Crypto Breaking

U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on a motion to bring the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—known as the CLARITY Act—to the Senate floor, setting up a pivotal procedural vote tied to the next legislative window. The move comes as lawmakers prepare to return to Washington after the August recess, with the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15.
Under Senate rules, invoking cloture requires a 60-vote threshold, meaning Republicans will need support from Democrats to clear the procedural hurdle. The filing does not automatically translate into final passage; instead, it is designed to advance the bill for consideration and potentially a later vote on the legislation itself.
Key takeaways
John Thune filed cloture to take up the CLARITY Act, a procedural step requiring 60 votes.
The Senate is expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, with the vote anticipated shortly after.
Cloture clears a path for consideration but does not guarantee the bill will ultimately pass.
Negotiations have stalled over disagreements, including ethics provisions and how stablecoin-related rewards should be regulated.
Lawmakers are reportedly working on a bipartisan ethics addendum to address concerns tied to the president’s crypto-related financial interests.
Procedural push puts the CLARITY Act back on the calendar
According to the U.S. Senate Daily Press, the Majority Leader’s office confirmed that Thune filed cloture on the motion to bring the CLARITY Act to the Senate floor for consideration. The Senate Daily Press is tied to the daily publication of official Senate floor scheduling and related procedural matters, making it a direct channel for confirming when actions like cloture are submitted.
Cloture matters because it addresses debate length and related parliamentary tactics. With 60 votes required to invoke cloture, the bill’s fate in the chamber hinges on whether enough senators across party lines agree the legislation should move forward for lawmakers to debate and vote on substance.
Thune’s filing effectively repositions the CLARITY Act for action after negotiations failed to produce a deal before the August recess. Lawmakers now have additional time leading up to the September session—when procedural momentum can become substantive momentum, if the outstanding policy issues can be resolved.
Why the bill is politically and structurally significant
The CLARITY Act is widely described as a landmark effort to create a more uniform federal framework for how digital assets are categorized and overseen. The bill’s core aim is to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and clarify how regulators should apply existing securities and commodities laws.
In particular, the legislation is positioned to delineate when particular crypto assets fall under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission versus the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. That clarity is a major concern for market participants because regulatory ambiguity can complicate product development, market access, and compliance strategies.
While the procedural step now puts the bill back into focus, the filing also underscores that the legislative path is still conditional. Even if senators clear cloture, the CLARITY Act could still face further obstacles in a later floor vote depending on whether negotiators can bridge remaining disagreements.
The sticking points: ethics rules and stablecoin-related provisions
The road to a compromise has been complicated by disputes over multiple elements, including ethics provisions and rules governing stablecoin rewards. The ethics question has been particularly difficult, according to reporting referenced in the original coverage: lawmakers have been unable to settle on proposed restrictions that would limit government officials—and their families—from issuing or profiting from digital assets while in office.
These provisions are more than technical language. Ethics rules can become a defining political battleground because they shape how lawmakers manage perceived conflicts of interest, especially in a sector where public officials may hold or interact with crypto investments.
Beyond ethics, stablecoin rewards have also reportedly been a source of friction. While the specific policy details are not laid out in the available text, the inclusion of stablecoin-related reward rules indicates that negotiators have to align on how certain yield or incentivization mechanics should be treated under U.S. oversight.
Until those issues are resolved, the CLARITY Act’s movement in the Senate may be best understood as a procedural advance—an effort to keep negotiations alive rather than a guarantee that consensus is close.
Reported attempt to break the ethics impasse
To address the ethics impasse, lawmakers have reportedly been working on a bipartisan addendum. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph referenced a proposal aimed at addressing Democratic concerns about President Donald Trump’s crypto-related financial interests, with Bloomberg reporting that the approach would require the president to divest from certain crypto-related businesses.
The rationale for such an addendum is straightforward: rather than relying solely on broad restrictions on officials and their families, negotiators may seek a targeted solution tied to the president’s holdings. The shift matters because it could alter the negotiation dynamics between parties—potentially allowing the ethics language to become more politically acceptable while still addressing conflict-of-interest concerns.
However, the existence of a proposed ethics framework does not itself confirm that the final language will be agreed upon or adopted. The next procedural vote will signal whether enough senators believe the bill is worth taking up despite remaining uncertainties, and it may also pressure negotiators to finalize language quickly enough to avoid further delays.
What to watch after Sept. 15
With the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15 and the cloture vote anticipated soon after, the immediate question is whether Democrats will provide the additional votes needed to reach the 60 threshold. If they do, lawmakers can proceed to debate substance—but readers should still watch for how ethics and stablecoin-reward provisions evolve, since those items have been central to the breakdown in earlier negotiations.
This article was originally published as US Senate Set to Advance CLARITY Act on Sept. 15 After Thune Files Cloture on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Demand for US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) accelerated sharply over the past week, according to Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas. The renewed inflow momentum arrives after months of uneven participation, rekindling a key question for market watchers: whether institutional appetite is broadening again—or whether this is a temporary swing in investor behavior.
At the same time, the discussion around custody remains unsettled after a high-profile Coldcard hardware wallet incident in which attackers reportedly stole about $116 million in Bitcoin. The security breach has renewed attention on the trade-offs between self-custody and regulated products like spot ETFs.
Key takeaways
Bloomberg’s Eric Balchunas said spot Bitcoin ETFs drew about $1 billion in net inflows for the week, the strongest since April.
Balchunas described the rebound as the third-best weekly performance since last October—an era he called Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
A Coldcard security exploit linked to vulnerable firmware has put self-custody concerns back in focus.
Balchunas suggested the hack could help drive some investors toward spot ETFs, though he cautioned that the link is not proven.
Spot Bitcoin ETF inflows rebound after a patchy stretch
Balchunas posted that US spot Bitcoin ETFs took in roughly $1 billion in net inflows over the week ending Saturday. He said the result was the strongest weekly showing since April and ranked as the third-best week since last October, when he referred to Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
The “silent IPO” framing comes from investor Jordi Visser, who popularized the idea in November. In Visser’s view, early Bitcoin holders were gradually selling into expanding demand from ETFs and other institutional channels. The effect, under the theory, was enough additional supply to keep Bitcoin comparatively constrained even as new capital continued to enter via regulated vehicles.
That context matters for interpreting this week’s improvement. The source notes that ETF flows had deteriorated in earlier periods of stronger demand, making the recent rebound more noticeable. For traders and portfolio managers, consistent ETF inflows tend to be easier to track and model than broader, decentralized participation, so a return to stronger weekly demand can quickly change sentiment around the near-term positioning of institutions.
Coldcard hack refreshes the custody debate
The ETF story is unfolding alongside a major security incident involving Coldcard, a Bitcoin hardware wallet developed by Coinkite. The exploit reportedly resulted in about $116 million worth of Bitcoin being stolen, with the attack tied to a flaw in how affected devices generated wallet keys. According to the earlier coverage referenced in the source, attackers were able to compromise funds held in wallets created using vulnerable firmware.
