Crypto Breaking

Pineapple Financial has onboarded more than $1 billion in residential mortgage records to Injective, marking a significant step in its plan to migrate a long-running mortgage portfolio onto a public blockchain network. Injective said Friday that Pineapple aims to bring more than 29,000 funded mortgages—worth over $10 billion—onto the platform over time.
Unlike many tokenization models that package loans into new securities, Pineapple’s approach centers on moving existing loan documentation into onchain “records.” Each mortgage is represented by an onchain entry linked to the underlying loan file, rather than being repackaged as a separate mortgage security.
Key takeaways
Pineapple has migrated over $1 billion in residential mortgage records to Injective, per Injective.
Injective says Pineapple intends to move 29,000+ funded mortgages worth $10 billion+ in total.
Onchain mortgage records are built around 500+ loan-related data points, designed to support verification, audit trails, and risk analysis.
PAPL0, which tracks the mortgage records on Injective, shows an asset market cap of about $1.1 billion (Token Terminal data).
The mortgage record tokens are described as representing records, not direct ownership of the underlying loans.
How Pineapple is putting mortgages onchain
Injective framed Pineapple’s migration as part of a broader effort to move a historical loan portfolio onchain. The company said each migrated mortgage corresponds to an onchain record tied to the underlying loan file, with the structure intended to preserve the relationship between onchain data and the original loan documentation.
Injective also highlighted the data depth of the system: the records reportedly include more than 500 data points spanning loan-level information. In practical terms, that level of detail can be useful for building auditability and enabling risk analysis directly around the referenced mortgage file—capabilities that would be harder to achieve if only minimal metadata were stored onchain.
As of the latest update, Pineapple’s dashboard shows the program includes 2,079 mortgage records, compared with 1,259 when the migration initiative began in December 2025. That jump underscores that the project is not limited to a pilot dataset, but is expanding into larger portions of the mortgage book.
PAPL0 growth and what the token actually represents
On Injective, Pineapple’s onchain mortgage record tracking is associated with PAPL0. According to Token Terminal data, PAPL0 has an asset market cap of roughly $1.1 billion, up 48.2% over the past nine months.
Token Terminal’s project page describes PAPL0 as a vehicle tied to mortgage records on Injective. Importantly, the token is presented as representing the mortgage records themselves—not ownership of the underlying loans. That distinction matters for investors and counterparties evaluating what economic exposure they’re actually getting: record ownership and tokenized loan exposure are not always the same thing in real-world asset (RWA) designs.
Injective and Pineapple: beyond the migration
The mortgage records migration also sits within a broader relationship between Pineapple and Injective. Injective said the partnership includes a separate $100 million Injective (INJ) digital asset treasury. Within that arrangement, Pineapple reportedly stakes INJ from the treasury, and Kraken serves as a primary validator for the holdings.
That setup highlights a common challenge in onchain finance: moving RWAs is not only about tokenizing assets, but also about operational infrastructure such as staking, validation, and the ongoing management of blockchain-based holdings that support the tokenized system.
Real estate tokenization is widening—but remains niche
Mortgage record tokenization is part of a broader push to bring traditionally illiquid real estate and related investment interests onto blockchain networks. The central promise remains similar across projects: tokenization can make it easier to divide interests, transfer them, and provide more transparent access to certain asset-related information.
Recent coverage across the sector points to momentum in other formats as well. In June, Apex Group joined Goldman Sachs, Archax, and LRC Group on a tokenized real estate fund where shares are issued as digital tokens through Goldman Sachs’ Digital Asset Platform. In Dubai, tokenization efforts have also expanded: the Dubai Land Department launched a second phase of a pilot after about $5 million in property had been tokenized, with transactions recorded on the XRP Ledger, according to earlier reporting.
Still, the scale of tokenized real estate remains small compared with the overall RWA market. RWA.xyz data referenced in the article estimates tokenized real estate at about $226.5 million in distributed value, up 11.7% over the past 30 days, versus roughly $38.8 billion across tokenized RWAs tracked by RWA.xyz.
For market participants, this imbalance suggests a key tension in the RWA narrative: while real estate continues to attract serious experimentation, adoption and capital allocation across the broader tokenized assets space are happening faster elsewhere.
Going forward, the key question for readers is whether Pineapple’s approach—using rich loan-level records tied to underlying files, rather than repackaging mortgages into new securities—can sustain scaling beyond early migration milestones. The pace of record onboarding (2,079 currently, versus 1,259 at launch in December 2025) will likely be a close signal to watch as the project progresses toward its stated goal of 29,000+ funded mortgages.
This article was originally published as Pineapple Financial Deposits $1B in Mortgage Records on Injective on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor has defended public Bitcoin advocacy as protected speech under United States law. He also described Bitcoin as a commodity rather than a security, while separating advocacy from illegal conduct. Meanwhile, his comments come as lawmakers continue debates over new rules for digital assets.
Saylor said Americans can discuss Bitcoin and recommend ownership without obtaining a special license. He also stressed that existing laws still prohibit fraud and market manipulation involving digital assets. Consequently, his position links public Bitcoin promotion with established rights while rejecting unlawful financial activity.
Saylor has remained a prominent Bitcoin supporter through public statements and Strategy’s corporate treasury approach. His latest comments focus on the legal status of discussing Bitcoin and recommending the asset publicly. The remarks also come amid wider debates over how regulators should oversee cryptocurrency markets.
Clarity Act Debate Continues in Washington
The comments come as lawmakers prepare for a September 15 procedural vote concerning the CLARITY Act. The legislation seeks clearer responsibilities among federal agencies overseeing digital asset markets. However, lawmakers still need to resolve several provisions before the bill can advance through the Senate.
The National Sheriffs’ Association recently changed its position on the legislation from opposition to neutral. The group had raised concerns about enforcement against illicit financial activity under the proposed framework. Senator Cynthia Lummis welcomed the shift and urged lawmakers to move the legislation forward.
Lummis has argued that the bill could give law enforcement stronger tools against illicit crypto finance. However, the September 15 vote would only advance consideration and would not establish final passage. Therefore, the Senate must complete additional steps before the legislation can become law.
Strategy Resumes Bitcoin Purchases as MSTR Shares Fall
Saylor’s comments also follow Strategy’s return to Bitcoin purchases after an extended buying pause. Strategy acquired 4,603 BTC for roughly $369.7 million, with an average purchase price of $80,318. The purchase lifted the company’s Bitcoin holdings to 845,050 BTC.
Strategy has used Bitcoin as a central part of its corporate treasury strategy for several years. The company has continued accumulating BTC despite periods of sharp price swings across cryptocurrency markets. Moreover, its purchases have kept the company closely tied to Bitcoin’s market performance.
Despite the latest acquisition, Strategy shares have faced renewed selling pressure. MSTR recently fell about 4.2% to $138.74 as Bitcoin experienced fresh volatility after United States employment data. The shares remain down about 56% over the past 12 months, despite Strategy’s continued Bitcoin accumulation.
This article was originally published as Michael Saylor Defends Bitcoin Advocacy As MSTR Shares Face Pressure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Post-quantum security-focused startup QuFi Network has launched a verification platform aimed at protecting digital assets from potential future quantum computing attacks—without forcing users to upgrade or fork existing blockchain settlement layers. The approach, according to QuFi, is built around separating “verification” from “settlement,” so that transactions can be validated with post-quantum cryptography while value is ultimately settled on familiar networks.
Alongside the platform, QuFi introduced uBTC, a proof of concept that applies the verification system to Bitcoin collateral. uBTC is currently running on Bitcoin testnet, with redemptions designed to complete as standard Bitcoin transactions after the verification step produces cryptographic proofs that govern how value can move between settlement environments.
Key takeaways
QuFi’s platform validates transactions using post-quantum cryptography before settling them on existing blockchain networks, avoiding direct post-quantum signature deployment on-chain.
uBTC is a Bitcoin-focused proof of concept on testnet, verifying BTC collateral and issuing proofs that constrain value movement, while final settlement remains standard Bitcoin transactions.
QuFi says the design uses three post-quantum cryptographic standards—ML-DSA-65, SLH-DSA, and ML-KEM-1024—to handle signatures and secure key exchange.
The company’s stated goal is to reduce potential increases in storage, bandwidth, and computation that can come with using larger post-quantum primitives directly within blockchains.
The launch lands as multiple parts of the ecosystem experiment with quantum-resistant techniques, including Bitcoin signature proposals and efforts by institutions and protocol developers.
A verification layer instead of a blockchain upgrade
QuFi’s main product concept centers on an external verification layer. Rather than asking each settlement network to adopt new post-quantum cryptographic rules, QuFi proposes using a decentralized set of nodes to validate transactions with post-quantum cryptography ahead of settlement.
