asset infrastructure using its custody infrastructure platform, previously known as GK8.
This division of responsibilities matters because crypto trading at banks typically depends on two pillars: reliable execution and secure asset management. By separating trading services from custody infrastructure within Galaxy’s stack, the partnership is set up to cover both areas that often determine whether institutional-grade crypto operations can be scaled for retail clients.
At the same time, the early-2027 schedule underscores that such integrations can be complex—especially when the goal is to connect consumer-facing banking workflows with digital asset custody and market-facing trading systems.
Why the timing and “first” claim are meaningful
Leumi’s statement that it would become the first Israeli bank to offer digital asset trading services to customers positions the move as a potential competitive inflection point. If it delivers, Leumi would be attempting to translate the broader growth of crypto into a regulated banking distribution channel.
However, readers should note that the claim is specific: the “first” status is tied to offering trading services to customers through the bank’s own platform. That doesn’t preclude other routes to crypto access in Israel, but it does highlight the bank-distribution angle—bringing trading capability into mainstream financial UX.
From an investor and market structure perspective, bank-led distribution can change how crypto products are packaged and who bears operational friction. It may also affect liquidity flows by concentrating customer activity into regulated intermediaries rather than purely crypto-native venues, though the exact market impact will depend on how volumes scale after launch.
Galaxy’s financial backdrop and what to watch
The Leumi partnership follows Galaxy Digital’s previously reported struggles in the broader market environment. Earlier coverage noted that Galaxy reported an $85 million net loss in the second quarter, which the company said was largely linked to declining digital asset prices. Even so, Galaxy stated its digital assets business generated $66 million in adjusted gross profit, up 34% from the prior quarter.
Galaxy Digital is led by Mike Novogratz and began trading on the Nasdaq in May 2025 under the ticker GLXY, according to an investor release from the company. Earlier company coverage described its listing plans, and Yahoo Finance shows GLXY trading at $21.38 on Friday morning, up about 2% on the day but down roughly 25% over the past year, based on the data cited.
For Leumi customers, these numbers are not directly determinative of whether the crypto app launches smoothly. But for the broader market, they offer context: Galaxy is taking on a new banking integration while working through the volatility and drawdowns that have characterized parts of the crypto cycle.
What to watch next will likely include whether Galaxy’s institutional services and custody infrastructure are able to support a consumer-facing launch on schedule, and how Leumi structures the customer experience once the service goes live. Since the expected launch is still more than a year away, the next concrete signals for users and industry observers will be product rollouts, regulatory readiness, and any beta phases or phased feature releases inside Leumi Trade.
Until then, the partnership is best understood as a forward-looking bet on mainstream distribution: if Leumi Trade’s crypto access launches as planned, it could mark a meaningful step toward bringing large-bank channels into the day-to-day tooling of crypto buyers and sellers in Israel.
This article was originally published as Israel’s top bank partners with Galaxy for Bitcoin, Ether, Solana trading on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

UK Reform leader Nigel Farage is set to face renewed scrutiny from the UK Parliament’s standards watchdog after the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards reopened an investigation into whether he properly disclosed certain financial interests.
According to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ public register, Farage is currently under investigation for “failure to register an interest” tied to donations and benefits reportedly connected to the crypto industry, after an earlier pause followed his resignation from Parliament and later resumption after he returned as an MP.
Key takeaways
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards says Farage is under investigation for “failure to register an interest” involving crypto-linked donations and gifts.
The probe was paused when Farage resigned as an MP and resumed after he was reelected in the Clacton by-election.
Coverage of the matter points to claimed gifts reportedly funded by Christopher Harborne and staff/security arrangements involving George Cottrell.
If the commissioner finds a breach of parliamentary rules, Farage could face suspension, potentially triggering another by-election.
Parliamentary standards watchdog restarts Farage probe
As of Friday, the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards website lists Farage as “currently under investigation” for failing to register an interest. The issue relates to alleged benefits and donations described as running into the millions of dollars and connected to two individuals tied to the crypto sector.
The investigation had been temporarily halted in July after Farage stepped down from Parliament, but it restarted once he regained a seat. Earlier coverage highlighted that Farage resigned as an MP amid the controversy surrounding crypto donations, then later returned to Parliament following his reelection in Clacton.
What the standards probe is expected to examine
The commission is expected to look at whether Farage complied with UK parliamentary disclosure obligations regarding financial interests and benefits received in the relevant period.
In the commissioner’s listing, the scrutiny centers on Farage receiving gifts reportedly involving Christopher Harborne, described in reporting as a crypto billionaire, who was said to have given Farage $6.7 million. The listing also points to arrangements supporting Farage’s staff and security being funded by George Cottrell, described in reporting as a convicted fraudster linked to a crypto casino.
Under UK rules, new MPs must register financial interests within a month of their election, and they must also disclose relevant benefits received in the preceding 12 months. The rules are aimed at ensuring that Parliament can assess any potential conflicts of interest as soon as lawmakers take office.
Why the disclosure question matters politically and procedurally
Farage’s probe could carry real procedural consequences. If the standards investigation concludes that he violated parliamentary regulations, the commissioner’s findings could lead to suspension from Parliament. That, in turn, can open the door to another by-election.
The by-election that brought Farage back to the Commons followed his earlier resignation. In that contest, he won with 63% of the vote, according to BBC coverage, defeating satirical candidate Count Binface, who received 27%. None of the other major parties took part, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer—then still Labour’s leader—criticized Farage’s approach as a “desperate stunt.”
While Farage has previously characterized the donations as rewards or gifts given “on an unconditional basis,” the parliamentary process is likely to focus less on labels and more on whether the benefits were disclosed according to the letter of the rules.
Broader debate over crypto-linked political donations
The Farage controversy has also fed into a wider discussion in the UK political sphere about whether donations with crypto connections create opportunities for undue influence.
Reporting on the parliamentary fallout said Labour lawmakers proposed making a moratorium on crypto donations—implemented in March—permanent. That push is framed around concerns about potential influence from foreign actors.
According to the International Bar Association, unincorporated associations in the UK are allowed to give more than $675 directly to politicians. The same analysis warns that this structure can create loopholes where funds may operate as a “conduit” for “foreign or dark money.” The tension here is straightforward: even if individual payments are not formally prohibited, disclosure gaps and complex funding channels can make it difficult for voters and regulators to understand who is truly behind political support.
What to watch next
For investors, traders, and builders who pay attention to how regulation and political risk intersect with crypto, the immediate question is whether the commissioner’s review results in a finding of non-compliance—and, if so, what sanctions Parliament ultimately applies. The next milestone will be how the standards investigation substantiates the disclosure timeline and whether the alleged benefits are treated as registrable financial interests under UK rules.
This article was originally published as UK Investigators Extend Probe Into Nigel Farage’s Crypto Gifts on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance Research says Gen Z traders on the exchange are steadily shifting a larger share of their equity-related activity toward exchange-traded funds (ETFs), while direct stock trading is taking up less of the cohort’s overall flow. The trend stands out across Binance’s coverage of direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals.
In early August, Binance Research reported that ETFs made up 25% of Gen Z trading volume within its analysis group. The same study found that ETFs accounted for 21.9% of Gen Z net equity inflows in July, up from 18.5% in June, as the share routed to individual stocks fell to 74.2% from 77%.
Key takeaways
ETF demand is rising: Gen Z’s ETF share of trading volume reached 25% in early August, and ETF net inflows climbed to 21.9% in July.
Direct stocks lose share: the portion of Gen Z net equity inflows going to individual stocks dropped to 74.2% from 77%.
Gen Z trades less often: in TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades versus 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
Fewer sell orders among Gen Z: 22% of Gen Z direct-equity accounts had never placed a sell order, compared with 19% for Gen X and 9% for Baby Boomers.