On Friday, Balchunas argued that the Coldcard incident could ultimately strengthen the case for spot Bitcoin ETFs—particularly for investors who prefer not to manage the technical responsibilities that come with self-custody. He pointed to the observed surge in ETF inflows following the hack as a possible connection.
In his comments, Balchunas explicitly acknowledged the limitations of drawing conclusions from timing alone. “Correlation does not imply causation,” he said, but added that, over the long term, he can’t imagine there aren’t some investors who migrate from cold storage to ETFs.
For market participants, this is a meaningful mechanism to watch: a single security incident can influence risk perception across the broader custody ecosystem. Even when the affected devices are limited to specific conditions, the reputational impact can push some users toward a custody model backed by regulated intermediaries—especially those evaluating whether the operational burden of holding Bitcoin directly is worth the benefits.
What to watch next: whether inflows persist and custody concerns evolve
Even with this week’s strong ETF numbers, the key question is durability. Balchunas’ “silent IPO” concept suggests that ETF demand and investor selling behavior can interact in ways that keep price action subdued relative to capital inflows. The rebound in net flows therefore doesn’t automatically resolve the larger balance between new institutional purchases and supply from earlier holders—but it does reintroduce a tailwind to demand that was less pronounced in earlier weeks.
Separately, the Coldcard episode raises a second uncertainty: whether the custody shift Balchunas hinted at becomes visible in sustained ETF inflow patterns, or remains anecdotal. Investors watching the next cycle of weekly flows may want to compare whether inflows continue to strengthen over multiple reporting periods, and whether risk communication around hardware wallets changes in response to the incident.
Until regulators clarify broader standards and until the market sees how persistent the post-hack behavior proves to be, the combination of improving ETF demand and renewed custody concerns will likely remain a central driver of how Bitcoin’s institutional narrative develops.
Going forward, readers should track whether the next several weeks of spot Bitcoin ETF flows match this week’s strength—and whether custody-related headlines translate into measurable, sustained shifts in investor allocation between self-custody and regulated products.
This article was originally published as US Spot Bitcoin ETFs See Best Week Since April as Flows Hit $1B on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Demand for US spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) surged this week, according to Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas, reviving a narrative that had gone quiet after months of more inconsistent buying. At the same time, a recent security incident tied to Coldcard has put crypto self-custody back under the spotlight—an issue that some ETF investors may be weighing more carefully.
Balchunas said Saturday that the spot Bitcoin ETFs pulled in roughly $1 billion in net inflows for the week. He described it as the funds’ strongest performance since April and the third-best week since last October, when he referred to the phenomenon as Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
Key takeaways
Bloomberg ETF analyst Eric Balchunas reports about $1 billion in weekly net inflows for US spot Bitcoin ETFs, the strongest since April.
Balchunas framed the earlier October period as Bitcoin’s “silent IPO,” suggesting ETFs can pull in institutional-style demand without obvious market fanfare.
A widely discussed Coldcard hardware wallet hack—connected to about $116 million stolen—has reignited concerns around the security burdens of self-custody.
Balchunas said the hack could support the case for spot ETFs among investors wary of technical custody responsibilities, though he stressed the link is not proven.
Spot ETF inflows rebound after a softer stretch
The renewed buying matters because it helps clarify what has been happening beneath the surface of Bitcoin’s price action. Even when new capital enters through ETFs, the relationship to spot market momentum can be muted if supply is being sold off concurrently—something that investors have been trying to explain over recent months.
Balchunas tied this week’s momentum to the contrast with prior periods. In his view, earlier demand dynamics contributed to a broader “changing of the guard,” where earlier Bitcoin holders increasingly monetized positions as ETF and other institutional inflows grew. He linked this to the term popularized by investor Jordi Visser in November: Bitcoin’s “silent IPO.”
The phrase captures an idea that the ETF ramp behaves less like a noisy retail mania and more like a steady institutional distribution channel—keeping Bitcoin from reacting dramatically while significant flows accumulate.
In that context, the standout feature of this week is not simply that inflows turned positive, but that they represent the strongest showing since April and rank among the best weekly results since last October. That suggests the ETF pipeline is capable of re-accelerating, even if the broader period has been uneven.
Coldcard hack revives the self-custody debate
While ETF flows grabbed attention, the week’s backdrop included a major security incident involving Coldcard, a Bitcoin hardware wallet from Coinkite. The exploit is reported to have led to the theft of roughly $116 million worth of Bitcoin, according to prior reporting that connected the theft to a vulnerability in how affected devices generated wallet keys. Attackers allegedly compromised funds by targeting wallets created using vulnerable firmware.
On Friday, Balchunas suggested the aftermath could influence investor behavior. In a discussion carried in a separate report, he argued that the security and technical responsibilities of self-custody may push some investors toward spot Bitcoin ETFs, particularly those who prefer to outsource custody and operational risk to traditional market structures.
Crucially, Balchunas framed the potential connection as speculative. He acknowledged that correlation does not prove causation. Still, he said, “long-term I can’t imagine there aren’t some who migrate over,” implying that even partial behavioral shifts—if they occur—could show up in ETF demand over time.
What investors should watch: flows, behavior, and persistence
This is where the story becomes more than a one-week data point. ETF inflows are typically driven by a mix of institutional allocation patterns, advisor workflows, and broader risk appetite. A temporary rebound can happen without signaling a structural turn. However, Balchunas’s framing of both the “silent IPO” period and the current resurgence suggests he believes the market is cycling between phases of strong demand and quieter distribution.
For traders and long-term allocators, the practical question is whether this week’s improvement marks a continuation or a rebound followed by another slowdown. The “strongest since April” and “third-best week since last October” descriptors indicate a meaningful spike relative to recent history, but the durability of that spike will depend on whether ongoing capital inflow stays steady.
Meanwhile, the Coldcard incident adds a different kind of variable: perceived operational risk. Hardware wallets are widely used precisely because they reduce exposure to exchange custody failures, but high-profile vulnerabilities can change how comfortable some investors feel handling keys themselves. Balchunas’s argument is that—over time—investors uncomfortable with custody mechanics may consider ETFs a simpler alternative.
Yet, it’s also possible that self-custody concerns are already priced into broader behavior, meaning the effect on ETF demand may be gradual rather than immediate. That makes future inflow trends the key test: if inflows keep outperforming earlier weeks consistently, the market impact of custody-related security narratives could become clearer.
Read together, the two threads—ETF demand rebounding and custody concerns resurfacing—underline a single theme: Bitcoin’s access channels are still evolving. Spot ETFs offer a regulated wrapper, while self-custody remains the route for those who want direct key control. The next phase will likely hinge on how quickly investors shift between those modes and whether ETF inflows sustain at elevated levels beyond this week.
This article was originally published as US Spot Bitcoin ETFs Deliver Best Week Since April, $1B Net Inflows on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

US Senate Majority Leader John Thune has filed cloture on a motion to bring the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act—commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act—to the Senate floor, setting up a procedural vote that is expected after the chamber reconvenes. The move is intended to restart momentum for one of the most closely watched pieces of pending US crypto legislation and could shape how lawmakers debate digital asset regulation in the coming months.