In QuFi’s framing, this architecture helps address one of the most common implementation challenges in the post-quantum transition: larger keys and signatures can translate into higher on-chain costs and performance overheads. By performing verification off the settlement path, QuFi says it aims to avoid added storage, bandwidth, and computing demands that could arise from integrating post-quantum primitives directly into individual chains.
The platform uses post-quantum standards that cover both digital signatures and key exchange. QuFi lists ML-DSA-65 and SLH-DSA for signatures, and ML-KEM-1024 for secure key exchange—building blocks it says are used to generate and check cryptographic proofs prior to settlement on existing blockchains.
uBTC on Bitcoin testnet: proofs constrain value movement
QuFi also launched uBTC, described as a proof-of-concept system applying the verification approach to Bitcoin. The system is currently operating on Bitcoin testnet4.
Per QuFi’s description, uBTC verifies BTC collateral and generates cryptographic proofs that govern how value moves between settlement environments. Importantly, QuFi says the redemptions ultimately settle as standard Bitcoin transactions. That means the Bitcoin network would not be required to run post-quantum signatures as part of the final settlement step—at least within this proof of concept.
For investors and developers tracking quantum-readiness, this structure is notable because it suggests one possible pathway for gradual migration: keep the “trust anchor” settlement layer stable while introducing stronger cryptographic verification elsewhere. The remaining question is how widely such proof-based settlement constraints can be adopted—especially when interacting with multiple networks and wallets that may have different assumptions about validation and finality.
Why the timing matters: quantum defense work is accelerating
QuFi’s announcement arrives amid a broader push across crypto to prepare for quantum-related risks. In August, StarkWare reportedly tested a quantum-resistant Bitcoin transaction on mainnet without requiring a fork. While the test demonstrated feasibility, the same coverage noted that the transaction required hours of computation and cost roughly $150 to $200, and it used a nonstandard format that required direct miner submission.
That earlier experiment highlights the practical friction QuFi is trying to bypass: even when post-quantum methods are technically possible, making them efficient and compatible with mainstream blockchain transaction flows is difficult. QuFi’s verification-layer approach is positioned as one way to reduce those integration costs.
Institutional and regulatory efforts are also part of the picture. According to prior reporting, banks and regulators across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia joined a pilot testing post-quantum wallets and onchain transfers using ML-DSA-65—one of the standards QuFi says it uses in its platform. Meanwhile, the Ethereum Foundation reportedly dropped its planned Poseidon hash function from a post-quantum architecture in favor of established alternatives such as SHA or BLAKE, reflecting a preference for reducing uncertainty by leaning on primitives with broader operational familiarity.
Bitcoin’s protocol-level experiments: trade-offs are already showing
Beyond off-chain or verification-layer approaches, some Bitcoin-focused quantum defenses are being explored directly at the protocol or signature scheme level. In August, Blockstream researchers published a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal for SHRINCS, an experimental post-quantum signature scheme intended to reduce size and performance costs associated with quantum-resistant signatures.
However, the same coverage also emphasized constraints and open issues. SHRINCS relies on stateful signatures to shrink signature size, which would require wallets to track signing keys previously used. It also remains early-stage, with no completed security proof referenced in that reporting, and it adds complexity that could increase user error risk if wallet implementations do not correctly manage state.
Compared with these protocol-level directions, QuFi’s emphasis is on reducing direct changes to settlement chains. For readers, the practical takeaway is that quantum readiness is not a single technology swap—it’s a spectrum of strategies, ranging from experimental signature schemes that modify transaction formats to separate verification systems that attempt to preserve existing settlement processes.
As QuFi’s platform and uBTC evolve, the key things to watch are how proof generation and verification perform under realistic load, whether the proofs integrate cleanly with broader wallet and settlement workflows, and how the project’s approach compares in cost and usability to protocol-level quantum defenses like SHRINCS. The next milestones—especially any expansion beyond testnet and any evidence of interoperability—will likely determine whether verification-layer quantum protection can move from concept to practical deployment.
This article was originally published as QuFi Debuts Post-Quantum Verification Platform Using Bitcoin Testnet Proof on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Відновлення крипторинку в серпні не лише підняло ціни — воно перерозподілило увагу на компанії, найбільше схильні до бети Bitcoin та Ether. Майнери Bitcoin знову торгуються як актив із кредитним плечем на BTC, тоді як корпоративні казначейства продовжують нарощувати свої запаси в межах того самого періоду відновлення.
Водночас традиційні фінанси все більше наближаються до стейблкоїнів для розрахунків і платежів. А на ринку Ethereum постійні спотові покупки Bitmine підштовхнули його майже до важливої віхи щодо частки пропозиції.

Trezor says the fallout from a data breach linked to its fulfillment processes is wider than it previously estimated. In an updated message posted to X on Friday, the hardware wallet provider reported that an additional 67,000 US customers may have had their full order details exposed after a shipping partner allegedly failed to delete data tied to specific orders.
Trezor emphasized that its own systems were not compromised. Instead, it pointed to third-party handling of order information, warning that the exposed details could still create risk for users—primarily through phishing and social engineering attacks aimed at stealing seed phrases.
Key takeaways
Trezor reports that the affected group now includes an additional 67,000 US customers, expanding beyond the earlier estimate.
The company says its hardware wallet systems were not breached, but order data may have remained accessible through a shipping provider.
Exposed details include names, emails, shipping addresses, and order information—data that can help scammers craft convincing impersonation scams.
Trezor warns the most serious risk is attackers using phishing to trick users into revealing seed phrases.
What Trezor says was exposed—and who is potentially at risk
According to the update posted by Trezor on X, the expanded estimate is connected to new information from its shipping provider, ShipMonk. Trezor said the breach may endanger users who placed orders between November 2019 and August 2021, a timeframe tied to those orders being potentially associated with accessible records.
In Trezor’s account, the exposed information would include full customer details such as a user’s name and email address, the shipping address used for the order, and order specifics. While that does not, by itself, grant access to a wallet, it can substantially lower the effort required for scammers to appear legitimate.
Trezor also indicated that these users had “full details exposed,” and it placed responsibility on ShipMonk for allegedly not deleting the order data from those records. The company said it had received written assurances from ShipMonk, according to the Friday update.
Why order-data breaches matter for hardware wallets
Hardware wallet security is designed to protect seed phrases and private keys from direct compromise. However, phishing is a different threat model: attackers do not need to break cryptography if they can trick users into voluntarily handing over the recovery information.
Trezor’s warning centers on that impersonation angle. With personal and order information in hand, attackers can send more targeted messages pretending to be Trezor support or other legitimate channels. If users follow the instructions in those messages, attackers could attempt to obtain seed phrases—the core secret that controls access to funds stored on a wallet.
Even if the breach did not expose wallet credentials directly, the disclosed details can make scams more believable, increasing the likelihood that some recipients will engage with fraudulent prompts.
How the estimate evolved over time
The updated number represents a clear change from earlier reporting. In August, Trezor initially estimated that about 14,000 users had their data exposed through ShipMonk, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph. Later, in January 2024, Trezor reported that roughly 66,000 users were at risk of phishing attacks if they contacted the company’s support team after December 2021.
By contrast, the new update on Friday frames the exposure in terms of a larger pool of US customers—those who ordered between November 2019 and August 2021—and it describes the data as fully detailed, rather than limited to a narrower set of circumstances.
This progression matters because it shifts the practical risk assessment for users. Instead of viewing the incident as affecting a small group—or as primarily tied to interactions with support—Trezor is now indicating that a much wider set of customers may have had sufficient personal and purchase context to support highly targeted phishing attempts.
Impersonation scams remain a major driver of crypto losses
Phishing and social engineering have repeatedly been shown to succeed without exploiting software vulnerabilities—largely because they rely on human trust and urgency. That dynamic has been reflected in security reporting for the broader crypto sector.
According to Hacken’s reporting cited in earlier Cointelegraph coverage, phishing attacks and social engineering accounted for $306 million of the $482 million lost in the first quarter of the year—making up the majority of industry losses during that period. The figure underscores that even when systems remain secure, compromised or leaked personal data can still fuel harmful scams.
Real-world examples also illustrate how convincing these approaches can be. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph described a case in which a crypto investor lost nearly $1 million after signing a malicious token-approval phishing transaction on Ethereum.
What users should watch for next
With Trezor warning that attackers may use the exposed order details to impersonate the company, users in the affected period should remain alert for unsolicited messages that reference their purchase, ask for recovery information, or direct them to “support” pages. The immediate uncertainty is how many scam attempts will follow—but the underlying threat model (phishing toward seed phrases) is already clear from Trezor’s own assessment.
This article was originally published as Trezor Confirms Data Breach Impacts 67K More U.S. Customers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Швидке розширення Kalshi у США чітко видно у даних вебтрафіку, навіть попри те, що основний бізнес компанії — контракти на події та прогнози — і надалі стикається зі зростаючою юридичною увагою. За оцінками Similarweb, які переглянув Cointelegraph, у липні Kalshi зафіксувала 15,4 мільйона відвідувань зі Сполучених Штатів, що є різким стрибком із трохи менш ніж 1 мільйона у серпні 2025 року.