Limited appetite for leverage: 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in leveraged or inverse ETFs.
Gen Z’s ETF shift: what the Binance Research data shows
The Binance Research analysis compared Gen Z accounts with older working-age generations (Millennials, Gen X, and Baby Boomers) across several measures, including trading frequency, net inflows, and the use of leverage. The study looks at activity spanning direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals.
Within that framework, the ETF share of Gen Z activity increased in a stepwise pattern. Binance Research pointed to July as a key month: ETF net inflows for Gen Z rose to 21.9%, up from 18.5% in June. Over the same period, the allocation to individual stocks declined, falling to 74.2% from 77%.
While the figures describe allocation, they also hint at how younger participants may be approaching equity exposure on exchange venues that offer both spot-like instruments and ETF wrappers. For investors, that matters because a growing preference for ETFs can mean broader diversification and potentially different risk profiles compared with concentrated single-stock positioning.
Trading behavior differences: frequency, “buy-only” accounts, and leverage use
Binance Research also reported behavioral differences in how often Gen Z engages with these products. Across all three categories examined, Gen Z traded less frequently than other working-age cohorts. In TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades—below Millennials at 17 and Gen X at 16.5.
The study further found a notable skew in sell-order behavior among younger users. For Gen Z direct-equity accounts, 22% had never placed a sell order. By comparison, 19% of Gen X accounts and 9% of Baby Boomer accounts showed the same “buy-only” pattern. Millennials, meanwhile, had the highest share of buy-only accounts at 30%.
Among the Gen Z buy-only accounts, Binance Research cited cumulative purchases that included Broadcom and Tesla, as well as the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF—suggesting that even when participants primarily buy, their preference can extend to ETF exposure rather than only individual stocks.
On leverage, Gen Z also appeared more cautious in Binance Research’s view. The share of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts with no activity in leveraged and inverse ETFs was 88.2%. That compares with 84.5% for Millennials and 85.9% for Gen X.
Tokenized stocks: bStocks briefly passes xStocks as the market keeps expanding
Separately from the generational ETF flow data, Binance-related tokenized equities saw a brief ranking change this week. Binance’s bStocks temporarily overtook Kraken’s xStocks as the second-largest tokenized stock issuer, according to Token Terminal.
As of Tuesday, Token Terminal data showed bStocks at $610.6 million in tokenized stock value, versus xStocks at $601.2 million. By Friday, the positions reversed: xStocks were at $610.7 million while bStocks stood at $579.6 million. In that snapshot, xStocks represented 22.3% of the roughly $2.7 billion tokenized stock market, while bStocks accounted for 21.2%.
Ondo Finance remained the largest issuer in that period, with $971.8 million in tokenized stock value. Token Terminal also tracked broader growth across the sector, with RWA.xyz reporting distributed value for its tokenized stocks page at $2.43 billion as of Friday—about 5% higher over the previous 30 days.
For market observers, the rapid flip between bStocks and xStocks underscores how quickly tokenized equity rankings can change in a still-expanding segment—especially when issuance is relatively concentrated among a few providers. It also reinforces why investors tracking tokenized assets often monitor issuer shares as a proxy for where capital is flowing within the broader regulated-assets trend.
What to watch next: early-stage data limits and evolving allocation
Binance Research cautioned that its direct-equities product only reached meaningful scale in June, creating a relatively short window to draw longer-term conclusions. Even so, the direction of travel—more ETF allocation among Gen Z and reduced share for individual stocks in inflows—offers a signal worth monitoring as the data window expands.
Investors and traders should watch whether the ETF share in Gen Z activity continues to rise beyond early August and whether tokenized stock issuance rankings stabilize or remain volatile as additional capital enters the market.
This article was originally published as Binance Data: Gen Z Builds ETF-Heavy Portfolios, Trades Less on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

SpaceX has closed its $60 billion all-stock acquisition of Anysphere, the company behind the coding tool Cursor. The company confirmed the merger in a securities filing dated August 14. Cursor now operates as a wholly owned subsidiary under the SpaceX corporate structure.
Merger Terms Take Effect
SpaceX’s subsidiary, X67 Inc., merged directly with Anysphere to complete the transaction. This structure allowed Cursor to convert into a fully owned unit without a lengthy transition period. The filing outlines exact share conversion figures tied to the deal.
Cursor’s common and preferred stock converted into roughly 389.3 million shares of SpaceX stock. That figure reflects the $60 billion valuation set when the deal was first announced in June. SpaceX based the conversion on its average closing price over seven trading days before the merger closed.
Additional equity awards moved through the same process without exception. Vested restricted stock units converted into about 1.75 million shares of Class A common stock. Unvested awards converted into 29.1 million restricted units and 44.4 million stock options for future exercise.
Cursor Moves Under SpaceXAI
Cursor announced the completed deal directly on social media platform X. The company stated it will join the SpaceXAI division going forward. Its stated goal is to strengthen several existing products across the platform.
Those products include Grok Build, Grok Bot, the Grok application programming interface, and Cursor itself. SpaceX intends to fold these tools into a broader development ecosystem. The move follows closely behind the recent release of Grok 4.6.
Analysts see the timing as deliberate rather than coincidental. Grok 4.6 launched just before the merger reached completion. Company leadership positioned that release as an early signal of what a combined engineering team can produce.
Stock Slips Despite Recent Gains
SpaceX shares fell more than 2% at Thursday’s market open. The stock traded near $137 shortly after the opening bell. That dip followed a five-day run in which shares climbed over 23%.
Market watchers linked the earlier rally to anticipation of the merger’s completion. Grok 4.6’s release also contributed to the upward momentum during that stretch. The pullback on merger day reflects a common pattern after major corporate news breaks.
Morgan Stanley issued a bullish note on SpaceX earlier in the week. Analyst Adam Jones set a bull-case price target of $600 per share. He pointed to Cursor as a major driver behind that projected upside.
Jones also highlighted the coding tool’s position in a shifting software market. Code generation continues moving toward automated and commoditised workflows. Cursor, he noted, already holds a dominant position within that specific segment.
The completed deal marks one of the largest technology acquisitions of the year. SpaceX now controls a coding platform used widely across the software industry. How the integration performs will shape the next phase of the company’s expansion into artificial intelligence.
This article was originally published as SpaceX Finalises $60 Billion Purchase of Cursor Maker Anysphere on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Binance Research says Gen Z traders using the exchange’s ecosystem are increasingly treating exchange-traded funds as a core part of their equity exposure. In early August, ETFs made up 25% of the cohort’s equity trading volume—an increase from earlier months—while interest in single-company stocks has eased.
The findings, based on activity across direct equities, tokenized stocks and traditional finance perpetual contracts, also highlight behavioral differences between younger traders and older generations, including how often they trade, whether they place sell orders, and the extent to which they use leveraged or inverse ETF products.
Key takeaways
According to Binance Research, ETFs accounted for 25% of Gen Z equity trading volume in early August, up from 21.9% in July and 18.5% in June.
Gen Z direct-equity accounts increasingly skew toward buy-only behavior, with 22% never placing a sell order—compared with 19% for Gen X and 9% for Baby Boomers.
Gen Z traded less frequently than other working-age generations across TradFi perpetuals, averaging 13 monthly trades versus 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
Leveraged and inverse ETFs appear to have limited pull among Gen Z: 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in those products.
Gen Z tilts equity activity toward ETFs
Binance’s analysis focused on how different generations allocate trading activity across three equity-related categories: direct equities, tokenized stocks, and traditional finance perpetuals. It compared account behavior across Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X and Baby Boomers using metrics such as trading frequency, net flows and leverage use.