According to the Senate Daily Press, Thune’s filing follows failed efforts to reach a deal ahead of the August recess. The Senate is expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, giving negotiators additional weeks to resolve open disputes before the Senate votes on whether to advance the bill for consideration.
Key takeaways
Thune filed cloture on the motion to take up the CLARITY Act, with a procedural vote expected after the Senate returns on Sept. 15.
Cloture requires 60 votes, meaning Republicans likely need at least some Democratic support to clear the procedural hurdle.
The cloture vote is about advancing the bill for consideration, not about final passage of the CLARITY Act.
Negotiations have stalled over ethics provisions and rules tied to stablecoin rewards, among other issues.
Lawmakers have reportedly explored a bipartisan ethics addendum linked to the president’s crypto-related financial interests.
A procedural step toward Senate debate
The Senate Daily Press confirmed that Thune filed cloture, a mechanism that sets up a vote to end debate and allow the Senate to move toward taking up legislation. Because cloture requires 60 votes, the outcome will serve as an early test of whether the CLARITY Act can attract cross-party backing beyond its Republican sponsors.
Even if the procedural vote succeeds, it would not mean the bill is guaranteed to pass. As the filing’s purpose indicates, cloture addresses whether the Senate will consider the legislation, rather than whether it will ultimately approve it.
What the CLARITY Act would change
The CLARITY Act is widely regarded as a landmark framework for US crypto regulation. If enacted, it would aim to establish a federal market structure for digital assets and clarify how US federal oversight should apply across different categories of tokens.
In particular, the bill is intended to delineate when crypto assets are treated as securities versus when they are treated as commodities, along with clarifying the respective roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). For market participants, that distinction matters because securities and commodities oversight can lead to very different compliance expectations, enforcement priorities, and product approvals.
Why negotiations stalled before the August recess
While the Senate has the CLARITY Act on its agenda, the effort to bring it to the floor has been complicated by policy disagreements. The most prominent sticking point has involved ethics provisions designed to restrict government officials and their families from issuing or profiting from digital assets while in office.
Separate from the ethics debate, negotiations have also reportedly been complicated by disagreements over rules governing stablecoin rewards. Those disputes have helped explain why lawmakers were unable to finalize a package before the August recess and instead pushed unresolved issues into the post-recess window.
Thune’s cloture filing suggests Senate leaders believe the bill can move forward procedurally even as some substantive disagreements remain—at least long enough for lawmakers to debate the remaining differences on the record.
An ethics addendum aimed at the president’s interests
To address the impasse, lawmakers have reportedly worked on a bipartisan ethics addendum intended to meet Democratic concerns connected to President Donald Trump’s crypto-related financial interests. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that negotiations included efforts to shape an addendum that could provide ethics guardrails acceptable to both parties.
According to a report by Bloomberg referenced in that earlier coverage, the proposal would require the president to divest from certain crypto-related businesses. Separately, a post by Eleanor Terrett shared context around the cloture filing, underscoring that the Senate process is advancing again but that major policy questions remain.
For investors and crypto industry participants, the practical importance of these ethics terms is that they can determine whether the bill gains the cross-party support needed to survive procedural hurdles. If ethics provisions remain contentious, the Senate could see additional delays even after cloture is filed.
What to watch next
With the Senate expected to reconvene on Sept. 15, the immediate focus will be whether Republicans can secure the 60 votes necessary for cloture and whether negotiators can narrow remaining disagreements—particularly around ethics and stablecoin reward rules—before any final consideration vote. Even after cloture, the CLARITY Act’s path to passage remains uncertain, so market participants should watch for how the text changes between procedural motion and any subsequent Senate floor action.
This article was originally published as US Senate Set to Advance CLARITY Act in September After Thune Cloture on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

As Forex Expo Dubai prepares for its 9th Edition on 22–23 September 2026 at Dubai World Trade Centre, the event has unveiled a Gold Lucky Draw, with 150 grams of 24K gold set to be won across the two-day expo.
Open exclusively to Verified Traders, Introducing Brokers (IBs), and Affiliates, the lucky draw rewards attendees while adding to an event already built around learning, networking, and business growth.
With 33 winners set to take home a share of 150 grams of 24K gold, this year’s Gold Lucky Draw will be distributed across the following prize categories:
1 winner of a 50grams 24K Gold Bar
2 winners of 10grams 24K Gold Bars
10 winners of 4grams 24K Gold Bars
20 winners of 2grams 24K Gold Coin
While lucky draw winners will take home gold, every participant will have the opportunity to build new partnerships, gain fresh market insights, and connect with companies shaping the future of online trading.
Five Halls. One Global Trading Landscape
Across five halls, Forex Expo Dubai 2026 will bring together 250+ exhibitors and 100+ speakers, featuring leading brokerages, fintech companies, liquidity providers, payment providers, trading technology firms, and financial services companies from around the world.
Attendees can discover new products and services, compare trading platforms, meet solution providers, and engage directly with businesses driving the evolution of online trading.
For those looking to stay ahead of the curve, the conference programme will feature discussions on market trends, regulation, trading strategies, and the future of online trading.
Raising the Standard for Industry Events
The 9th edition introduces expanded experiences designed around the needs of its key attendee groups.
Verified Traders gain access to dedicated seminar sessions, the Traders Lounge, and the Traders Clinic, where they can pre-book one-to-one sessions with market experts.
Introducing Brokers can participate in the dedicated IB Programme, connect with brokers to discuss partnership models and rebate structures, and access the IB Lounge for focused networking.
Beyond these dedicated experiences, attendees can explore live product demonstrations, private meeting zones, pre-bookable meetings through the official event app, and side events taking place before and after the expo — creating more ways to learn, build relationships, and discover new opportunities.
*T&C Apply
About Forex Expo Dubai
Forex Expo Dubai is one of the region’s leading gatherings for the global online trading and fintech industry, bringing together brokerages, fintech innovators, traders, investors, payment providers, IBs, affiliates, and online trading technology companies under one roof. The expo provides a platform for business networking, technology showcases, industry insights, and conversations shaping the evolution of modern finance.
This article was originally published as Win Up to 150 Grams of Gold at Forex Expo Dubai this September 2026 on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

HONG KONG — August 3, 2026 — Bitcoin Asia 2026, Asia’s largest Bitcoin conference, today released its full conference agenda and announced Changpeng Zhao (CZ) as the newest addition to its speaker lineup for the two-day event taking place August 27–28 at the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre (HKCEC). The event is organized by BTC Inc., a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), and presented by Metaplanet.
The full agenda, now live at asia.b.tc/agenda, maps out two days of main stage keynotes, panels, and programming tracks including the Bitcoin for Corporations Symposium, Deal Day, the Deal Flow Zone, and the Open Source Hub. Attendees can now plan their conference experience session by session ahead of the August event.
CZ joins other headliners on the confirmed speaker roster. Founder of Giggle Academy, CZ has spent recent years focused on education and mentorship initiatives within the Bitcoin ecosystem, alongside advising governments on regulation and tokenization. He is also the founder of Binance.