Частка трафіку Kalshi зі США також залишається домінуючою. У липні на відвідувачів із США припадало майже 80% усіх візитів, порівняно з 72,8% у серпні 2025 року — показник того, що зростання Kalshi значною мірою зосереджене на одному ринку, навіть попри певний інтерес з інших регіонів.

The odds of a rate hike in September have fallen to 38% on Polymarket after Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller stated that his decision will depend on the upcoming August consumer price index (CPI) report.
Bitcoin (BTC) registered a sharp increase following Waller’s comments and reclaimed $80,000. The flagship cryptocurrency is up over 4%, trading around $81,271.
September Interest Rate Hike Odds Fall To 38%
Waller stated that cooler August inflation data could convince him to support holding interest rates steady at the upcoming Federal Reserve meeting. The Federal Reserve governor said inflation levels were moving toward the 2% goal, and employment was near its maximum sustainable level. However, Waller gave the CPI report more weight, stating that he does not expect the employment report figures to differ much from recent labor data.
Instead, he gave more weight to the August inflation report in deciding whether he will support keeping interest rates steady or increasing them from their present range.
“If there is continued progress toward our 2 percent goal, then I am willing to support holding the policy rate at its current level.”
Waller added he would consider supporting a hike if inflation numbers crept higher, adding that the Fed’s current policy stance gave the Fed some wiggle room as it only slightly restricted demand.
“If there is evidence that progress toward 2 percent inflation reversed in August, a small adjustment in our stance would help ensure that it resumes.”
Waller stated that explaining how the data could affect his decision allows investors, companies, and households to prepare for different policy outcomes. He supported the Fed’s decision to leave interest rates unchanged at the July policy meeting, explaining that the economy remained robust and showed early signs of disinflation.
Key Data Releases
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics will release the August Producer Price Index (PPI) on September 10, and the Consumer Price Index on September 11, less than a week before the Fed’s decision on interest rates. The timing of the release gives policymakers a very small window to assess whether numbers continued easing in August.
The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge, rose 3.7% compared to the previous year and remains above the 2% target. The US-Iran conflict has added further uncertainty about upcoming data.
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh stated following the Jackson Hole meeting that inflation remained above the central bank’s target. CME FedWatch put the odds of a rate hike before Waller’s comments at 66%, after which the odds were revised to 50%.
Fed Officials Open To Rate Hike
However, Waller’s colleagues remain open to a September hike. Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Barr said in a September 1 speech that inflation had been higher than acceptable levels for over five years. Price growth fell from over 7% in 2022 to just over 2% in 2024, but stalled in 2025 as tariffs, the geopolitical situation in the Middle East, and AI spending pressured the economy.
According to Barr, Fed officials would act decisively and raise interest rates if they felt inflation remained high.
Federal Reserve officials were deeply divided over interest rates at the July FOMC meeting, with Beth Hammack, Neel Kashkari, and Lorie Logan favoring a 25-basis-point increase. Energy remains an area of concern for officials, with Brent crude climbing above $90 after renewed hostilities around the Strait of Hormuz, reigniting supply chain concerns. A jump in crude prices could have a domino effect on transport, production, and consumer costs.
Lower Odds Boost Bitcoin, Crypto
Odds of a rate hike rose to nearly 50% on Polymarket earlier in the week before falling to 38% following Waller’s comments. Meanwhile, expectations of no rate cuts following the upcoming meeting rose to 63%.
However, traders on Polymarket believe there will be at least one rate hike in 2026, with a separate contract putting that probability at 64%. Crypto investors will be watching any developments related to the decision on interest rates, which can affect demand through various avenues such as regulated investment products, Treasury yields, and the dollar.
Higher yields reduce demand for volatile assets like Bitcoin and increase it for interest-bearing money-market instruments and government debt.
Disclaimer: This article is provided for informational purposes only. It is not offered or intended to be used as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice.
This article was originally published as August CPI In Focus As Rate Hike Odds Fall To 38% on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

AMC Entertainment CEO Adam Aron has raised fresh concerns about Robinhood’s “tokenized stock” products, arguing that the offerings have no affiliation with AMC and that the company will ask its outside securities counsel to investigate the matter. In an X post on Friday, Aron called Robinhood’s tokenized AMC exposure “outrageous,” adding that Robinhood stock tokens are not registered under U.S. securities laws.
Aron also suggested the products may be restricted from being offered to U.S. investors and face additional limitations in other jurisdictions, including Canada, Switzerland, and the UK. The remarks add to an escalating pattern of scrutiny around tokenized stocks—blockchain-based instruments intended to track the value of traditional listed shares.
Key takeaways
Adam Aron says Robinhood has “no affiliation” with AMC for its tokenized stock offering and is seeking a review by outside securities counsel.
Aron characterizes Robinhood tokenized stock products as “outrageous” and says they are not registered under U.S. securities laws.
The criticism also points to potential cross-border offering restrictions, naming Canada, Switzerland, and the UK.
The dispute arrives amid broader industry tension over tokenized stock campaigns that have faced cancellations, including in connection with tokenized IPO access.
Robinhood’s tokenized stock program has evolved from earlier tokenized debt structures to an Ethereum-layer 2 ecosystem centered on Robinhood Chain.
Aron questions Robinhood’s tokenized AMC exposure
Aron’s comments were direct: he told X users that Robinhood has no affiliation with AMC regarding the company’s tokenized stock offerings designed to provide economic exposure to AMC shares. He further stated that Robinhood will request an investigation from outside securities counsel.
While Aron’s post does not spell out specific legal or operational details beyond affiliation and registration concerns, it frames the issue as one of investor-facing legitimacy—both in terms of corporate relationship and compliance with U.S. securities regulations. He also noted that the offerings “may not be offered to US investors” and are subject to restrictions in multiple other countries.
Robinhood co-founder and CEO Vlad Tenev responded publicly on X by asking Aron to share his exact concerns regarding the tokenized offering. According to the reporting, Robinhood did not issue a separate public statement.
What “tokenized stocks” are—and why regulators and issuers are watching
Tokenized stock products are designed to deliver economic exposure to traditional equities using blockchain-based representations. In the case of Robinhood’s ecosystem, the company’s earlier “stock tokens” were launched as tokenized debt securities issued by Jersey-based Robinhood Assets and structured as ERC-20 tokens.
Aron’s criticism reflects a broader debate that has emerged across the tokenized asset market: who bears responsibility for compliance, and what level of legitimacy and disclosure is required when tokenized instruments are tied to the performance of well-known public companies. When issuers or executives claim a lack of affiliation, it can also raise questions about branding, marketing, and investor expectations—especially for retail audiences.
For investors, the key issue is practical: if a tokenized product is not clearly registered—or if jurisdictions treat it differently—then availability, settlement, and redemption pathways may not match what users assume from the “stock-like” wrapper.
Broader backlash linked to tokenized IPO campaigns
Aron’s comments arrive after another high-profile controversy involving tokenized stock offerings tied to IPO access. Earlier this year, major crypto exchanges reportedly canceled tokenized SpaceX IPO allocation campaigns and, in some cases, pointed to execution or delivery limitations tied to underlying asset transfer.
According to earlier reporting cited in the article, platforms including Bybit, Binance, Bitget Wallet, and MEXC canceled tokenized SpaceX IPO campaigns after SpaceX began trading on the Nasdaq. Several platforms attributed their decision to an inability to deliver the underlying assets associated with xStocks, which is described in the article as Kraken-owned.
That episode underscores a recurring vulnerability in tokenized equity narratives: even if tokenization is technically feasible, the compliance and mechanics of delivering the referenced securities—especially on time and in the correct jurisdiction—can determine whether such products remain viable. AMC’s situation may be distinct from IPO access arrangements, but it highlights the same underlying tension between “token-as-stock” marketing and real-world legal and settlement constraints.
Robinhood’s tokenization roadmap: from early tokens to Robinhood Chain
The article notes that Robinhood’s first generation of stock tokens launched in July 2026 as tokenized debt securities issued by Jersey-based Robinhood Assets, using ERC-20 tokens to represent economic exposure to underlying assets such as U.S. stocks and exchange-traded funds.
It also describes Robinhood’s subsequent push into infrastructure that can host tokenized assets. In February, Robinhood launched a public testnet for Robinhood Chain, an Ethereum layer-2 network built using Arbitrum technology. Later, in October 2025, Robinhood shared plans to tokenize nearly 500 U.S. stocks and ETFs on Arbitrum.
In July 2026, the article further points to coverage that Bernstein analysts raised their price target on Robinhood Markets, predicting that tokenized equities and prediction markets would drive growth in the next phase rather than traditional crypto trading.