Within that framework, ETFs gained share among Gen Z. In July, ETFs represented 21.9% of Gen Z net equity inflows. That compares with 18.5% in June, suggesting an accelerating preference for fund-based exposure rather than a rotation toward individual companies. Over the same period, the portion of Gen Z inflows allocated to individual stocks declined to 74.2% from 77%.
Binance Research did not frame this as a single-driver story, but the pattern is notable for traders deciding where to deploy capital: ETFs can offer diversified exposure, while direct equity allocation depends more heavily on idiosyncratic company performance.
Trading frequency and sell-order behavior differ by age
The report also points to structural differences in how Gen Z participates compared with older cohorts. Binance Research said Gen Z traded less frequently across all three equity products. For TradFi perpetuals, Gen Z averaged 13 monthly trades, compared with 17 for Millennials and 16.5 for Gen X.
Account behavior provides another window into how Gen Z approaches positioning. Among Gen Z direct-equity accounts, 22% had never placed a sell order. The share was lower for older groups—19% for Gen X and just 9% for Baby Boomers—while Millennials showed the highest level of buy-only behavior at 30%.
For Gen Z buy-only accounts, Binance reported that the most purchased assets by cumulative buying included Broadcom, Tesla and the Schwab US Dividend Equity ETF. The inclusion of a dividend-focused ETF among top cumulative buys aligns with the broader trend toward fund exposure rather than single-stock selection.
Binance also noted a key limitation for interpreting longer-term trends: its direct-equities offering only reached “meaningful scale” in June, leaving a comparatively short window to observe multi-month behavior changes.
Low use of leveraged and inverse ETF products
Beyond what Gen Z is buying, the report examines what it is avoiding—particularly in more complex ETF structures. Binance Research said Gen Z showed relatively little appetite for leveraged and inverse ETFs within TradFi perpetuals. Specifically, 88.2% of Gen Z TradFi perpetual accounts recorded no activity in leveraged or inverse ETFs.
For context, the no-activity shares were 84.5% for Millennials and 85.9% for Gen X, meaning Gen Z’s participation in these higher-risk product types appears modest relative to other cohorts. For traders, that matters because leveraged and inverse exposure can amplify volatility and risk management complexity, affecting how portfolios behave during market stress.
While the report does not provide breakdowns on whether the remaining Gen Z accounts used these products heavily or lightly, the headline takeaway is clear: for most Gen Z participants, ETF exposure—at least within these categories—has been largely non-leveraged.
Tokenized stocks: bStocks briefly overtake xStocks
Separately from the Gen Z cohort analysis, tokenized equities market data suggests shifting competitive dynamics among issuers. Binance’s bStocks briefly overtook Kraken’s xStocks as the second-largest tokenized stock issuer this week, according to Token Terminal data cited in the source.
As of Tuesday, bStocks held $610.6 million in tokenized stock value, compared with $601.2 million for xStocks. By Friday, the positions reversed: Token Terminal showed xStocks at $610.7 million and bStocks at $579.6 million. The report described these levels as about 22.3% and 21.2% of the roughly $2.7 billion tokenized stock market, respectively. Ondo Finance remained the largest issuer with $971.8 million.
Looking at the market as a whole, the source also pointed to continued expansion in distributed value tracked by RWA.xyz, which reported $2.43 billion in distributed value as of Friday—about 5% higher than over the previous 30 days. For investors, the issuer “leadership” flip between bStocks and xStocks underlines how quickly tokenized-stock balances can shift as flows move across platforms and products, even while the top issuer maintains its position.
That fast-moving ranking is also a reminder that tokenized equities remain a developing segment: total market growth is measurable, but individual issuers can move up or down quickly as their tokenized exposure rises and falls.
Going forward, traders should watch whether Gen Z’s ETF share continues to rise beyond the current early post-scale window for Binance direct equities, and whether the limited leveraged/inverse activity persists as more participants enter. In parallel, the tokenized-stock rankings may remain fluid—so changes in issuer balances could be as important as the broader market growth trend.
This article was originally published as Binance Study: Gen Z Prefers ETFs and Lowers Crypto Trading Frequency on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The activity of Ethereum whales has not shown any clear trend in the last seven days, although there is high volatility, meaning whales are very much in action. In a recent analysis, no dominant buying or selling bias was seen despite the high activity.
One question that needs to be answered is whether the whales are moving their wealth into stablecoins or whether the reverse is the case. This will give us an idea of the dominant sentiment among large buyers who hold a significant portion of the market value.
We analyzed data sourced from Dune Analytics for USDT and USDC, the top two stablecoins, on decentralized exchanges (DEXs) for the last seven days and found that there is only a slight difference favoring stablecoins against Ethereum.
However, something more interesting could be going on, as USDC is also clearly preferred over USDT. We dug deeper to uncover the reason for this preference.
Whales Show Slight Bias Toward Stablecoins Against Ethereum
Just like there is no significant bias toward buying or selling of ETH on DEXs as revealed by the last study, whales seem to be buying a little more stablecoins than ETH. ETH to stablecoin transactions had a volume of $184 million, while stablecoin to ETH had $170 million. This shows a difference of roughly $14 million in favor of stablecoins.
However, the relatively small imbalance suggests cautious positioning rather than a decisive exit from ETH. A significant difference in volume would have suggested that large buyers are exiting ETH, which would raise concerns about a potential worsening of the bearish trend, but that is not the case at the moment.
Large buyers show slight bias towards stablecoins. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author
Large Buyers Prefer USDC Over USDT
The data further revealed that large buyers are not just slightly flowing into stablecoins, but they prefer USDC by a wide margin. Of the roughly $162 million stablecoin volume traded over the last seven days, over $120 million was in USDC, while USDT only accounted for about $41 million.
Two scenarios are possible here. The first is that large buyers genuinely prefer USDC to USDT for different reasons ranging from security to fees. Secondly, the data may be showing pseudo bias toward USDC because most DEXs offered trades in USDC more than USDT, but that seems to be the case.
Large buyers prefer USDC over USDT. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author
We analyzed the trading volume by trading platforms to see how the two stablecoins performed on platforms offering both options. Interestingly, Uniswap was the leading platform of choice, accounting for $135 million in volume (over 83%) of the total of $162 million, and offers both USDC and USDT.
USDC still outperformed USDT, accounting for over 77% of the Uniswap-bound stablecoin volume, worth over $104 million. This shows that large traders truly prefer USDC over USDT, which only had a little over $30 million in volume.
USDC volumes are significantly higher on Uniswap. Source: Dune.com | Analysis by author
Conclusion
Large buyers showing bias toward USDC could be for a number of reasons. First, it could be that USDC has deeper liquidity than USDT. This allows large traders to execute large trades running into millions with as little slippage as possible, which can save them thousands of dollars.
USDC is also commonly used as a dollar-denominated asset throughout DeFi, which is seeing significant growth, resulting in the higher volume relative to USDT.
In conclusion, large buyers are not exiting ETH. The difference in flow direction is marginal, suggesting cautious positioning rather than an outright bearish bias, despite ETH’s price decline. This is good news for retail traders, especially as we already established that the decline is not linked to whale activity.
This article was originally published as Ethereum Whales Prefer Usdc as $13.8M Shift Toward Stablecoins on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

JPMorgan’s latest US securities disclosure shows a notable build-up in its reported positions tied to major US crypto exchange-traded funds. In a Form 13F filing covering holdings as of June 30, the bank reported that its exposure to BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF rose by roughly a quarter during the second quarter, while its reported holdings in an Ether ETF more than quadrupled.
The filing, submitted to the US Securities and Exchange Commission on Wednesday, aggregates positions across JPMorgan entities and also lists 17 other investment managers covered by the same disclosure. That structure makes it hard for outside observers to separate long-term investment convictions from other uses of ETF holdings such as client-related activity or internal inventory management.