CZ will take the Nakamoto Stage on August 27 from 3:00pm to 3:30pm. Immediately following his session, CZ will hold a live signing for his memoir, Freedom of Money: A Memoir of Protecting Users, Resilience, and the Founding of Binance, in the Expo Hall. Exact location within the Expo Hall to be announced.
“Too often we talk about Bitcoin with an over emphasis on adoption in the West. Bitcoin is a global phenomenon and the Asian market is crucial to its growth, success, and narrative. We are proud to, once again, bring together the East and West bitcoin communities, with great leaders like CZ, Simon, Balaji, and many more, to write the next chapter in bitcoin’s history, and continue to foster and invest into the growth of Bitcoin,” said Brandon Green, CEO of BTC Inc.
This year’s programming centers on the convergence of Eastern and Western Bitcoin ecosystems at a defining moment for institutional adoption, with sessions spanning macro and monetary policy, corporate treasury strategy, Bitcoin infrastructure, and the regulatory landscape across Asia.
Additional speakers and programming details will be announced in the weeks ahead. Ticketing and full event information are available at asia.b.tc. Press credentials can be requested at asia.b.tc/contact/press-pass.
About BTC Inc.
BTC Inc. is the world’s leading Bitcoin media enterprise, operating Bitcoin Magazine, the Bitcoin Conference, and Bitcoin for Corporations. Through its media, events, and educational platforms, BTC Inc. delivers trusted news, research, and experiences that advance Bitcoin adoption among individuals, institutions, and enterprises worldwide.
BTC Inc. is a subsidiary of Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA), a publicly held Bitcoin company that owns and operates a global portfolio of Bitcoin-native enterprises.
Forward-Looking Statements
Certain statements in this press release constitute forward-looking statements, as defined under U.S. federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of words such as “estimate,” “project,” “predict,” “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “potential,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “may,” “plan,” “will,” “seek,” “target,” or the negative of such terms or other variations thereof. However, the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to, statements regarding BTC Inc.’s business plans and strategies, including plans for new products, services, and media platforms; projected or targeted audience size, reach, impressions, and distribution; expected launch dates and production schedules; the Company’s advocacy positions and the expected outcomes of industry and regulatory engagement; and the anticipated role and growth of Bitcoin-related media, events, and educational services.
These forward-looking statements are inherently uncertain and involve numerous assumptions and risks. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected include, but are not limited to: (i) the volatility of Bitcoin prices and its effect on audience interest, advertiser demand, and the commercial viability of Bitcoin-focused media; (ii) changes in audience size, engagement, or platform distribution that could affect BTC Inc.’s reach or revenue; (iii) the risk that new products or services, including new media platforms, may not launch on schedule, achieve projected audience levels, or generate anticipated revenue; (iv) the risk that advocacy or industry engagement efforts may not achieve their intended outcomes; (v) dependence on third-party distribution platforms whose policies, algorithms, or terms of service may change; competition from other media companies and content providers; (vi) the evolving regulatory environment for digital assets and its potential impact on BTC Inc.’s operations, content, and audience; (vii) reliance on key personnel and creative talent; the risk that projected audience metrics, impressions, or distribution figures may not be achieved or sustained; (viii) risks associated with the integration of BTC Inc. into Nakamoto Inc.’s operations following the February 2026 acquisition; (ix) general economic conditions and their impact on advertising and events revenue; and (x) other important factors detailed in Nakamoto Inc.’s Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and other documents that are filed, or will be filed, with the SEC and that are or will be available on Nakamoto’s website at www.nakamoto.com and on the website of the SEC at www.sec.gov.
Because Nakamoto Inc. (NASDAQ: NAKA) is the parent company of BTC Inc., investors in Nakamoto Inc. common stock should be aware that the performance and risks of BTC Inc.’s media, events, and educational operations may affect the consolidated financial results, reputation, and regulatory profile of Nakamoto Inc. and its subsidiaries. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which such statement is made, and neither BTC Inc. nor Nakamoto Inc. undertakes any obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise, except as required by applicable law.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Asia 2026 Adds CZ to Speaker Lineup, Full Conference Agenda Released on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Crypto is starting to shed its long-running “get rich quick” image as the industry shifts toward real-world tokenization, regulated-style trading products, and broader distribution channels, Nansen founder and CEO Alex Svanevik says.
On Cointelegraph Magazine’s “Trade Secrets” show, Svanevik argued that blockchains are moving from a mostly speculative “toy world” phase into a more practical era—where tokenized stocks and index-like trading tied to benchmarks such as the S&P 500 are becoming part of the mainstream conversation.
Key takeaways
Svanevik frames today’s shift as crypto entering a “real-world era” with tokenized traditional assets and benchmark-style trading.
He says Solana’s current public narrative—focused on meme coins—is “ridiculous,” and argues the ecosystem has long-term strength.
Regarding the Robinhood chain launched on July 1, Svanevik sees it as a serious contender to Base and doesn’t expect a token launch.
On Bitcoin, Svanevik suggests the market may be approaching a bottom around $60,000, while other analysts disagree on how far downside could still extend.
From “toy world” speculation to tokenized real assets
Svanevik’s core thesis is that crypto’s evolution is now being defined by its ability to support non-crypto assets and trading patterns that resemble conventional finance. In his view, the industry’s next phase will be characterized less by isolated retail hype and more by interoperability with widely recognized financial instruments and market structures.
He pointed to the growing availability of tokenized assets and products that mimic index exposure, noting that these developments reflect more than just another cycle of speculative demand. The “interesting spot” for blockchains right now, Svanevik said, is that they create room for non-crypto assets.
Solana’s “meme coin” label misses the bigger picture
While acknowledging the attention Hyperliquid has recently attracted, Svanevik singled out Solana as one of the strongest long-term blockchain ecosystems—despite Solana’s reputation for meme coins.
In the interview, he called the idea that Solana is “just for meme coins” completely misguided, arguing that there is far more underneath the surface. Svanevik emphasized what he described as an “incredible team” behind Solana and said that, in his assessment, the business development effort across the ecosystem is unusually strong.
At the same time, Svanevik drew a clear line between ecosystem performance and token price expectations. He said he is optimistic that Solana as an ecosystem will do well, but added that he doesn’t know what that necessarily means for SOL over the next twelve months—despite acknowledging that price might be expected to rise “intuitively” if the ecosystem strengthens.
Robinhood chain: traction without a token
Svanevik also discussed the Ethereum layer-2 network known as Robinhood chain, which launched on July 1. He suggested the project could “rise up” as a major competitor to Base, largely because of Robinhood’s distribution advantages.
However, he was not convinced Robinhood chain will introduce a token. Svanevik argued that a token may not be necessary if the goal is to bootstrap user adoption and create product momentum. In his view, many projects issue tokens specifically to generate excitement and accelerate early growth—an approach he doesn’t think fits Robinhood’s situation.
He also raised a practical contradiction: launching a token would be counterintuitive for a company that operates a major publicly traded stock on the Nasdaq. Svanevik’s comment was that value is likely better directed toward the existing HOOD stock rather than competing within the same corporate ecosystem through a new token.