Taken together, the roadmap illustrates why this dispute matters beyond AMC specifically. If tokenized assets are meant to become a durable product category for retail users, then questions about issuer affiliation, regulatory registration status, and jurisdictional availability can directly affect adoption, partner relationships, and—potentially—compliance strategy across the broader tokenization stack.
What to watch next
Aron says Robinhood will involve outside securities counsel, but the immediate uncertainty for market participants is what the investigation will conclude and whether Robinhood responds with clarifications about the legal basis for its tokenized stock products. Readers should also watch for how other issuers, regulators, and intermediaries react as tokenized equity offerings move from pilot phases toward wider deployment.
This article was originally published as AMC CEO Criticizes Robinhood’s Tokenized Stock Proposal on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

In 2026, token buybacks have become one of crypto’s most visible tokenomics moves, as more projects use protocol-generated revenue to repurchase their own tokens—often followed by holding or burning. Early-year data points to a rapid shift in how teams try to connect token value to economic activity, borrowing a familiar idea from TradFi while adapting it to on-chain mechanics.
According to Cointelegraph’s reporting, projects have spent roughly $640 million on token buybacks so far in 2026, about 17% higher than the comparable period in 2025. The same reporting also notes that the current spending is dramatically above the $366,000 figure recorded in 2024, with Hyperliquid and Pump.fun accounting for nearly 90% of the total.
Key takeaways
Revenue-funded buybacks are increasingly used to create market demand and, when paired with burns, reduce circulating supply.
Legal experts argue the main appeal is often simpler messaging—“bought and burned” is easier to explain than governance mechanics.
Buybacks can improve tokenholder alignment, but they cannot fix weak fundamentals if the protocol’s surplus is limited.
Investors are watching whether buybacks are genuine value capture or mostly financial engineering that props up prices temporarily.
Regulators are focusing on what actually underpins token value, which could reshape how these programs are framed.
Why buybacks—and burns—are catching on
The basic logic behind token buybacks is straightforward. When a project uses revenue to repurchase its own token, it creates additional demand in the open market. If repurchased tokens are then burned, supply contracts, which can increase scarcity and put upward pressure on price under favorable conditions.
Beyond the market mechanics, supporters say buybacks give tokenholders a clearer line of sight to how the protocol is doing economically. Orest Gavryliak, chief legal officer at decentralized exchange aggregator 1inch, told Cointelegraph Magazine that revenue-funded buybacks and burns typically reflect one of two objectives: reducing the circulating token supply or demonstrating a rationale for investing in protocol revenues.
“When projects implement revenue-funded buybacks and burns, they typically have one of two objectives in mind: either to decrease the token supply in circulation or to demonstrate the rationale for investing in protocol revenues.”
Gavryliak also highlighted the communication advantage. Telling users that a project has “bought and burned tokens” is, in his view, more direct than explaining how governance rights work, how fees are set, or how protocol usage translates into value.
That appeal matters in a market where many tokens have historically struggled to make a simple economic case. Buybacks attempt to address that gap by linking tokenholder outcomes to the protocol’s revenue rather than relying only on narrative or speculative momentum.
From “narratives” to value capture—what’s changed
The adoption of buybacks reflects a broader trend: some token models are trying to behave less like pure stories and more like systems that steadily capture value for holders. Max Shannon, senior research associate at Bitwise Europe, argued that buybacks and burns remain one of the clearer ways to accrue value to tokenholders because they create a continuous bid for tokens tied to protocol adoption.
“Buybacks and burns remain an effective way to accrue value to tokenholders: they create a continuous bid in the open market for the token, directly tethering token success to the platform’s adoption.”
This is a notable shift from earlier phases of crypto’s growth, when many participants leaned on narratives—buying tokens because of expected upside rather than a detailed economic mechanism.
Cointelegraph Magazine cites specific examples to show how aggressive some programs have become. Hyperliquid, it reports, has used 99% of its revenue to buy back and burn HYPE, and Pump.fun reportedly directs 50% of its revenue toward buying and burning PUMP. The same piece states that $446.65 million worth of PUMP has already been removed from circulation.
Spark takes a different approach. According to Cointelegraph Magazine, Spark has acquired more than 143 million SPK via open-market buybacks funded by protocol surplus, but those tokens have not been burned. Co-founder and CEO Sam MacPherson told Magazine the intent is not just supply reduction; instead, Spark is using buybacks to keep long-term economic participation aligned with the protocol’s success. He said the goal is to avoid turning the mechanism into a simplistic “dividend mechanism,” emphasizing flexibility over how acquired tokens are deployed.
Are buybacks the best use of surplus?
Even if buybacks are effective at returning value, the bigger investment question is whether they are the highest-value use of a protocol’s next dollar of capital.
MacPherson framed the issue in terms of opportunity cost: a project should ask what it can do with surplus that creates the most durable value. If a protocol can reinvest at attractive returns, reinvestment may outperform distributing value immediately via token repurchases.
“The question should be: what is the highest-value use of the next dollar of surplus?”
There is also a practical limit: buybacks do not automatically improve the underlying business. For projects that generate little real surplus, repurchases may become a way to temporarily influence token prices without addressing operational constraints.
Cointelegraph Magazine points to examples where strong buyback and burn activity did not prevent tokens from underperforming relative to earlier highs. Pump.fun has reportedly been aggressively buying and burning PUMP since July 2025, yet the token remains around 50% below its September 2025 all-time high. The piece also notes that UNI has given back roughly half of the gains after Uniswap unveiled its UNIfication proposal in November 2025.
Shannon cautioned that multiple factors can drive price changes, so these outcomes do not prove buybacks “failed.” Still, he said investors have started debating whether startups should dedicate less revenue to buybacks and burns and instead invest more in teams and product delivery.
“They have prompted investors to debate whether these startup-like projects would be better served by reducing the share of revenue committed to buybacks and burns and reinvesting more in the team and the project itself.”
In other words, investors are increasingly distinguishing between token programs that boost token economics in parallel with business improvements, and programs that primarily function as price support.
When tokens start to look like stocks—and why regulators care
Although buybacks resemble corporate share repurchase programs, tokenholders generally do not receive the same legal entitlements as shareholders. Gavryliak stressed this distinction, saying token buybacks are “a market mechanism, not a legally enforceable entitlement.”
Shannon and Spark’s leadership describe the goal differently: they frame tokens as a kind of on-chain participation mechanism rather than an equity substitute. MacPherson called Spark’s SPK acquisitions “pseudo-equity,” not in a legal sense, but economically—trying to reproduce characteristics like long-term alignment, participation in governance, and the ability for committed community members to benefit from protocol success.
As regulators revisit how tokens should be classified, buybacks could become a flashpoint—not because they automatically make tokens into securities, but because they may influence how markets interpret the “source of value.” Cointelegraph Magazine discussed the proposed Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act of 2025, noting it remains a draft and should not be treated as settled law.
Gavryliak’s view is that the question regulators may prioritize is whether token value primarily comes from the network’s functionality or from the project’s efforts to market and deliver returns. He warned against relying on stock-like framing without addressing what actually drives value.
“If it stems from the functionality of the network itself, then the asset looks like a commodity. But if the value is based on the efforts of the project’s team in matters of shipping, marketing, or providing returns to token holders, then it is already a security. In the end, don’t put the clothes of a stock on the token and expect it to be a commodity.”
There is also a deeper investor test implied by that logic: if buybacks were to stop, would holders still have a reason to hold? As Gavryliak put it, the mechanism may be cosmetic if the protocol’s value proposition is not durable.
“If the buybacks stopped, would there still be a reason to hold the token? If the answer is no, the problem runs deeper than tokenomics.”
With buybacks spreading, the next phase for investors is likely to focus less on the headline figure of repurchases and more on what they replace internally—how much surplus is left for development and whether token economics can survive without constant financial engineering. Regulators are also signaling that the narrative around “where value comes from” may matter as much as the program itself.
This article was originally published as Crypto Token Buybacks Surge—Assessing the Impact on Projects on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Trezor says the fallout from a data exposure tied to its shipping partner is wider than it first indicated. In a Friday post on X, the hardware wallet provider updated the number of potentially impacted US customers, saying an additional 67,000 people may have had their full order details exposed.
The company stressed that its own systems were not breached. However, it warned that exposed information—such as names, email addresses, shipping addresses, and order specifics—could still be used by criminals to target victims with convincing phishing attempts. The goal, Trezor said, would be to trick users into revealing seed phrases, the credentials that control funds stored in hardware wallets.
Key takeaways
Trezor’s latest update suggests the shipping-related exposure may involve an additional 67,000 US customers.
Company systems were not compromised, but order records were reportedly not deleted by the shipping provider for certain customer orders.
Trezor believes the main risk is impersonation-based phishing aimed at extracting wallet seed phrases.
Earlier estimates put the exposure at 14,000 users, indicating the scope expanded after further information from ShipMonk.