Key takeaways
JPMorgan reported an increase in its BlackRock Bitcoin ETF exposure, rising from about 8.3 million shares in Q1 to about 10.4 million shares in Q2.
Its reported position in BlackRock’s Ether ETF (iShares Ethereum Trust) climbed from roughly 267,000 shares to about 1.17 million shares—more than a fourfold jump.
Smaller reported holdings in XRP-related products reappeared after JPMorgan showed no XRP positions in the prior quarter.
Analysts caution that 13F data may reflect multiple operational drivers and cannot show short positions, so it does not necessarily equal JPMorgan’s net market view.
Bitcoin ETF holdings rise in JPMorgan’s disclosure
According to the Form 13F, JPMorgan reported about 10.4 million shares of BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) in Q2. In Q1, the same disclosure listed about 8.3 million shares. The filing corresponded to a reported value of roughly $356 million in Q2.
While the increase is significant in percentage terms, a 13F filing is not designed to communicate directional trading strategies. As PrimeXBT senior market analyst Jonatan Randin explained to Cointelegraph, these reports can combine holdings from different parts of an institution, including positions linked to client flows and other internal uses. That limits how confidently readers can interpret the update as a clear bet on future price movement.
Randin also noted a structural limitation of 13Fs: they exclude short positions. As a result, the reported long holdings do not reveal net exposure after offsets, meaning the filing is best viewed as a snapshot of disclosed long positions rather than a full picture of risk.
Ether ETF position expands more dramatically
JPMorgan’s Ether-related exposure rose even faster. In the same filing, its holdings in the iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) increased to about 1.17 million shares in Q2 from roughly 267,000 shares in Q1. This represents more than a fourfold increase.
The reported change suggests that, at least in terms of disclosed holdings, JPMorgan’s balance-sheet linkage to Ether-linked investment products expanded more quickly than its Bitcoin-related exposure during the same quarter.
As with the Bitcoin ETF position, the interpretation remains constrained by the nature of Form 13F reporting. Investors should view the figures as evidence of increased disclosed holdings rather than direct proof of a strategic shift toward a particular crypto asset’s price direction—especially because 13F submissions do not convey the full context of derivatives, hedges, or other trading that might be used to manage risk.
XRP-linked holdings appear after a blank prior quarter
Beyond Bitcoin and Ether, Randin pointed to small but notable positions tied to XRP investment products. In Q2, JPMorgan reported 181 shares of Grayscale’s XRP product valued at about $3,763 and 113 shares of Bitwise’s XRP ETF valued at about $1,356.
In Q1, JPMorgan showed no reported positions in either of those XRP-related vehicles. Randin connected the timing to the broader regulatory environment for XRP and to the emergence of spot XRP investment products in the United States.
“From my point of view this adds credibility to the regulatory improvements surrounding XRP,” Randin said, highlighting how the appearance of XRP-linked fund holdings can be interpreted as a sign of improving market accessibility. Still, the quantities reported are relatively small, so readers should avoid assuming the position signals a major reallocation toward XRP without additional supporting data.
Why 13F snapshots matter—and what they can’t tell
JPMorgan’s filing illustrates both the usefulness and the limitations of 13F disclosures for crypto-focused investors. On one hand, the report provides a recurring, regulator-filed window into how large institutions allocate capital or align exposure with crypto-linked exchange-traded products. On the other hand, it does not capture the full trading picture.
In particular, Randin’s explanation underscores three key points investors typically need to keep in mind when reading 13Fs:
Multiple internal sources: An institution’s holdings can reflect a mix of business units, including client activity and inventory management.
No netting of shorts: 13F reports do not show short positions, so the disclosure is not a complete net exposure measure.
Quarterly timing: Changes reflect holdings as of a specific reporting date, not necessarily when a purchase or sale occurred.
This means the reported increases in Bitcoin and Ether ETF shares should be interpreted as movement in disclosed long holdings rather than a definitive statement about future market direction.
Reductions in miner positions also signal shifting proxies
Randin also highlighted that JPMorgan trimmed positions in several Bitcoin miners. He argued that miner equities can be a less reliable proxy for Bitcoin exposure as some miners expand into artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, potentially diversifying away from straightforward Bitcoin linkage.
“If that was the reason for holding them, trimming that part of the portfolio makes a lot of sense regardless of your view of the future direction of price,” Randin said.
For crypto investors, this is a useful reminder that institutional disclosures may reflect not only bullish or bearish expectations, but also a re-evaluation of what different crypto-adjacent asset categories are actually expressing—whether that’s direct token exposure through ETFs or more complex business exposure through mining-related equity.
Going forward, traders and long-term investors may want to watch whether JPMorgan’s ETF-related positions continue to trend upward or stabilize in subsequent filings, and whether additional disclosures show further expansion—or rebalancing—across Bitcoin, Ether, and smaller altcoin-linked products as regulatory conditions evolve.
This article was originally published as JPMorgan Q2 Filing Highlights Higher Bitcoin and Ether ETF Exposure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Morgan Stanley increased its reported cryptocurrency-related positions in the second quarter, according to its Q2 13F filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The most notable change was a significant step-up in holdings of BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF, alongside broader adjustments across other crypto-linked equities and exchange-traded funds.
Specifically, Morgan Stanley’s reported exposure to the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) rose to roughly 16.5 million shares from 13.4 million, an increase of about 23%, as reflected in the SEC filing submitted on Thursday. The firm also reported 2.57 million shares of its own Morgan Stanley Bitcoin Trust (MSBT), which began trading in April.
Key takeaways
Morgan Stanley boosted its IBIT share count by more than 3 million shares in Q2, even as the reported dollar value declined due to weaker Bitcoin prices during the quarter.
Its MSBT position was initiated in the period, adding a new channel for the firm’s own spot Bitcoin product exposure.
Ether exposure expanded as well, with major increases in iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) and Grayscale’s Ethereum staking-focused mini fund.
The filing shows uneven positioning across the broader crypto equity complex, with gains in some miners and Circle (USDC issuer) contrasted by cuts in others.
Morgan Stanley’s Circle (CRCL) holdings rose sharply, while reported holdings in Coinbase and some mining names declined.
IBIT adds volume, valuation drops with Bitcoin
While Morgan Stanley added approximately 3.04 million shares to its IBIT position, the value of that stake fell by about 18% to $549 million from $667 million. The filing’s figures reflect a common dynamic for large investors: even when share counts rise, reported portfolio value can still decline if the underlying asset—here, Bitcoin—trades lower over the reporting window.
The SEC filing indicates the increase in IBIT shares occurred alongside also adding to several other Bitcoin ETF exposures. Morgan Stanley reported higher allocations to products including Grayscale’s Bitcoin Mini Trust ETF and Bitwise’s Bitcoin ETF, while its Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) position rose by nearly 38%.
Beyond the headline IBIT change, the broader pattern suggests Morgan Stanley was concentrating more into established spot Bitcoin vehicles rather than trimming exposure at the start of Q2. Investors often watch this kind of behavior for clues on whether institutional demand is strengthening at the ETF level, particularly when the share count rises faster than the reported valuation.
Ether positions expand across spot and staking-linked products
Morgan Stanley’s Q2 filing also showed substantial growth in reported Ether-related ETF holdings. Its iShares Ethereum Trust ETF (ETHA) position increased by about 202% to around 4.6 million shares. Morgan Stanley also raised its Grayscale Ethereum Staking Mini ETF (ETH) holding by approximately 26% to about 5.1 million shares.
These increases matter because they signal that Morgan Stanley’s crypto ETF footprint is not limited to Bitcoin. For market participants, large incremental allocations to Ether products can be interpreted as broader institutional participation—especially when the increases span both mainstream spot-style Ether exposure (ETHA) and products linked to staking (Grayscale’s staking-focused mini fund).