“They’ve been able to launch Robinhood chain and get tons of traction without a token.”
Bitcoin: $60,000 as a potential cycle line in the sand
When asked about Bitcoin’s outlook, Svanevik said his personal view is that the market may be near a bottom. He pointed to the current level around $60,000 as potentially representing Bitcoin’s cycle low.
In the interview, Svanevik said he doesn’t expect Bitcoin to go back below $60,000—adding that, based on his long-term perspective, he expects Bitcoin’s role as a hedge against central bank money creation to remain intact. He also suggested he doesn’t see the broader monetary expansion cycle ending anytime soon, which underpins his reluctance to forecast a deeper breakdown.
Still, the market debate is active. The article notes that some analysts were divided on whether Bitcoin has already found a bottom after trading near $60,000 in early February, rebounding, slipping below the level again, and then moving broadly sideways since.
Earlier coverage referenced in the show interview included commentary from veteran investor Michael Terpin, who told Cointelegraph that Bitcoin could face additional declines before reaching rock bottom. According to Terpin’s comments on the Trade Secrets show, the asset could ultimately fall around “66%” from its October 2025 all-time high of $126,100—implying a move into the 40s.
“We still have more pain to go.”
The split between Svanevik’s “near bottom” view and Terpin’s warning of further downside highlights a key uncertainty for traders: whether current price behavior is consolidating near a true cycle low or merely pausing before another leg down.
For readers, the next watch items are straightforward: whether Solana’s long-term ecosystem narrative continues to hold up despite price volatility, whether Robinhood chain sustains traction without token incentives, and—most immediately—how Bitcoin behaves around the $60,000 area as market participants continue to argue over whether “bottom” has already arrived or is still ahead.
This article was originally published as Nansen Founder: Bitcoin Likely Won’t Trade Below $60K Again on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Coldcard is a Bitcoin-only hardware wallet created by Coinkite, a Toronto-based company specializing in ultra-secure self-custody hardware. The hardware wallet is marketed as a highly secure cold storage option for long-term Bitcoin users and has received plaudits from users and experts alike. However, the Coldcard exploit could change that perspective and have far-reaching implications for “self-custody,” a hill many in crypto choose to die on.
The Coldcard Exploit Timeline
Let’s get into the nitty-gritty of the exploit. On July 30, individual Bitcoin holders using Coldcard noticed that their wallets were inexplicably drained. Among them was author Jonathan Goodman, who lost $1.6 million in BTC to the exploit. Goodman’s post about the hack on X was possibly the first time the hack was discussed in the public domain. Meanwhile, blockchain intelligence firm Galaxy Research detected suspicious transaction waves in a 41-minute window, hours before Coinkite issued its first advisory regarding the exploit. Unlike most exploits, the Coldcard exploit unfolded in waves, with the number of affected wallets rising almost daily.
The vulnerability impacted several models, including the Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5, and Q. However, Coinkite products built on separate codebases, including Tapsigner, Opendime, and Satscard, were unaffected.
The first wave was detected on July 30, when a hacker or hackers began targeting Bitcoin held in Coldcard hardware wallets. The hackers drained 500 wallets in a 25-minute window during the first wave, siphoning around 594 BTC, worth around $38 million, to a new address. The numbers are staggering for such a small window, but this was just a prelude to what was to come. The first wave lasted 41 minutes and affected 1,196 wallets. As more data poured in, Galaxy Research pegged the first wave figures at 1,082.65 BTC stolen from 1,196 wallets, around 0.9 BTC from each wallet.
Galaxy Research detected two subsequent waves on July 31 and August 1, respectively. The hackers stole around 76 BTC from 1,477 wallets during the second sweep and 208 BTC from 1,912 wallets during the third sweep. A suspected fourth wave was detected on August 4, with researchers identifying an additional 600 wallets. Early estimates put losses at over $130 million, a figure that could increase as hackers continue targeting vulnerable addresses.
Wave Date Wallets Affected BTC Stolen 1 July 30 1,196 1,082.65 BTC 2 July 31 Roughly 1,477 76 BTC 3 August 1 1,912 208 BTC 4 (Possibly Ongoing) Detected by August 4 Over 600 Figure Not Publicly Available
A highly unusual aspect is the nature of the exploit. The BTC wasn’t stolen through an elaborate social engineering scheme or the usual phishing or exchange attacks that we usually see. It wasn’t even a supply chain compromise like the one that hit Ledger in 2023. This was a bug that sat undetected for five years, until someone, somehow, discovered it and used it to blindside Coldcard wallet users.
How Does The Coldcard Number Generator Work
Coldcard wallets generate their own randomness every time a user creates a new seed. The randomness underpins the security the wallets are known for. Any compromise to this randomness would prove disastrous, as the ongoing exploit has proved. These wallets are designed to generate and store private keys offline and are never directly connected to the internet. Instead, they communicate with the blockchain using an air-gapped environment through QR codes and MicroSD cards.
The Code That Started It All
At the heart of the exploit sits an innocuous firmware update pushed by Coldcard in March 2021. Firmware version 4.0.1 migrated Coldcard’s cryptography to libsecp256k1, the library underpinning Bitcoin Core, a sound decision by every definition of the word. However, this inadvertently moved seed generation to MicroPython’s Yasmarang PRNG, used on devices with no randomness chips.
You may be wondering why.
According to Block’s security and engineering team, the 2021 update changed how the firmware called its cryptographic library during the seed generation phase. The library misread a production build configuration flag that checks whether the hardware random number generator (RNG) was available. This event went unnoticed, and the firmware began generating “deterministic, pseudorandom seed phrases from a significantly smaller entropy pool without adding fresh entropy.”
Let me explain the preceding sentence. A hardware wallet typically uses two components: a physical randomness source embedded in the chip (TRNG) and an algorithm that uses true randomness from the TRNG to generate seed phrases (CSPRNG). Coldcard wallets use a hardware-based true random number generator built directly into its microchip. Additionally, users can add physical dice rolls to increase randomness.
When Coinkite pushed the 2021 update, the firmware reverted to a backup PRNG without alerting the user. The PRNG relied on the wallet’s UID instead of fresh entropy, making the output predictable. Here’s where the vulnerability comes in. If an attacker can determine a device’s possible UID, they could narrow down the seed phrases generated by the wallet.
So what effect did this have?
Seed phrases generated using firmware 4.0.1 looked like a standard 12- or 24-word phrase. However, the randomness of the underlying numbers was compromised, making them significantly weaker. A 12-word BIP-39 seed typically carries 128 bits of entropy. Let me put this unremarkable figure into perspective using a simple analogy. 128 bits of entropy effectively gives ~3.4 × 10³⁸ possible seeds. The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years. If a hacker tried to brute-force 128 bits of entropy at a trillion guesses per second, it would take them 800 million times the age of the universe to run through all possible combinations.
Entropy fell to 72 bits on Mk4, Mk5, and Coldcard Q devices, reducing the possible seeds to ~4.7 × 10²¹. This is well below the 128-bit threshold and exploitable by determined hackers with time and resources. It fell even lower (40 bits) on Mk2 and Mk3 devices, well within the reach of an attacker with even modest resources.