Investors and wallet users should treat any “Trezor support” messages as suspicious until verified through official channels.
Updated scope: more US customers at potential risk
Trezor’s Friday X update referenced a new report from its shipping provider, ShipMonk. The hardware wallet firm said the affected population includes US customers who placed orders between November 2019 and August 2021. According to Trezor, these customers may have had their complete details exposed, including identity and contact information, delivery addresses, and order-specific data.
This revision matters because it changes the number of people who may need to take additional precautions. Trezor initially estimated in August that only 14,000 users had their data exposed through ShipMonk. The new figure indicates that the problem’s reach was underestimated at the time—or that additional affected orders were identified as the investigation progressed.
What was exposed—and why it can still be dangerous
Trezor said the exposed records included the full set of personal and purchase information that bad actors typically need to make impersonation scams credible. That includes users’ names, email addresses, shipping addresses, and order specifics.
Even though Trezor said its systems were not breached, the company argued that the exposed information could be used to carry out more targeted social engineering. The concern is not just general spam or list-based fraud; it is the possibility of messages that appear to come from Trezor, designed to pressure recipients into revealing their seed phrases or otherwise compromising their wallets.
In other words, attackers may not need technical access to a wallet to cause loss. If a scam convincingly imitates the legitimate support process—or references a customer’s order to establish trust—victims may be more likely to comply.
Why impersonation scams keep costing the industry
Security research underscores how effective phishing and related social engineering can be in crypto. In the first quarter, blockchain security firm Hacken reported that social engineering and phishing drove most of the industry’s losses. According to Hacken, these attacks accounted for $306 million of $482 million total losses in that period.
The mechanics are often straightforward: fraudsters send messages that mimic trusted brands, then guide victims toward actions that compromise accounts or keys. Trezor’s warning fits that pattern, targeting the most sensitive asset in self-custody setups—the seed phrase.
Earlier coverage also highlighted how phishing can lead to direct on-chain loss. In July, a crypto investor reportedly lost nearly $1 million after signing a malicious phishing token approval transaction on Ethereum.
Trezor’s prior communications and what remains unclear
While the latest update expands the number of potentially impacted customers, it aligns with earlier disclosures that Trezor had been tracking risk tied to contact and support interactions. In January 2024, Trezor reported that about 66,000 users were at risk of phishing attacks if they had contacted the company’s support team since December 2021.
That earlier statement focused on a different slice of risk—support-related contact—whereas the new update centers on order-related data tied to shipping. Taken together, the communications suggest that Trezor’s threat model evolved as more information became available and as different parts of the customer journey were assessed.
One important point remains: Trezor continues to state that its systems were not compromised. The danger appears to come from information that may have been retained or not deleted by the shipping provider for certain orders, enabling third parties to craft more personalized scams.
What readers should watch next is whether Trezor provides further detail on mitigation steps—particularly how it plans to reach potentially exposed customers—and whether additional countries or time ranges are affected. The company’s current update is limited to additional 67,000 US customers in the November 2019 to August 2021 window, but future revisions are possible if ShipMonk’s findings expand again.
For now, the practical takeaway for hardware wallet holders is to be especially cautious of any outreach that claims to be from Trezor, especially if it references an order. Verify through official channels before taking any action, and treat requests involving seed phrases as an immediate red flag.
This article was originally published as Trezor Data Breach Impacts 67,000 More US Customers on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Kalshi’s prediction markets business is drawing sharply more attention from web users—at the same time as legal challenges intensify over how certain contracts should be regulated. New traffic estimates reviewed by Cointelegraph show that US visits to Kalshi surged over the past year, reflecting the platform’s rapid mainstream reach.
According to Similarweb traffic data analyzed by Cointelegraph, Kalshi logged 15.4 million visits from the United States in July, up about 1,520% from just under 1 million in August 2025. The US also remained the dominant source of site activity, accounting for nearly 80% of Kalshi’s traffic in July versus 72.8% in August 2025.
Key takeaways
Kalshi’s US web traffic reached 15.4 million visits in July, roughly a 1,520% jump versus August 2025, based on Similarweb estimates.
US users remained the largest share of traffic, at nearly 80% in July compared with 72.8% a year earlier.
Trading growth appears to be outpacing traffic growth, with monthly notional volume rising to about $40 billion in August from $874 million a year earlier, per Dune Analytics.
Sports-related contracts represented 83% of Kalshi’s trading volume in July, underscoring why regulatory scrutiny remains focused on event terms.
Even as traffic increased, Canada and the UK—jurisdictions where Kalshi’s member agreement restricts direct access—still contributed a small share of visits.
Traffic surges as the legal fight escalates
The visibility boost comes during a period of heightened scrutiny of prediction markets in the US. Kalshi has faced legal challenges tied to whether its sports contracts should fall under federal oversight or instead be treated as state-regulated gambling. The dispute has reached the US Supreme Court, after New Jersey took the matter to the Supreme Court, according to earlier coverage.
While web traffic is not the same thing as regulatory status, the strong jump in US visits helps explain why the company’s expanding contract catalog is attracting both user interest and legal attention. The geographic concentration also matters: with the US supplying most of Kalshi’s traffic, any ruling affecting how Kalshi structures or offers certain contracts could quickly reverberate through its core customer base.
Trading volume grows faster than visits
Kalshi’s traffic gains have coincided with even larger growth in trading activity. Dune Analytics’ prediction market data dashboard, as cited by Cointelegraph, shows that Kalshi recorded about $40 billion in monthly notional trading volume in August. That compares with roughly $874 million a year earlier, an increase of around 4,500%.
Looking across the broader prediction-market sector, the same Dune Analytics dashboard indicates that monthly notional volume rose to $50.7 billion from about $2 billion over the same period. Kalshi accounted for nearly 79% of that latest total, meaning the company is not only growing but also increasingly dominant within the category.
Sports contracts were central to this activity. Barron’s reported Thursday that sports-related contracts made up 83% of Kalshi’s trading volume in July. That skew is notable because it aligns with the regulatory focus of the ongoing court dispute—raising the stakes for what happens next if courts determine that certain event contracts should be handled differently.
International interest rises, even where access is restricted
Kalshi’s audience has expanded beyond the United States, though its traffic footprint remains heavily weighted toward the US. Similarweb estimates reviewed by Cointelegraph show that Canada generated about 450,000 visits to Kalshi’s website in July, up from roughly 50,000 in August 2025. UK visits also increased, reaching 296,000 in July from 31,000 a year earlier.
However, both countries fall into a category of restricted jurisdictions under Kalshi’s member agreement, which currently prohibits users from directly accessing or trading on the platform. Kalshi previously addressed this by partnering with Canadian financial services firm Wealthsimple in June to provide access to nearly 4,000 eligible Kalshi contracts through a separate app, as described in Kalshi’s announcement.
Even with visit counts increasing, the share of traffic from these restricted jurisdictions declined over the same period. From August 2025 to July 2026, Canada’s share slipped to 2.3% from 3.8%, while the UK’s share fell to 1.5% from 2.4%—suggesting that Kalshi’s overall growth is outpacing growth in these regions or that US traffic is rising even more quickly.
Cointelegraph reached out to Kalshi for comment on traffic from restricted jurisdictions but had not received a response by publication.
What investors and users should watch next
Kalshi’s traffic and volume growth point to strong demand for event-based markets, especially sports-driven contracts, but the company’s legal situation remains the key uncertainty. With the Supreme Court dispute now in view, readers should watch how court outcomes or compliance changes affect Kalshi’s product offerings—particularly contract types that have drawn the most regulatory attention.
This article was originally published as Kalshi US Visits Jump 1,500% as Regulatory Scrutiny Intensifies on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

South Korea’s Financial Services Commission (FSC) has laid out a three-phase plan to build the legal and technical groundwork for issuing tokenized securities—an effort that, if executed on schedule, would clarify how onchain securities could fit within the country’s existing capital markets framework.
In a press release issued Friday, the FSC said tokenized securities are expected to gain formal legal recognition starting Feb. 4, 2027, following an update to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds. The initiative also points toward a later phase connecting tokenized issuance and payments with stablecoins.
Key takeaways
The FSC plans to recognize tokenized securities legally from Feb. 4, 2027 via amendments to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds.
Phase one covers legal recognition for tokenized versions of selected instruments, including certain funds and bonds, along with unlisted stocks and fractional investment securities.
Phase two would broaden tokenization to apply to all publicly offered securities.
Phase three targets onchain payment flows linked to stablecoins, indicating regulators see stablecoins as part of the settlement picture.
Before launching the roadmap, the FSC intends to collaborate with the Korea Securities Depository (KSD) on the necessary tokenization infrastructure.
A date-specific shift toward legal recognition
Until now, tokenized securities have faced regulatory uncertainty in many jurisdictions—typically tied to questions about legal status, transfer mechanisms, and settlement. South Korea’s plan attempts to remove at least one major friction point by tying recognition of tokenized securities to a concrete legislative timetable.