In addition, Morgan Stanley initiated new exposure to Solana-related funds. The filing showed additions to Grayscale Solana Staking ETF (GSOL) and Fidelity’s Solana fund (FSOL), with those positions reported at about $4.25 million and $2.26 million, respectively.
Circle and mining/infrastructure names show selective momentum
Beyond ETFs, Morgan Stanley also adjusted its holdings in crypto-adjacent public companies. The firm dramatically increased its reported stake in Circle Internet Group (CRCL), the company behind the USDC stablecoin. According to the Q2 filing, Circle shares rose from roughly 1.46 million to about 8.32 million.
On the mining and infrastructure side, the filing reflected additions to several names, including Cipher Digital (CIFR), Core Scientific (CORZ), Hut 8 (HUT), and Bitdeer Technologies (BTDR). For investors tracking institutional risk appetite, expanding positions across multiple miners and infrastructure providers can indicate confidence in the sector’s operational resilience—or at least a willingness to accumulate exposure while valuations and market conditions fluctuate.
However, the changes were not uniformly positive across every crypto-linked equity. Morgan Stanley reported about 550,000 fewer shares of Coinbase (COIN). It also cut its CleanSpark (CLSK) position by more than 3.1 million shares and fully exited a roughly 8 million-share holding in Bitfarms (BITF).
That mix—adding in some areas while trimming others—suggests a more selective approach rather than a broad increase across the entire crypto equity basket.
What to watch after Morgan Stanley’s Q2 adjustments
Going into the next reporting period, investors will likely focus on whether Morgan Stanley continues to build its ETF share counts—particularly in IBIT and ETHA—or whether the firm’s activity reverts toward valuation-driven changes as crypto prices move. The SEC 13F updates also remain a key way to observe institutional positioning shifts, even though they are inherently lagging compared with day-to-day market flows.
This article was originally published as BlackRock’s Spot Bitcoin ETF Holdings Jump 23% in Q2, Data Shows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Long positions in XRP have grown rapidly over the last few weeks, with well over $1.5 billion worth of exposure being added to the derivatives market since the start of August.
This buildup of leverage exposure is indicative of increased bullish positioning among traders who expect the coin to stage a recovery.
According to Crypto Rover, XRP is building up “parabolic” exposure, and this has been attributed to the recent growth in long positions. It is evident from the above chart that exposure has been steadily increasing to reach around $1.596 billion.
Notably, while futures exposure growth might indicate similar demand for XRP in the spot markets, it is possible for traders to build up such exposure without buying any XRP at all.
XRP Testing $1 Support as Price Structure Narrows
XRP is currently trading at $1.0056, and the psychological $1.00 level has been the focus of the present market structure. For the past few months starting from February, the daily chart has created lower highs under a descending trendline, thus signifying that sellers have been controlling the market more.
Another trendline has been created since June on the $1.00 support level, thereby forming a narrowing structure in the form of a descending wedge. Now, XRP is nearing an important level as the price narrows under both support and descending resistance levels.
The crucial resistance level is seen in the range of $1.10–$1.15. Any daily close above this region will make the existing bearish market structure weaker and move the market toward the next technical level of $1.20. In case of a breakdown below $1.00, the current setup will be invalidated.
Weak RSI Keeps Momentum Under Pressure
Momentum indicators are keeping their guard up. The daily RSI comes in at 35.64, while the moving average holds at 39.90. Both figures continue trading below the neutral 50 line, suggesting that bearish momentum is still prevailing within the overall pattern.
On the other hand, the RSI approaches the oversold area. Although this is a signal that selling has gone too far, it does not mean that a reversal will happen immediately. Traders may want to see some RSI recovery before calling the momentum change a definite one.
Trading volume also remains relevant. Previously, lower levels had been seen alongside increased trading, while consolidation is now seen amid low volume. This means buyers have not shown enough interest in the asset yet.
Crowded Longs Lead to a Double-Edged Structure
The emergence of more bullish XRP longs, along with $1 support and a squeezed price range, creates a high-risk structure. If spot demand improves and XRP breaks above $1.10–$1.15, the bullish positioning could help to continue the uptrend toward $1.20.
Nevertheless, if XRP fails to hold $1.00, the situation could turn out differently. In such an event, crowded longs could get liquidated, adding to downside momentum.
XRP is now at a crossroads in terms of the technical picture. A breakout from descending resistance lines would indicate a rally, while a daily close below $1.00 could confirm the bearish structure.
This article was originally published as Long Positions for XRP Rise as It Tests Critical Support at $1 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Security incidents and corporate balance-sheet decisions are reshaping how mainstream investors think about Bitcoin, even as regulated products pull in fresh capital. A reported $116 million hardware wallet exploit has reignited the debate over self-custody, while US spot Bitcoin ETFs notched their strongest weekly inflows since April—suggesting demand is returning alongside renewed concern about holding funds directly.
Meanwhile, major industry players are making moves on the edges of the Bitcoin ecosystem: Strategy is signaling a return to accumulation after a period of small sales, Riot Platforms is reportedly lining up long-term power for a large AI compute deal, and Trump Media is revisiting how it manages a crypto-linked treasury after a steep quarterly loss.
Key takeaways
A Coldcard-related hardware wallet vulnerability tied to roughly $116 million drained in Bitcoin has pushed attention back toward self-custody risks.
US spot Bitcoin ETFs saw about $1 billion in net inflows for the week, marking their strongest performance since April.
Strategy CEO Phong Le says the company intends to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year after scrutinized, smaller sales this year.
Riot Platforms is reportedly securing a 20-year, 191 MW power arrangement tied to a major “frontier AI” customer identified by Bloomberg as Anthropic.
Trump Media disclosed large unrealized losses tied to its crypto and securities holdings and said it will revamp its digital asset treasury strategy.
Strategy signals renewed Bitcoin accumulation
Strategy CEO Phong Le told FOX Business that the company plans to resume Bitcoin accumulation later this year, aiming to reassert its long-term treasury approach after a stretch of relatively small sales drew public scrutiny. Le said Strategy has “bought” roughly 175,000 BTC and sold about 7,000 BTC this year—roughly 25 times more buying than selling.
Even with that imbalance, the company’s willingness to sell periodically has remained a point of focus. Le said Strategy now holds more than 840,000 BTC and remains the largest institutional Bitcoin holder, but has sold Bitcoin on four occasions since May. The most recent sale referenced in the report was the unloading of 1,690 BTC to fund preferred dividends, buybacks, and its dollar reserve.
Analysts note that the issue is not just whether a company sells, but what those sales mean for capital efficiency. According to Novaque Research, when corporate treasuries trade below Bitcoin net asset value, raising additional capital can be increasingly dilutive—making the financing cycle harder to sustain. In that context, Strategy’s stated intent to accumulate again may be interpreted as an attempt to reduce the long-term friction created by repeated sales for shareholder and reserve needs.
ETF inflows strengthen as self-custody concerns resurface
While Bitcoin’s spot price has remained subdued, US spot Bitcoin ETFs attracted roughly $1 billion in net inflows for the week, according to Cointelegraph’s reporting referenced to data on weekly ETF flows. Bloomberg analyst Eric Balchunas described the period as the third-best week since October, using the term “silent IPO” to explain how early supply dynamics can keep price action muted even as institutional demand grows.
The renewed inflow momentum has also come as attention returns to a major self-custody failure: a Coldcard hardware wallet exploit linked to faulty key generation that reportedly drained about $116 million in Bitcoin. Balchunas said the incident could ultimately enhance the appeal of ETFs for investors concerned about self-custody risks, pointing to the post-hack rebound as a possible—though not proven—connection.