Now, you may read this and think an upgrade could fix the vulnerability. Not exactly. A firmware update fixes the problem for seeds generated after the vulnerability was patched. However, seeds generated using firmware 4.0.1 remain vulnerable. Coinkite has recommended that all users who created seed phrases using the compromised firmware generate a new seed phrase and move their funds to a new wallet.
Details And On-Chain Analysis
Galaxy Research highlighted differences in transaction construction across the attack waves, suggesting multiple threat actors instead of a single entity. A TechCrunch report cited other blockchain monitoring firms to confirm Galaxy Research’s observation, stating that Coldcard wallets were targeted by at least a dozen hackers.
Here is a breakdown of the attack waves that targeted Coldcard. However, these figures could change as analysts believe the exploit is ongoing and details of more affected wallets could emerge over time.
Galaxy Research flagged suspicious transactions detected on July 30, identifying around 594 BTC drained from 500 single-signature wallets. The first wave lasted for 41 minutes, targeting 1,196 wallets and draining 1,082.65 BTC.
The second wave followed the same pattern, with hackers draining 76 BTC from 1,477 wallets, taking the total to 1,158.66 BTC (~$75.1 million) from 2,673 addresses.
The third wave targeted 1,912 wallets, draining 208 BTC and taking the total to 1,367 BTC (~$88–89 million) across over 4,500 addresses.
The fourth wave could still be ongoing, with TRM Labs updating the figures to 1,816 BTC from over 5,200 addresses. These numbers could change as more reports come to light.
TRM Labs tracked the stolen BTC to a pool of addresses linked to the attackers. Surprisingly, the attackers have made very little attempt to move, launder, or mix the funds so far. This is likely because the attackers want to target as many vulnerable wallets as possible before worrying about laundering or mixing the stolen funds. A single deposit of 64.9 BTC on Wasabi and 200 ETH on Tornado Cash are the only laundering activity tracked so far.
This is probably why the exploit has not been attributed to groups like North Korea’s Lazarus that launder stolen funds within hours. Funnily enough, the hackers themselves are being inundated with spam messages, with one message offering to launder the stolen funds for a nominal fee.
Coinkite’s Response And Advisory
Coinkite issued several advisories as the scope of the exploit became clearer. The Coldcard manufacturer published a security advisory following the first wave. The initial advisory covered Mk3 devices and firmware 4.0.1 and 4.1.9. Coinkite released an updated advisory and firmware for Mk4/Mk5 (version 5.6.0 or later) and Coldcard Q (version 1.5.0Q or later). The advisory was updated again on August 1, confirming that the exploit had also impacted Mk2 devices. The latest advisory also narrowed the firmware impacted by the exploit and released a fixed firmware update for Mk2/Mk3 (version 4.2.0).
The update also officially recognized that seed phrases generated with at least 50 manual dice rolls contained enough randomness and were not at risk.
Coinkite has stressed that simply updating the firmware will not fix wallets that have already generated a seed. It advised users who generated a seed between March 2021 and the latest firmware update to treat their seed as compromised and move their funds to a new wallet or generate a new seed on a patched firmware.
Why Was The Coldcard Vulnerability Undetected For So Long
One of the biggest talking points of this entire episode is why nobody detected the bug, which was shipped in a firmware update in March 2021. One detail to remember is that Coldcard’s firmware is open source and publicly available. Coinkite speculated in one of its advisories that the bug may have been discovered during an AI-assisted review of the code. However, this theory is unconfirmed as of now.
The exploit adds to the ongoing conversation about hackers using AI systems to find and exploit vulnerabilities in already-reviewed code. Separately, several AI labs, including OpenAI, Anthropic, and Meta, have revealed that their models access real systems during testing. These incidents occurred due to misconfigured environments allowing the models to gain internet access, or because the AI models exploited vulnerabilities during certain tests.
Some recent examples include:
One of OpenAI’s internal models accessed Hugging Face production infrastructure by breaking out of a test environment and exploiting a zero-day vulnerability.
According to one report in ALMCorp, an Anthropic audit revealed some Claude models, including Opus 4.7 and Mythos 5, accessed the internet and gained unauthorized access to systems of three organizations.
Meta’s Muse Spark AI model accessed an external company’s systems and altered internal data.
What Are The Implications For Bitcoin Self Custody
The Coldcard exploit could potentially change Bitcoin custody forever, raise questions about mass adoption, and highlight the complexities of self-custody. First, none of the affected users did anything wrong. They did not fall victim to a social engineering scam or click on a malicious link.
The incident has cast doubt on self-custody, a concept the Bitcoin and broader crypto community swears by. The exploit also reinforces the argument many have made that self-custody does not eliminate risk, it only relocates it. Some, including Taproot developer Udi Wertheimer, have argued that the community cannot assume that Bitcoin stored in cold wallets indefinitely is safe and users must remain vigilant about emerging threats.
The threat landscape has evolved as well. According to Blockaid, the majority of crypto losses this year have been attributed to key compromises and operational security features. The Coldcard exploit is an extreme example of the latter.
Moreover, the incident could push fence-sitters towards institutional and retail exposure to Bitcoin through spot Bitcoin ETFs.
However, self-custody advocates have pointed out that the exploit occurred because of a firmware bug, not a hardware flaw, arguing that self-custody is the safest way to store Bitcoin.
What Steps Can Coldcard Users Take
Coldcard users, especially those who have generated their seeds between March 2021 and Coinkite’s latest advisory, must follow the steps listed below.
Check the Model and Firmware – If you own a Coldcard Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5, or Q and generated a seed between March 2021 and the latest update, the seed may be compromised.
Update Firmware – Coinkite has released firmware updates for the affected devices. Mk2 and Mk3 users can update to version 4.2.0 and above. Mk4 and Mk5 users can upgrade to 5.6.0 and above, while Coldcard Q users can update to 1.5.0Q.
Check Entropy – Coinkite’s advisory states that the seeds of users who have used the Add Dice feature and completed 50 private, independent rolls are not at risk. However, if you have used fewer than 50 rolls, or not used the Add Dice feature at all, your seed may be compromised.
Recheck Passphrase – A BIP-39 passphrase adds another layer of security. However, users must ensure their passphrase is long, unique, and unrecorded. Shorter phrases cannot be deemed secure.
FAQs
What Caused The Coldcard Exploit
The root cause of the exploit was a bug that shipped in March 2021. The error altered how the firmware called its cryptographic library, causing it to revert to a weak software random number generator instead of relying on the Coldcard device’s source of entropy. This led to the key strength falling from the standard 128 bits to as low as 40 bits on some devices, making them susceptible to brute-force attacks.
Will Updating The Firmware Protect The Wallet From The Exploit
This is where things could get tricky for users. It is generally assumed that if the firmware has a bug, it can be updated to fix that bug. However, in Coldcard’s case, it’s only partially correct. A firmware update fixes the RNG issue moving forward, but does not retroactively fix seeds generated on the vulnerable software. Users should treat seeds generated between March 2021 and Coinkite’s latest update as compromised and move their funds after generating a new seed on an updated device.