The FSC said that beginning Feb. 4, 2027, tokenized securities would be recognized as digitized forms of securities after the scheduled update to the Act on Electronic Registration of Stocks and Bonds takes effect. This is intended to align the tokenized form with the legal infrastructure already used for registering and handling stocks and bonds electronically.
The roadmap is described as part of the implementation of amended versions of the Capital Markets Act and the Electronic Securities Act, which the FSC framed as the country’s first tokenized securities framework.
What the three phases cover
The FSC’s approach is staged, moving from recognition of specific instruments to broader application and then toward a more integrated onchain settlement model.
Phase one focuses on bringing tokenized securities into the regulatory and legal fold for a limited set of products. According to the FSC, legal recognition would apply to tokenized securities that include:
institutional money market funds
bonds
unlisted stocks
fractional investment securities
Phase two would expand tokenization to all publicly offered securities. For market participants, this sequencing matters: it suggests that issuers and intermediaries will be expected to adapt operational and compliance processes first for a controlled set of instruments, before the rulebook potentially broadens to cover a wider universe of public offerings.
Phase three is the most ambitious and forward-looking. The FSC said it aims to enable onchain payments connected to stablecoins. While the announcement stops short of detailing technical standards or regulatory limits for stablecoins in this context, the fact that stablecoin-linked payments are included in the final phase indicates regulators are thinking beyond token issuance alone and toward settlement and custody-to-payment workflows.
Rulemaking steps and the role of market infrastructure
Alongside the legislative timeline, the FSC laid out additional near-term administrative work. It said it plans to propose revisions to relevant subordinate regulations by the end of September—a step that typically determines how the law will function in practice, including the operational rules that govern issuance, transfer, and compliance.
Importantly, the FSC also indicated it would decide the timetable for phase two and phase three after the subordinate revisions are prepared, meaning that the later phases are not fully locked in by the Feb. 4, 2027 recognition date.
Before the roadmap begins, the FSC said it would work with the Korea Securities Depository (KSD) to develop the tokenization infrastructure required for the framework. For investors and firms, that matters because successful tokenization depends heavily on the readiness of core market plumbing—interfaces with registries, confirmation of ownership records, and the ability to reconcile onchain activity with established capital markets processes.
Why the roadmap signals a tightening regulatory stance
This announcement comes as South Korean regulators have been steadily moving closer to a defined regime for tokenized assets. Earlier, the FSC had indicated that it would publish detailed tokenized securities rules to bring them under the country’s capital markets framework in 2027, according to reporting on the FSC’s prior stance.
In addition, South Korea has been experimenting with tokenized settlement concepts outside of securities issuance. In April, the Ministry of Economy and Finance announced a pilot project using tokenized deposits for executing government operational spending, with a full rollout planned for the fourth quarter of 2026. That effort is separate from the FSC’s tokenized securities framework, but it reinforces the broader regulatory direction: using tokenization not only for trading or issuance, but potentially for real-world payments and operational transfers.
Viewed together, the FSC’s roadmap suggests South Korea is trying to reconcile two priorities that often clash in tokenization discussions: preserving the legal certainty of traditional capital markets while making room for blockchain-based representation and, eventually, onchain payment rails.
At the same time, the phased nature of the plan leaves practical questions open. The biggest uncertainty for market participants is likely how quickly phase two and phase three will move after the subordinate regulations are drafted, and what technical and compliance requirements will accompany stablecoin-linked onchain payments.
For readers watching this space, the next signals to track are the FSC’s subordinate regulation revisions due by the end of September and the details that emerge from its coordination with the KSD—especially anything clarifying how settlement, custody records, and stablecoin-linked payment flows will be handled under the updated legal framework.
This article was originally published as South Korea Regulators Draft Tokenized Securities Roadmap on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin (BTC) досяг ще одного багатомісячного максимуму після повернення позначки $80,000, піднявшись до $81,749 у четвер після того, як член Ради керуючих Федеральної резервної системи Крістофер Воллер пом’якшив очікування щодо підвищення ставки у вересні.
Втім, флагманська криптовалюта втратила імпульс після досягнення ключової зони опору. Якщо BTC утримається вище $80,000, він може націлитися на рух за межі $83,500 і підтвердити прорив низхідного клина.
Bitcoin (BTC) знову вище $80,000 після зниження ймовірності підвищення ставки
Bitcoin (BTC) наразі торгується близько $80,826, що майже на 4% вище за останні 24 години. Ралі допомогло ціні подолати нещодавню слабкість і повторно протестувати рівні, які зупинили серпневий ріст. Покупцям потрібно перетворити $80,000 на рівень підтримки, щоб зберегти нещодавній прорив.

El Salvador’s Bitcoin holdings grew after the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reviewed part of its $1.4 billion program in June 2025, but the IMF says the country did not use public money for the additional accumulation. In a Thursday statement, the lender said documents provided by Salvadoran authorities confirmed that the increase came from private donations rather than government-financed purchases.
The IMF also said operational control of El Salvador’s Chivo wallet has been transferred to a private operator, with the government keeping a minority stake and custodial responsibilities. The IMF added that it does not expect any further Bitcoin accumulation beyond donations that can be documented.
Key takeaways
The IMF verified that post–June 2025 Bitcoin increases were funded by private donations, not public resources.
The Chivo wallet’s majority ownership and day-to-day control moved to a private operator, while the government retained a minority stake and custody role.
The explanation is aimed at addressing renewed compliance concerns after El Salvador publicly reported large Bitcoin purchases in late 2025.
El Salvador is still holding a sizable Bitcoin reserve—about 7,764 BTC—valued at roughly $628 million at the price level cited by CoinGecko.
IMF: June 2025 accumulation did not involve government funds
According to the IMF, the key point from its June 2025 review was whether El Salvador’s Bitcoin accumulation reflected spending from public resources. In Thursday’s release, the IMF said it checked supplied documentation and found that the additional holdings were linked to private donations.
That matters because El Salvador’s IMF-supported financing arrangement is tied to economic and policy conditions, including boundaries around how public institutions engage with Bitcoin. The IMF’s statement effectively separates “donation-driven” increases from purchases that would otherwise imply further public financing.
Thursday’s release also states that the government does not intend to accumulate additional Bitcoin beyond what is documented as coming from donations—another signal that the IMF is drawing a line around what it considers compliant behavior under the program.
Chivo wallet control shifts, but custodial duties remain
In addition to the funding source question, the IMF’s statement addressed the structure around El Salvador’s Chivo Bitcoin wallet. The lender said majority ownership and operational control of the wallet have been transferred to a private operator, while the government retains a minority stake and custodial responsibilities.
For observers, this distinction goes beyond corporate housekeeping. Earlier IMF discussions around Bitcoin policy placed emphasis on reducing public-sector involvement. By describing a change in operational control and retaining only a narrower government role, the IMF is clarifying how it views the current setup relative to those earlier conditions.
Why the explanation became necessary again
While IMF scrutiny around El Salvador’s Bitcoin purchases has been ongoing, the latest clarification followed renewed controversy after El Salvador said in November 2025 that it had acquired 1,090 BTC valued at $100 million.
That November claim resurfaced questions about whether El Salvador was complying with its IMF program. Earlier coverage noted that the IMF arrangement includes restrictions intended to limit certain kinds of public-sector participation in Bitcoin.
The IMF’s June 2025 verification therefore appears aimed at reconciling the country’s reported reserve increases with the conditions the lender has set—particularly when El Salvador’s Bitcoin office posted that accumulation continued after earlier understandings were reached.
From “unwind Chivo involvement” to “no voluntary accumulation”
The current dispute has roots in the IMF’s original conditions under the financing arrangement. In December 2024, El Salvador agreed to limit public-sector involvement in Bitcoin. The deal outlined several elements: private-sector acceptance of Bitcoin was to be voluntary, taxes were to be paid in US dollars, and government involvement in Chivo was to be unwound.
In March 2025, the IMF issued additional documents barring what it described as “voluntary accumulation” of Bitcoin by the public sector. President Nayib Bukele publicly pushed back, saying purchases were “not stopping” and that El Salvador would continue adding at least one BTC daily.
Subsequently, the Bitcoin Office frequently posted that it was accumulating Bitcoin. In July 2025, the IMF offered an initial explanation for earlier reserve changes, saying no new Bitcoin had been purchased since the December agreement and attributing increases to consolidation among government wallets.
However, the November 2025 announcement about a much larger acquisition renewed doubts. An IMF representative previously told Cointelegraph that the lender would not provide “running commentary” on announcements and would assess compliance in due course. Thursday’s statement can be read as that due-course assessment for the period after the first review.
How big is El Salvador’s Bitcoin reserve now?