In his comments, Balchunas also cautioned that correlation does not imply causation. Still, his broader point was that if security scares continue to surface, some investors may decide that regulated products better match their risk tolerance—particularly those who want exposure without managing key storage themselves. What remains uncertain is whether inflows will persist beyond a short-term narrative effect, or whether the ETF market will return to a more typical pattern as memories fade and wallets fix vulnerabilities.
Riot’s reported 191 MW AI power deal highlights capacity constraints
Bitcoin miners are increasingly positioning their infrastructure for demand outside traditional hash-rate competition. Riot Platforms is reportedly negotiating a major compute-adjacent arrangement: a 20-year contract for 191 megawatts of capacity from Riot’s Texas campus. The report identifies the customer as “a leading frontier AI” company, with Bloomberg naming Anthropic.
According to the coverage, Riot said the agreement was tied to a long-term supply of power from its Rockdale campus. The timing matters because data center expansion has faced persistent constraints, and power availability is often the limiting factor for large-scale AI deployments. In that sense, miners with energy access can present themselves not only as Bitcoin producers, but also as suppliers of the physical capacity AI builders require.
The broader trend is visible across the sector. The report lists several Bitcoin miners that have expanded or announced AI-adjacent efforts, including Bitdeer, CleanSpark, MARA Holdings, Core Scientific, Hut 8, and IREN. Riot’s stock performance also reflected investor appetite for this shift: shares fell 5.4% Monday before rising 21% overnight and were up roughly 50% year-to-date at the time of the report.
Trump Media revises crypto treasury approach after large quarterly loss
Corporate exposure to crypto remains a sensitive balancing act, and Trump Media’s latest disclosures underline how quickly valuation changes can hit financial results—even without selling. The company said it will revamp its digital asset treasury strategy after unrealized losses contributed to a $238 million second-quarter net loss, emphasizing the risks of holding digital assets and related securities on a balance sheet.
Trump Media reported $190.4 million in unrealized losses across its digital assets during the quarter and pledged digital assets and equity securities in the period. It also disclosed that it held 9,477.16 Bitcoin as of June 30, down from 9,542.16 in the prior quarter. In July, the company sold $159.6 million in Bitcoin-related securities and used proceeds to buy more Bitcoin, increasing its holdings to about 14,139 BTC worth $890.5 million by July 31.
Beyond the mark-to-market impact, the company warned that generating additional income from its Bitcoin holdings could introduce counterparty risk. It noted the possibility that a counterparty could default or become insolvent, potentially limiting recovery of Bitcoin committed under unsecured arrangements. The company also indicated that it plans to redirect more resources toward Truth Social, Truth+ and other media operations as part of broader capital allocation changes.
Going forward, investors should watch whether Strategy’s renewed accumulation language translates into measurable buy activity, whether ETF inflows remain resilient beyond the immediate post-hack period, and how corporate treasuries adjust their risk controls as more security incidents and valuation swings test the durability of different Bitcoin exposure models.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin’s $116M Self-Custody Push Signals a Shift in Crypto Custody on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

UK Reform leader Nigel Farage is facing an ongoing probe by the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over an alleged failure to register certain financial interests tied to crypto-linked donations. The investigation, shown on the Commissioner’s website as of Friday, was briefly paused after Farage resigned his seat following his July exit from Parliament, but restarted after his return as Member of Parliament for Clacton.
According to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ public register of allegations currently under investigation, the concern centers on whether Farage properly disclosed interests related to receiving millions of dollars’ worth of donations and gifts connected to two figures in the crypto sphere. The scrutiny could carry consequences under UK parliamentary rules, including potential suspension from Parliament.
Key takeaways
Farage is under investigation for “failure to register an interest,” according to the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
The probe relates to crypto-linked giving from Christopher Harborne, described in reporting as worth $6.7 million, and to funding connected to Farage’s staff and security.
Under UK rules, MPs must register current interests within a month of election and disclose relevant benefits received in the prior 12 months.
If the investigation finds a breach, Farage could face suspension—potentially triggering another by-election.
The political fallout has also reignited UK discussions about whether to restrict “crypto gifts” to prevent possible foreign influence.
Why the standards investigation is back on
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ allegations page currently lists Farage as being investigated for failing to register an interest tied to donations and gifts from individuals connected to the crypto industry. The investigation had been halted in July after Farage resigned from Parliament—an action that followed earlier reporting on the donation controversy—before resuming after he was reelected as MP for Clacton.
Farage’s return came after a by-election in which he secured a commanding victory. Earlier coverage of the July by-election reported he won with 63% of the vote, defeating satirical candidate Count Binface’s 27%, and that none of the other major parties participated in the race.
What the probe is expected to examine
While the standards record frames the issue as a failure to register an interest, the substance of the inquiry is tied to specific arrangements and the timing of disclosure.
The Commissioner’s listing—alongside related reporting—points to the alleged gifts and benefits potentially received by Farage and his operations. Reporting cited in the article states the probe will consider:
Crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne giving Farage $6.7 million.
Farage’s staff and security being funded by George Cottrell, described in reporting as a convicted fraudster tied to a crypto casino.
The relevant UK framework requires newly elected MPs to register financial interests within one month of their election. They are also expected to report benefits received in the 12 months preceding their election.
Farage’s stated characterization of the gifts
The underlying dispute is not only about whether the interests were disclosed, but how they were described and treated under parliamentary expectations. Reporting referenced in the source article notes that Farage initially characterized Cottrell’s donation as a “reward” for campaigning related to Brexit and later referred to both men’s contributions as “gifts” provided “on an unconditional basis.”
Those descriptions may matter because the standards process focuses on registration obligations rather than intent alone. The central question for the Commissioner will be whether the benefits required disclosure were entered into the register correctly and within the required timeframe.
Potential parliamentary consequences
If the investigation concludes that Farage breached parliamentary rules, the sanctions can be significant. The possible outcome highlighted in the reporting includes suspension from Parliament, which would likely trigger another by-election.
Cointelegraph attempted to obtain comment from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the probe but did not receive an immediate response.
Beyond Farage personally, the case also underscores the scrutiny UK lawmakers face around political donations and gifts—particularly when the money originates from complex, cross-border financial ecosystems that include crypto businesses.
Broader pressure to tighten crypto donation rules
The investigation has arrived amid renewed policy debate inside the UK. The source article states that Labour lawmakers have reportedly proposed making a previously discussed moratorium on crypto donations permanent—originally linked to measures announced in March—to address concerns about the potential influence of foreign actors.
That discussion is set against guidance referenced from the International Bar Association. According to the source, unincorporated associations are allowed to give more than $675 directly to UK politicians, a structure that the IBA has described as creating a potential loophole. The concern, as characterized in the reporting, is that such arrangements could be used as conduits for “foreign or dark money.”
Whether any new rules ultimately address the issues raised by the Farage investigation may depend on how regulators and lawmakers define “crypto gifts,” determine how they should be valued, and decide which entities must be considered when mapping beneficial ownership and control behind donations.
For investors, builders, and users watching UK policy, the next step is the standards investigation’s findings: what the Commissioner decides about disclosure timing, the classification of benefits as registrable interests, and whether this case drives faster regulatory action on crypto donations. Until the probe reaches a conclusion, the practical uncertainty is likely to remain—both for individual politicians and for the wider political fundraising rules that govern crypto-linked money.
This article was originally published as UK probes Nigel Farage’s crypto “gifts” after by-election win on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Israel’s Bank Leumi is partnering with Galaxy Digital to bring crypto trading to its banking app, expanding digital asset access beyond institutions and into mainstream retail finance. The service is expected to launch in early 2027, allowing customers to buy, hold, and sell Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana directly through Leumi’s trading interface.