Does The Hacker Need Physical Access To Exploit The Vulnerability
No, hackers can use brute-force attacks without needing access to the actual device.
Did The Exploit Impact Tapsigner, Satscard, Or Opendime Devices
No, these devices run on separate codebases and were not impacted by the exploit, which is limited to Mk2, Mk3, Mk4, Mk5, and Coldcard Q devices.
Has Anyone Claimed Responsibility For The Attack
No single entity has claimed responsibility for the exploit. Blockchain analysis revealed differences between transaction patterns, suggesting the involvement of multiple threat actors exploiting the same vulnerability.
Is My Coldcard Wallet Compromised
The Coldcard wallet is not compromised, and a firmware update fixes the vulnerability for new seeds. However, seeds generated between March 2021 and Coinkite’s latest update are vulnerable.
This article was originally published as The Coldcard Exploit: A Deep Dive Into One Of The Most Significant Hacks In Recent Memory on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Plans to issue stablecoins denominated in local currencies to reduce reliance on dollar-linked tokens may unintentionally make it easier to move value into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.
Speaking on Friday, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that once local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins run on the same underlying blockchain infrastructure, users could swap between them through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer mechanisms.
Key takeaways
IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-currency stablecoins could still funnel users into dollar stablecoins if both use the same blockchain rails.
Katz said cross-stablecoin interoperability could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries like banks and currency dealers.
He suggested this dynamic could reduce friction in capital movement, affecting how authorities monitor and manage flows.
Katz noted adoption outcomes may differ by country, with local tokens potentially replacing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies.
He urged regulators to enable compliant onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points to manage risks.
How shared blockchain infrastructure could enable “digital dollar” access
Katz’s core point is about infrastructure. In his remarks—delivered in a speech at the University of Cape Town—he argued that if local-currency stablecoins and dollar-backed stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain framework, the practical barriers to conversion could fall sharply.
That matters because, in decentralized finance environments, conversion does not require a single centralized issuer or intermediary to broker every transfer. Katz specifically referenced common DeFi routes: decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, and peer-to-peer swaps. Under that model, users could move between token types directly, turning what begins as local-currency issuance into an easier path to dollar exposure.
Potential implications for FX monitoring and capital-flow tools
The IMF official linked interoperability to a broader policy concern: where foreign-exchange activity happens. Katz argued that moving FX-related activity away from banks and traditional currency dealers could reduce “friction” that authorities currently rely on to monitor and manage capital flows.
In other words, the issue is not only which stablecoin a user holds, but how quickly and through what channels they can reposition into a different currency exposure. If swaps become routine onchain, regulators may find it harder to observe the flow of currency demand through traditional institutional pathways.
At the same time, Katz framed the shift as potentially reinforcing the broader category of FX-focused stablecoins. He said that local-currency stablecoins “might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins,” a statement that underscores the possibility that currency-linked token ecosystems could become more integrated over time rather than remaining siloed.
Adoption unevenness: South Africa as a case study
Katz pointed to South Africa to illustrate how adoption can diverge across token types. He said dollar-backed stablecoins have gained only limited traction there, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand.
He cautioned that it is still too early to draw definitive lessons from any single country, but he offered an explanation for why users might still prefer dollar tokens. In his view, many participants may choose dollar stablecoins due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and cross-platform or cross-border acceptance.
Those characteristics can translate into more efficient trading and easier settlement—particularly in environments where the local currency faces volatility, lower market depth, or weaker confidence in local issuances. Even if a policy objective is to reduce dependence on the dollar, market structure and user preferences can pull activity back toward the most “usable” asset in practice.
Regulatory framing: country risk differences and compliant onchain rails
Katz said risks vary by country. He suggested that in highly dollarized economies, stablecoins may largely substitute for existing dollar holdings rather than creating incremental demand for dollars. But in countries where dollar access is restricted and the economic policy framework is weaker, stablecoins could instead increase foreign-currency demand.
This distinction is important for policymakers because it affects what “success” looks like. If stablecoins mainly repackage dollars already held domestically, the macro impact might differ from a scenario in which stablecoins provide a smoother mechanism to access additional dollar exposure.
To manage these trade-offs, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory frameworks around practical access points. Specifically, he called for authorities to bring onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points within regulatory boundaries.
The policy takeaway is that banning activity is not the only route. Instead, the IMF official highlighted the need for rule-based access to onchain liquidity and conversion, so regulators can better understand flows and reduce the incentive for unregulated intermediaries.
Going forward, the key question for investors and builders is whether stablecoin issuers and blockchain platforms will prioritize interoperability across local- and dollar-denominated tokens—or isolate them through different infrastructure choices. Katz’s remarks imply that interoperability could materially change who ends up holding “digital dollars” and how quickly currency reshuffling occurs, so market participants should watch how regulators operationalize onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange controls in the jurisdictions most likely to experiment with local-currency stablecoin issuance.
This article was originally published as IMF Says Domestic Stablecoins Could Lift Demand for Dollar Tokens on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Efforts to promote stablecoins pegged to local currencies in order to reduce dependence on dollar-backed tokens may end up doing something quite different: making it easier for users to switch into “digital dollars,” according to a senior International Monetary Fund (IMF) official.
In remarks delivered at the University of Cape Town, IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz said that if local- and dollar-denominated stablecoins are deployed on the same blockchain infrastructure, conversion between the two could become routine through decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or peer-to-peer swaps. The implication, he suggested, is that stablecoin design aimed at curbing dollar exposure could inadvertently improve access to FX stablecoins.
Key takeaways
IMF First Deputy Managing Director Dan Katz warned that local-coin stablecoins could also facilitate conversion into dollar-backed tokens if both run on shared blockchain infrastructure.
Once interoperability is built, Katz said users may be able to exchange between stablecoin types via decentralized exchanges, liquidity pools, or P2P swaps.
He argued that this could shift foreign-exchange activity away from traditional intermediaries such as banks and currency dealers.
Katz highlighted that outcomes are likely to differ by country, depending on dollarization levels, market access, and economic institutions.
He urged regulators to ensure onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points are integrated within regulatory frameworks.
Why interoperability changes the stablecoin story
The IMF official’s central point is not merely about what stablecoins are pegged to, but about how easily they can be moved and swapped once they share technical rails. Katz argued that if local and dollar stablecoins “operate on the same blockchain infrastructure,” users would have multiple pathways to convert between them—effectively reducing the practical difference between holding a rand-linked or a dollar-linked token.
This matters because stablecoin adoption is often shaped by more than the peg. According to Katz, even when local-currency tokens are available, many users may still prefer dollar tokens due to factors like liquidity, network effects, and acceptance across platforms and borders. In other words, the attractiveness of dollar stablecoins may be structurally reinforced by where activity and market depth already exist.
When those advantages are paired with interoperability, the “local-currency” intention can be diluted: users may treat pegged tokens as interchangeable short cuts rather than as separate ecosystems.
Potential impact on FX markets and capital-flow monitoring
Katz also framed the issue from the perspective of how FX activity and capital flows are handled. He said that routing conversion and movement through decentralized venues could move foreign-exchange activity away from banks and currency dealers.