Based on the National Bitcoin Office’s official reserve tracker, El Salvador currently holds about 7,764 Bitcoin. Using a price level of $80,900 cited via CoinGecko, the reserve is valued at approximately $628 million.
Importantly, the IMF’s position suggests that at least part of the post-agreement reserve growth is not explained by government purchases, but rather by donation flows that Salvadoran authorities say can be documented. Readers should note that the IMF’s verification focuses on the source of accumulation, not on whether the reserve increased in absolute terms.
Going forward, market participants will likely watch two things closely: whether El Salvador continues to produce documentation supporting donation-linked increases, and how the operational role of the Chivo wallet evolves under the private operator structure. As the IMF turns compliance checks into formal findings, the durability of El Salvador’s Bitcoin narrative under the program may hinge on the clarity—and consistency—of that evidence.
This article was originally published as IMF Says El Salvador’s Bitcoin Buying After Audit Used No Public Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds logged their strongest single-day inflows in nearly eight months after Bitcoin pushed back above the $80,000 mark. The rebound coincided with a broader improvement in ETF demand, though on-chain analysts warned that the move still leans heavily on positioning changes rather than entirely fresh spot buying.
According to SoSoValue, US spot Bitcoin ETFs received $730.9 million in net inflows on Thursday, the largest daily total since Jan. 14, when the funds attracted $843.6 million. That strong print followed $101.2 million in net inflows on Wednesday, as Bitcoin traded roughly between $76,000 and $81,000 earlier in the week before reclaiming the $80,000 level, based on CoinGecko price data.
Key takeaways
Spot Bitcoin ETF inflows surged: Thursday’s US net inflows totaled $730.9 million, the highest since mid-January.
BlackRock’s IBIT led the day: $454 million flowed into IBIT, about 62% of the overall total, per Farside Investors.
Not all funds contributed equally: most gained, while VanEck’s HODL and WisdomTree’s BTCW were the only two with outflows.
CryptoQuant sees limited fresh demand: it pointed to short covering and profit-taking rather than a clear shift to new long demand.
Key resistance is near $83K: CryptoQuant highlighted it as a threshold for confirming a new bull phase, with the 365-day moving average around $82,300.
ETF inflows hit a late-January high
The day’s inflow figure marks a notable acceleration compared with the prior session. SoSoValue data shows the Thursday total of $730.9 million followed Wednesday’s $101.2 million, indicating that ETF demand concentrated sharply in a single session rather than building steadily.
Tracking by Farside Investors shows the strongest contribution came from BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT). The fund pulled in $454 million on Thursday—roughly 62% of all net inflows. Farside also indicates IBIT previously drew a larger single-day inflow of $503 million as recently as Aug. 20, underscoring that today’s jump is significant but not unprecedented.
Who bought—and who sold
Beyond IBIT, ARK Invest and 21Shares’ ARKB added $137.7 million. Fidelity’s FBTC brought in $74.4 million, while other major issuers did not show the same level of inflow.
On the downside, VanEck’s HODL and WisdomTree’s BTCW were the only funds to post net outflows on Thursday, recording $19.6 million and $5.2 million respectively. For investors monitoring fund-level sentiment, the distribution of flows suggests the rally day was broadly supportive, but not uniform across products.
CryptoQuant: rally may depend on positioning, not new demand
Even with the sharp improvement in ETF inflows, CryptoQuant cautioned that Bitcoin’s move may not yet reflect a strong wave of new long-term accumulation. In an assessment shared with Cointelegraph, CryptoQuant pointed to weaker spot demand alongside heavy short covering—a pattern that can lift price quickly without guaranteeing sustainability.
The analysis also referenced realized profit activity. CryptoQuant said holders realized approximately 23,000 BTC in net profits on Aug. 21, the highest daily amount this year. It further estimated that holders have realized roughly 110,000 BTC in net profits in total since Aug. 19, implying that parts of the rally coincided with profit-taking rather than solely fresh entries.
This matters for traders because ETF inflows are often treated as a proxy for institutional interest, but CryptoQuant’s framing suggests the immediate price advance may have been amplified by market mechanics—particularly the unwind of short positions—at least in the near term.
Attention turns to $83K and the 365-day moving average
CryptoQuant’s next major checkpoint sits near Bitcoin’s 365-day moving average, which it placed at about $82,300. Historically, CryptoQuant said this level has divided prior bull and bear regimes, with Bitcoin reaching $81,400 on Aug. 28 before slipping back below that threshold.
In its view, a decisive close above $83K would be the type of confirmation that signals the start (or resumption) of a new bull market phase. Conversely, CryptoQuant warned that if price fails to hold above the area, the pullback risk could extend toward the 200-day moving average near $69,000.
For market participants, the immediate takeaway is that today’s strong ETF inflows may help support the bid, but whether they translate into a durable trend likely depends on whether Bitcoin can overcome the key technical zone around the 365-day moving average and sustain trading above it.
Going into the next sessions, investors should watch for follow-through in ETF net flows after Thursday’s spike and for whether Bitcoin can secure and maintain closes above the $83K region highlighted by CryptoQuant—because that combination would better indicate that demand is shifting from short-covering and profit-taking toward sustained buying.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin ETF Inflows Reach $731M, Peak Since January as BTC Hits $80K on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

El Salvador’s Bitcoin reserve increases after the IMF began reviewing its financing program do not involve new purchases funded by public resources, according to the International Monetary Fund. In documents shared with the lender, Salvadoran authorities attributed the growth to private donations after the IMF’s first review of the program concluded in June 2025.
In a Thursday statement, the IMF said it verified the explanation through materials provided by local authorities, concluding that the additions therefore should not be treated as additional government-funded Bitcoin buying within the terms of the program. The IMF also said control of the Chivo wallet—El Salvador’s state-linked Bitcoin wallet—has been shifted to a private operator, while the government retains a minority stake and certain custodial responsibilities.
Key takeaways
The IMF says post–June 2025 Bitcoin reserve increases were supported by documents showing they came from private donations, not government financing.
The lender expects no further Bitcoin accumulation beyond the donation activity it says is documented.
IMF said majority ownership and operational control of the Chivo wallet moved to a private operator, with the state keeping minority and custody roles.
El Salvador’s public announcements about ongoing accumulation have previously renewed scrutiny over compliance with IMF conditions.
IMF verification after the June 2025 review
The IMF’s latest explanation is aimed at clarifying the source of Bitcoin increases during the period following its first review of El Salvador’s IMF-supported financing arrangement. In its statement, the IMF said the documents submitted by Salvadoran authorities verified that the accumulation did not rely on “public resources.”
The distinction matters because El Salvador’s IMF deal includes restrictions on how the public sector can engage with Bitcoin. When Bitcoin-related activity appears to expand after key compliance checkpoints, investors and stakeholders typically look for whether the activity aligns with the program’s conditions—particularly around public funding and state-led accumulation.
The IMF also framed expectations going forward: it said it does not anticipate additional accumulation beyond what can be tied to documented donations. That message effectively sets a compliance ceiling for future reserve growth, at least as the IMF continues to monitor the arrangement.
Chivo wallet control reshuffle
Beyond the donation-source question, the IMF’s statement addressed governance of the Chivo wallet. According to the lender, majority ownership and operational control have been transferred to a private operator. At the same time, the government retains a minority stake and custodial responsibilities.
This matters because earlier IMF commitments emphasized reducing the government’s role in Bitcoin-related activity. A shift in operational control can be seen as consistent with a broader effort to move away from state-driven Bitcoin operations—though the exact implications for users and custody arrangements depend on how the private operator manages day-to-day functions.
How previous rules set the stage for scrutiny
El Salvador’s IMF controversy around Bitcoin centers on the line between government involvement and private-sector activity. In December 2024, the IMF agreement required changes that included limiting public-sector involvement in Bitcoin under the IMF package. The arrangement also made private-sector Bitcoin acceptance voluntary and required that taxes be paid in US dollars, while calling for government involvement in Chivo to be unwound.
Then, in March 2025, the IMF issued new documents that barred “voluntary accumulation” of Bitcoin by the public sector. President Nayib Bukele responded publicly, saying purchases were “not stopping” and that El Salvador would continue adding at least one BTC daily.
The tension between El Salvador’s statements about ongoing accumulation and the IMF’s restrictions has repeatedly reemerged in subsequent months. After the March 2025 update, the country’s Bitcoin Office often posted that El Salvador continued to accumulate Bitcoin, which prompted renewed questions about whether the additions were consistent with the program’s constraints.
From a private-donation explanation to a reserve tracker snapshot
The IMF previously addressed the issue after El Salvador’s December 2024 commitments. In July 2025, the IMF offered an initial explanation, stating that it had found no new Bitcoin purchased since the December agreement. At that time, it attributed increases to consolidation among government wallets.