Leumi said customers of the bank and its Pepper mobile banking arm will be able to use a dedicated section within the Leumi Trade app for the three cryptocurrencies. The companies also framed the rollout as a first for an Israeli bank, while detailing how Galaxy will provide both trading capabilities and custody support.
Key takeaways
Leumi and Galaxy Digital plan to offer crypto trading for Bitcoin, Ether, and Solana through the Leumi Trade app.
Launch timing: early 2027, according to the companies’ announcement.
GalaxyOne Institutional will be used for trading and related services, with Galaxy custody infrastructure supporting the setup.
Leumi says it will be the first Israeli bank to provide digital asset trading to retail customers.
Leumi brings crypto trading into its retail app
Under the agreement announced Friday, Leumi will enable customers to access crypto markets for three major assets—Bitcoin (BTC), Ether (ETH), and Solana (SOL)—via a dedicated section of the Leumi Trade application. The functionality is designed around three common user actions: buying, holding, and selling.
Leumi positioned the integration as an industry milestone in Israel, stating that it expects to be the first Israeli bank to offer digital-asset trading services to customers. The bank also emphasized its customer footprint, noting that it serves millions of clients across retail and business operations.
For market participants, the development is notable because it suggests regulated banks are continuing to build distribution channels for crypto rather than limiting participation to broker-dealers or crypto-native platforms. While the exact user experience and onboarding steps were not detailed in the announcement, the “through the bank’s app” approach is a meaningful shift in where retail crypto services are likely to be discovered and accessed.
Galaxy provides trading and custody infrastructure
The partnership is supported by two separate pillars of Galaxy’s platform. Leumi said it will use GalaxyOne Institutional for trading and related services. For custody and digital asset infrastructure, the companies said Galaxy’s custody platform—formerly known as GK8—will support the technical foundation behind the offering.
That separation matters from a risk and operations standpoint. Trading systems and custody systems typically require different controls, reporting, and security tooling, and the announcement indicates Leumi will be leveraging Galaxy’s established infrastructure rather than building a complete stack internally. For investors and users watching the space, this approach is often associated with faster deployment timelines and more consistent institutional-grade operational standards.
However, until closer to launch, key details remain unclear—such as whether the service will operate with specific regional restrictions, what user limits or compliance requirements will apply, and how the platform will handle order routing and settlement. Those elements could influence both customer demand and operational risk management when the service goes live.
Why the timing and partnership structure matter
The stated target—early 2027—places the Leumi rollout well into the future, giving the banks time to complete integration, compliance procedures, and security hardening. From an editorial perspective, the duration is also a reminder that bank-led crypto products are often slower-moving than crypto-native services, particularly when custody, reporting, and regulatory frameworks must be aligned.
Galaxy Digital’s role as the technology and liquidity partner also highlights how large crypto firms are increasingly positioning themselves as infrastructure providers to traditional finance. Rather than building standalone consumer exchanges, these collaborations aim to turn crypto market access into a feature inside existing banking channels.
That shift could be important for adoption. Bank apps typically come with established customer onboarding, payment rails, and support workflows. If Leumi’s offering proves smooth and reliable, it could reduce friction for mainstream users who want exposure to major cryptocurrencies but prefer the familiar interface of a regulated bank.
Galaxy’s recent performance underscores a volatile backdrop
The announcement arrives after Galaxy reported a challenging period for its broader business. According to Cointelegraph’s earlier coverage linked in the original report, Galaxy posted an $85 million net loss in Q2, which it attributed largely to declining digital asset prices. Despite the net loss, Galaxy’s digital assets segment generated $66 million in adjusted gross profit, reported as up 34% quarter-over-quarter.
This matters because it frames the partnership against a backdrop where the crypto market’s direction can swing profitability. Even so, the fact that Galaxy continued to report positive adjusted gross profit in the digital assets business suggests that trading and infrastructure services may remain comparatively resilient during down cycles—especially if counterparties and institutional users continue to operate.
For readers tracking Galaxy’s broader strategy, the Leumi deal reinforces an angle that the company has been pursuing for some time: using institutional infrastructure and market services to gain access to distribution partners. Galaxy Digital, founded and led by Mike Novogratz, began trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker GLXY in May 2025. Yahoo Finance data showed the stock at $21.38 on Friday morning, up about 2% on the day but down roughly 25% over the past year.
What to watch next
With an early-2027 launch horizon, the most important developments for customers and the market will be regulatory approvals, product design details inside Leumi Trade, and how Galaxy’s trading and custody components are integrated for a bank-grade user experience. Until then, investors should watch for additional partner announcements and any operational disclosures that clarify how Leumi plans to scale crypto access while managing custody, compliance, and liquidity requirements.
This article was originally published as Israel’s biggest bank launches Galaxy crypto trading for BTC, ETH, SOL on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin moved lower into Friday’s Wall Street open, with traders increasingly focused on whether the market is setting up for a renewed downside break. While broader risk assets managed to hold momentum after encouraging US inflation developments, BTC failed to participate, slipping toward month-to-date lows around the low-$62,000s.
Market attention has now shifted to the next major US macro release: the Aug. 26 Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, which is the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge. QCP Capital said the crypto sector’s muted response to softer inflation so far makes the upcoming PCE print especially important for what comes next.
Key takeaways
BTC is trading below $63,000 and is nearing new August lows, despite US equities hitting record highs.
Rekt Capital highlighted $63,220 as a weekly-close threshold, warning that staying below it could encourage a deeper breakdown.
TradingView data showed BTC down about 1.3% on the day to roughly $62,570, near month-to-date lows.
QCP Capital pointed to the upcoming Aug. 26 PCE release as the next critical test for whether macro tailwinds can translate into sustained crypto demand.
BTC underperforms as stocks press to new highs
According to TradingView, BTC/USD was down about 1.3% on the day to $62,570, trading close to its lowest levels month-to-date. This comes as US stocks continued to climb, with the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite both posting gains by the time of writing on Thursday’s close—an environment that has typically supported risk-on assets.
The divergence matters because it suggests Bitcoin is not simply tracking the improving equity tape. Earlier coverage noted that inflation relief in the US had reduced expectations for further interest-rate pressure, but Bitcoin still lacked the follow-through traders often look for when macro conditions improve.
$63,220 on weekly close as a decision point
One of the clearest near-term signposts is $63,220. Trader and analyst Rekt Capital warned that the Sunday weekly close needs to be above that level to avoid setting up what he described as “a breakdown.” In a post on X, Rekt Capital also stressed that $63,000 is no longer behaving like reliable support after weakening throughout August.
Rekt Capital further tied the current structure to prior market behavior, noting that a 50-month exponential moving average (EMA) near $65,827 appears to be acting as resistance. He framed this as reminiscent of the 2022 bear-market pattern, emphasizing that BTC has recently struggled to reclaim key levels that would normally help stabilize price action.
For traders, the practical implication is straightforward: the market is approaching a level where confirmation could shift from “range behavior” to “trend continuation lower” if price fails to regain momentum on the weekly timeframe.
Derivatives positioning and liquidation risk remain in focus
The caution around a potential breakdown has also been linked to positioning in derivatives markets. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph reported increasing odds of a liquidation event as BTC approached an area of liquidity around $61,000, alongside rising open interest (OI) in futures and other derivatives venues.
That setup can amplify volatility when price breaks downward, particularly when leverage is concentrated on one side of the market. In a recent edition of its newsletter, onchain analytics platform Glassnode summarized the broader imbalance: “Traders have added substantial risk, most of it long, into a market that shows no matching demand,” according to The Week Onchain.
In this context, the market’s inability to rally alongside stocks becomes even more notable—if demand doesn’t show up when price is supported by the macro narrative, leveraged long positioning can become vulnerable quickly when technical levels fail.
PCE on Aug. 26 becomes the next macro catalyst
Beyond technical levels, QCP Capital argued that the crypto market’s response to improved inflation conditions has been inconsistent. In its latest analysis, QCP said the phenomenon is “increasingly important,” distinguishing between “resilience” and “momentum.” The firm noted that BTC absorbed several negative headlines without a sustained breakdown last week, but that softer inflation data have only produced a muted response so far.
QCP’s key point for investors is that the market may be waiting for a more decisive macro signal rather than reacting to incremental improvements. The firm said macro traders are now focused on the Aug. 26 PCE index release—widely recognized as the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge.
According to data referenced by QCP, the PCE “last print” in July marked its first monthly decline since 2020, based on figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That makes the upcoming reading notable: if the data reinforces a cooling inflation trend, traders may look for whether crypto can finally convert the narrative into sustained buying demand rather than staying range-bound or weakening.
At the same time, the key uncertainty is timing and translation. So far, the pattern described by QCP suggests that macro relief hasn’t yet been strong enough to move crypto into a clear uptrend. With BTC sitting below key technical thresholds, the PCE release could influence whether leveraged traders choose to reduce risk or add exposure—potentially affecting volatility regardless of the direction of inflation prints.
Heading into the Aug. 26 PCE report, traders will likely watch both the weekly technical level near $63,220 and whether derivatives positioning continues to build risk on the long side. If BTC remains unable to reclaim that threshold, the market may be setting up for sharper downside moves; if it does recover, investors will want to see whether the macro narrative finally produces sustained momentum rather than a brief relief rally.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Slips to $62.5K as Weekly Close Risk Signals Further Losses on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Solana is moving toward a significant shift in how it prices and allocates blockspace. A new Solana Improvement Document, SIMD-0553, would replace the network’s current approach—where transaction fees are not tightly linked to how many computing resources a transaction consumes—with a model that charges according to requested resources and burns the resulting fees in SOL.
The proposal entered Solana’s onchain governance process in early August and passed the initial support stage on August 4. It is now in the support-and-discussion phase, which typically runs for seven epochs (about two weeks). If it clears the process, it could reshape incentives for both developers and high-frequency users by making inefficient transaction behavior more expensive.
Key takeaways
SIMD-0553 would tie fees more closely to requested compute, so transactions that use far more resources would pay more than lightweight ones.
Instead of sending the resource fee to validators, the proposal directs it to a SOL burn, removing tokens from circulation.
Core Solana devs and application teams would have stronger financial incentives to optimize performance and reduce resource waste.
Some high-volume trading and bot activity is expected to face substantially higher costs under the terminal fee model.
Higher burn projections could, in theory, move SOL toward deflation—but only if network activity grows enough to outweigh daily issuance.
Charging for compute, not just sending transactions
At the center of SIMD-0553 is a critique of Solana’s current fee structure: according to Cavey, a researcher at Solana infrastructure firm Temporal and author of the proposal, the cost users pay does not reflect the underlying compute differences between transactions. In his explanation, submitting a transaction that does minimal work can cost the same as one that consumes a large amount of CPU cycles.
Under the proposed model, resource fees would be set according to the resources a transaction requests rather than a flat baseline. Cavey argues this would give developers a clear reason to optimize, because wasteful behavior would no longer be subsidized by the network’s simpler fee mechanics.
“By installing this resource pricing right now, suddenly app developers have to optimize,” Cavey said, in the context of how poorly specified incentives can persist when inefficient and efficient transactions cost the same.
For end users, the change is intended to be beneficial indirectly: applications that reduce their compute consumption could pass on lower costs, improving user experience and potentially expanding what apps can afford to run.
Impact on arbitrage and high-frequency trading
A major focus of the proposal is computationally wasteful arbitrage. Cavey points to a pattern where searchers submit large volumes of transactions that largely fail—effectively consuming resources while capturing only limited successful outcomes—yet pay relatively low fees under current pricing.
He cites activity from the prior 30 days involving the traders with the highest failure rates: five accounts allegedly submitted 11.5 million transactions, consuming 929 million compute units across 2,477 trades that generated $16,091 in profit, while paying just 78 SOL in fees.
SIMD-0553 is designed to alter that equation. By increasing the cost of failed or inefficient attempts in proportion to requested resources, it would push arbitrage strategies toward more accurate and responsive behavior rather than brute-force submission.
Temporal’s modeling, as described alongside the proposal, suggests certain areas of onchain activity could become cheaper: stablecoin and token transfers could drop by about 20%, vote transactions by around 12.3%, and oracle updates by roughly 16.9% under the proposed fee model.
However, the same analysis implies a clear trade-off: some swaps—especially when routed through specific venues and prioritized differently—could become more expensive. Temporal estimates include a high-priority swap routed through DFlow costing 9.72% more, a mid-priority OKX swap costing 301% more, and a pump.fun swap with zero priority costing 3150% more. Cavey’s broader framing is that the base could remain low in absolute dollar terms for the most compute-intensive transactions, but the relative change for certain active strategies would be dramatic.
That is also why the proposal rejects a uniform increase to Solana’s existing 5,000-lamport fee, according to the article’s description: the uniform approach, Cavey argues, would likely penalize high-volume senders such as market makers while still failing to accurately price resource consumption.
Burn mechanics and the deflation debate
Beyond cost calculation, SIMD-0553 aims to change what happens to the fees. Rather than routing the resource fee to validators, the proposal would burn those fees—meaning SOL would be removed from circulation.
The article notes that the current daily burn is around 648 SOL, and that the terminal fee rate in SIMD-0553 could raise burn to roughly 7,500 to 9,000 SOL per day if resource demand stays roughly the same. That would represent an estimated 12 to 14 times increase in burn compared with current levels.
Cavey argues the effect could eventually make SOL deflationary, though he frames it as conditional on network success and continued growth in activity. As the article points out, Solana currently issues about 60,000 SOL per day, so even a 9,000 SOL daily burn would not, by itself, make the token deflationary. A separate improvement document, SIMD-0550, is described as targeting faster curbing of inflation already scheduled.
Importantly, the proposal’s burn incentive is also intended to reduce motivations to generate unnecessary resource-heavy transactions, aligning economic behavior with the network’s performance goals.
Still, not all contributors agree on the balance between validator revenue and token burn. One contributor, bji, reportedly argues against “more burn” as a goal and questions whether validator income should be reduced arbitrarily, reflecting a wider tension in fee-market design: funding network operations while maintaining supply dynamics.
Concerns about fairness, usability, and system complexity
Some of the debate around SIMD-0553 centers on a technical fairness question: should fees be based on how many resources a transaction requests or on how much it actually uses?
Contributor mschneider raises that it might feel more natural to charge based on units used. Cavey’s response, as presented in the article, is that charging based on requested resources provides upfront cost visibility for users and lets validators verify they can afford the fee before execution. At the same time, the model creates incentives for developers to estimate their resource needs accurately, reducing the risk of overpaying for unused compute.
The proposal would also introduce new operational and user-facing considerations. Some contributors worry that a new fee model could make Solana harder to use. Cavey argues that most users won’t need to calculate fees directly because exchanges and applications typically handle fee calculation and routing. He also suggests automated traders are sophisticated enough to adapt to fee-structure changes.
On validator economics, the article describes an estimated initial reduction to base-fee revenue of around 4%. Cavey says parameters could be adjusted to offset that impact if needed, but the disagreement remains unresolved for participants who prioritize validator income over additional burn.
As Solana moves deeper into the governance timeline, the key question for token holders and ecosystem participants is how those trade-offs resolve: whether the community converges on parameters that achieve stronger resource alignment without introducing unacceptable complexity or unintended pressure on critical market infrastructure.
This article was originally published as Solana Fee Update Boosts Token Burn by Charging More for Usage on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.