However, El Salvador’s November 2025 announcement that it had acquired 1,090 BTC worth $100 million—after the first review timeline—brought the question back to the forefront. Coverage at the time highlighted compliance concerns tied to the $1.4 billion IMF program, and an IMF representative reportedly indicated the lender would not provide “running commentary” on announcements, assessing compliance in due course.
Now, the IMF says those due diligence efforts produced a clearer result: it verified that accumulation after the June 2025 review came from private donations rather than additional Bitcoin purchases financed with government resources.
For readers tracking the scale of El Salvador’s holdings, the National Bitcoin Office’s reserve tracker reports that El Salvador holds about 7,764 BTC. Using CoinGecko’s cited BTC price of $80,900, the stockpile is valued at roughly $628 million. The IMF’s framing suggests that the higher balance relative to earlier points should be interpreted, at least for IMF monitoring purposes, as donation-linked additions rather than new public-sector purchases.
What to watch next for investors and market participants
While the IMF’s latest statement provides a compliance-oriented explanation and sets expectations for future accumulation, uncertainty remains around how independently verifiable the donation documentation is over time and whether future reserve changes match the “documented donations only” boundary the IMF described. Market participants should continue to monitor subsequent IMF reviews, alongside updates from El Salvador’s Bitcoin Office and any further disclosures tied to the Chivo wallet’s private operator arrangements.
This article was originally published as IMF Says El Salvador’s Post-Review Bitcoin Purchases Used No Public Funds on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The United States and the United Kingdom have announced a new joint law-enforcement effort aimed at dismantling “scam centers” that fuel crypto-related and cyber-enabled investment fraud. The U.S. Department of Justice says the initiative is structured as a first-of-its-kind international cooperation agreement designed to disable organized scam operations that move victims’ funds across borders.
In a statement released Thursday, the DOJ said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, the Crown Prosecution Service for England and Wales, and the UK’s National Crime Agency signed a memorandum of understanding outlining how the two countries will coordinate investigations. The agencies expect to identify shared targets, align investigative work, and determine which jurisdictions should prosecute specific cases.
Key takeaways
The U.S. and UK signed a memorandum of understanding to coordinate investigations into crypto and cyber-enabled investment fraud run from scam centers.
Agencies will conduct parallel investigations, share intelligence on organized crime groups, and discuss jurisdiction-specific prosecution strategy.
The DOJ says overlapping cases have already been identified, with plans for an in-person disruption operation in London in early October.
The announcement highlights rising U.S. losses tied to crypto investment fraud as reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center.
The joint pact builds on the U.S. Scam Center Strike Force launched in late 2025 to target Chinese organized crime networks operating primarily in Southeast Asia.
U.S. and UK coordinate parallel investigations
According to the DOJ, the memorandum of understanding sets out a practical framework for cross-border cooperation. The partners plan to pursue common targets through parallel investigations, exchange information about organized crime syndicates, and coordinate which legal jurisdictions will take the lead on prosecutions.
The DOJ also linked the announcement to existing investigative overlap, stating that authorities have already identified common cases. As part of the next phase, the agencies plan an in-person “disruption operation” with private-sector partners in London scheduled for early October.
Crypto investment fraud losses keep climbing
The new cooperation comes as reported U.S. harm from crypto investment fraud continues to rise. The DOJ cited data indicating that losses reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center increased by 89% in 2025 to $8.65 billion, up from $4.57 billion in 2023.
That escalation matters for how law enforcement allocates resources. While scams can vary in their methods—sometimes using fake investment platforms and other times employing more direct criminal coercion—the scale of victim losses increases the urgency to disrupt the criminal infrastructure behind them, including money flows, recruitment networks, and the operational hubs that process or redirect funds.
Expanding the U.S. “Scam Center Strike Force”
The joint U.S.-UK pact expands the scope of the Scam Center Strike Force, a U.S. initiative launched in November 2025 by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro. The DOJ described the effort as focused on Chinese organized crime networks operating scam centers primarily in Southeast Asia, where schemes can include crypto investment fraud.
In the DOJ’s account, these operations are frequently intertwined with other serious crimes, including human trafficking and money laundering. The force is therefore not limited to prosecuting individual fraudsters; it is also aimed at dismantling the broader systems that enable recruitment, victim control, and financial movement.
The Strike Force includes a multi-agency set of U.S. partners: the FBI, U.S. Secret Service, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, and Homeland Security Investigations, alongside Justice Department components. The DOJ added that the initiative also works with the U.S. Treasury and State Department and with private-sector partners to disrupt scam operations and pursue victim fund recovery.
Other international raids show the pattern
The alliance is part of a wider enforcement trend in which agencies coordinate across jurisdictions to target scam center networks and the infrastructure around them. For example, the DOJ previously reported a Dubai police-led operation conducted with the FBI and China’s Ministry of Public Security. That action, announced on April 29, resulted in 276 arrests and the closure of at least nine crypto scam centers, according to the DOJ. The DOJ also said six people were charged over schemes that allegedly used fake crypto investment platforms to solicit deposits.
These cross-border actions reflect an operational reality: scam networks often rely on fragmented control across countries—where perpetrators, intermediaries, and the mechanisms used to receive or transfer illicit payments may not all sit in a single legal jurisdiction. Coordinated enforcement can therefore reduce the time criminals have to adjust or move operations after early disruptions.
In Southeast Asia, policymakers have also moved toward harsher criminal penalties. On May 15, the Myanmar military government released draft legislation proposing sentences ranging from 10 years to life in prison for digital currency fraud, with the death penalty possible in cases involving coercion at scam centers where coerced workers were killed. Later, on July 28, Parliament approved the bill, though presidential assent was not confirmed at the time of reporting.
Elsewhere, the scam ecosystem continues to evolve in ways that increase the complexity of enforcement. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted a Bitcoin extortion scam that used the name of a Chinese newspaper, underscoring how criminals may rely on branding, impersonation, and attention-grabbing tactics to draw victims into payment or disclosure schemes.
What to watch next from the London operation
For investors, traders, and everyday users, the practical value of agreements like this is not in public statements alone, but in operational follow-through—especially when authorities plan disruption actions that bring together multiple investigative and prosecutorial systems. With the DOJ saying overlapping cases have already been identified and an in-person disruption operation is planned in London in early October, the next sign readers should look for is whether authorities announce specific arrests, charges, or confirmed closures of targeted scam centers as the cooperation moves from paperwork to courtroom and enforcement outcomes.
This article was originally published as US-UK Joint Alliance Targets Crypto Scam Hubs with London Plan on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Шахраї, які керують криптовалютними «інвестиційними» шахрайськими схемами, дедалі частіше стають об’єктом скоординованого міжнародного поліцейського переслідування: Сполучені Штати та Сполучене Королівство оголосили про нове транскордонне партнерство між правоохоронними органами, покликане зірвати роботу організованих шахрайських центрів.
У четвер, Міністерство юстиції США (DOJ) заявило, що Офіс федерального прокурора округу Колумбія, Королівська служба кримінального переслідування для Англії та Уельсу, а також Національне кримінальне агентство Великої Британії підписали меморандум про взаєморозуміння, щоб забезпечити «вперше подібну» співпрацю проти шахрайських центрів, задіяних у крипто- та кібернетично опосередкованому інвестиційному шахрайстві. DOJ також пов’язало цей крок із дедалі більшими обсягами збитків, що приписуються цим злочинам, посилаючись на звіти Центру скарг на злочини в інтернеті ФБР.

Двоє тайських бізнесменів подали позов у окружний суд Нью-Йорка, звинувачуючи Tether у незаконному заморожуванні $42,4 млн у Tether USDt (USDT) під час інвестиційної афери з «порубкою свиней». Позивачі стверджують, що емітент стейблкоїна діяв без санкції у жовтні 2025 року після отримання неофіційного запиту від U.S. Homeland Security Investigations.
Суперечка виникла на тлі того, що регулятори по всій Азії посилюють правила щодо криптопереказів і доступу до ринку — від кроку Таїланду запровадити Travel Rule із перевірками для самостійно керованих гаманців до Сінгапуру та Австралії, які визначають чіткіші шляхи для стейблкоїнів і ліцензованих криптодеривативів.

Kalshi, платформа прогнозного ринку, як повідомляється, розглядає можливість розширення на ринок енергетичних деривативів із безстроковим контрактом на нафту марки West Texas Intermediate (WTI) у форматі перпетуалів (perpetual futures), який ніколи не закінчуватиметься — потенційно позиціонуючи його як перший нафтовмісний продукт «перпс», доступний для торгів на регульованому майданчику в США.
За словами особи, обізнаної з ситуацією, яку цитує Bloomberg, Kalshi може подати продукт на погодження до Комісії з торгівлі товарними ф’ючерсами (CFTC) вже наступного тижня. Reuters повідомляє, що контракт торгуватиметься 24 години на добу, п’ять днів на тиждень. Cointelegraph звернувся до Kalshi по коментар.