The policy consequence, in his view, is that the usual frictions—those gaps that authorities can sometimes leverage to observe, measure, and manage capital flows—may be reduced. If stablecoin trading and exchange become more direct and automated, regulators may find it harder to rely on the traditional chokepoints that exist in bank-led FX systems.
At the same time, Katz argued that the direction of travel could be consistent with broader adoption dynamics: “In this way, local-currency stablecoins might even accelerate the adoption of FX stablecoins.” That is a key tension running through his remarks—efforts meant to localize currency exposure could end up making FX stablecoins more accessible.
What the IMF official cited from South Africa
Katz pointed to South Africa as an example where dollar-backed stablecoins have seen limited traction, while rand-linked tokens have attracted even less demand. He noted that it was “too early” to draw firm conclusions, but the pattern underscores the possibility that local-pegged products have struggled to achieve the same pull as dollar-denominated alternatives.
For investors and market participants, the takeaway is straightforward: liquidity and ecosystem maturity can matter as much as the peg itself. If dollar stablecoins already circulate across a wider set of venues and users, interoperability could channel demand toward the assets that offer the easiest conversion and deepest markets.
Country-by-country risks: dollarization versus restricted access
While Katz did not present a one-size-fits-all forecast, he argued that the risks vary across countries. He suggested that stablecoins could largely replace existing dollar holdings in highly dollarized economies—meaning the shift would be more about substitution of what people already hold.
In contrast, he warned that in countries where access to dollars is restricted and economic frameworks are weaker, stablecoins could increase foreign-currency demand. In those settings, the accessibility gains from onchain conversion may become economically consequential, potentially shifting how households and businesses seek to hedge or transact.
That distinction is important for policymakers who might otherwise assume that “local-currency stablecoins” automatically reduce cross-border currency pressures. Katz’s framing implies that the broader macro effect depends on whether stablecoin adoption replaces existing behavior or changes the feasibility of accessing foreign currency in the first place.
Regulators may need onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points
Rather than advocating for a simplistic approval or prohibition approach, Katz urged authorities to build regulatory coverage around the full stablecoin lifecycle—specifically onramps, offramps, and onchain exchange points. His comments imply that supervision cannot stop at issuing rules for pegged tokens; it also has to address where conversions happen and how users enter and exit stablecoin positions.
From a market-structure standpoint, this is a crucial policy challenge. If decentralized exchanges and liquidity pools become the primary route for swapping between stablecoin types, regulation that only targets centralized issuers may miss the most active venues for price discovery and asset conversion.
What to watch next is whether jurisdictions pursuing local-currency stablecoins also take interoperability and exchange routing seriously in their regulatory designs. If local and dollar stablecoins become technically unified, Katz’s warning suggests demand may flow toward the tokens with the deepest liquidity and widest acceptance—potentially changing both the mechanics of FX access and the practical tools available to monitor cross-border financial activity.
This article was originally published as IMF: Domestic stablecoins may lift demand for dollar-backed tokens on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Unsealed US court records released this week indicate a federal judge has allowed crypto exchange Bybit to move quickly in its bid to track and recover funds tied to the $1.5 billion North Korea-linked attack that hit the platform in February 2025. The order grants Bybit expedited discovery, a procedural step that can help the exchange identify alleged intermediaries and pursue a limited portion of stolen assets that remain capable of being traced.
According to the docket on CourtListener, Bybit filed its lawsuit under seal on June 18 against North Korea, the Reconnaissance General Bureau, the Lazarus Group, and 20 unidentified defendants. The court granted the request for expedited discovery the following day, June 19—an early authorization that signals the court’s willingness to support time-sensitive efforts to obtain transactional and account information relevant to the case.
Key takeaways
Bybit secured expedited discovery in a US case targeting parties allegedly involved in the February 2025 North Korea-linked $1.5 billion hack.
The exchange argues that only a minority of stolen funds remains traceable, with 9.8% identified as linked to identifiable wallets as of the June 18 filing.
A temporary restraining order was obtained on June 19, renewed on July 16, and partially backed by a preliminary injunction on July 30.
Bybit’s complaint seeks recovery of approximately $1.5 billion, including compensatory, punitive, and treble damages under US RICO law.
The share of traceable funds reported by Bybit has fallen significantly versus a prior estimate cited by its CEO over a year earlier.
Expedited discovery aims to narrow the recovery path
Expedited discovery changes the practical timeline for Bybit’s legal strategy. In a standard civil case, parties often wait longer for evidence requests and responses. Here, the court’s decision effectively gives Bybit a faster route to request information that can help determine who may be holding, routing, or facilitating portions of stolen crypto.
The records indicate Bybit’s complaint asserts that some of the assets it claims were stolen were routed to exchanges and other services that operate in, or maintain infrastructure in, the United States. Bybit’s filings sought account-holder identities, balances, and transaction histories from relevant platforms—information the company argued would be available after receiving a court order.
For investors and market participants watching post-incident enforcement, this matters because stolen-fund recoveries in crypto often depend on how quickly claimants can obtain counterparty data before assets shift again. A court-backed discovery window can also clarify whether intermediaries are identifiable enough to support targeted lawsuits or enforcement.
Bybit cites a steep drop in traceable funds
Beyond procedure, the court documents also provide a snapshot of how much of the alleged theft Bybit believes remains linkable. In its June 18 filing, Bybit stated that 90.2% of the stolen assets had become untraceable after passing through mixers, cross-chain bridges, and over-the-counter dealers.
That leaves 9.8% traced to identifiable wallets, including 5.3% of the total (about $75.5 million) that Bybit said had been frozen or recovered. The company also appears to be positioning these traceable portions as the realistic starting point for an asset-recovery effort—rather than expecting a full return of the entire sum through a judgment against North Korea alone.
The exchange’s figures also reflect a notable change from earlier in the case. The records reference remarks by Bybit CEO Ben Zhou more than a year earlier, stating that 68.57% of the funds remained traceable at the time. If those earlier estimates are taken at face value, the current accounting suggests a major degradation in traceability over time—consistent with how attackers and intermediaries may move value across services designed to obscure origin.
Restraining order and partial injunction support preservation of assets
Court filings also show that Bybit obtained a temporary restraining order on June 19 aimed at stopping the unidentified defendants from transferring certain traceable assets. The court renewed that order on July 16 and partially granted Bybit’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 30.
While the documents indicate the court is actively managing the case to preserve at least some assets, some exhibits and other materials remain sealed. That confidentiality limits what outside observers can confirm about the precise scope of the relief, but the procedural milestones themselves underscore that Bybit’s claims are progressing through the federal court system rather than remaining purely theoretical.
Background: the 2025 hack and attribution
The alleged theft dates back to Feb. 21, 2025. According to earlier reporting referenced in the court-linked account, attackers compromised Safe Wallet’s infrastructure after obtaining access through compromised credentials tied to a Safe developer, allowing malicious code to be injected into its cloud environment.
For its attribution, the FBI published a public notice on Feb. 26, 2025 stating that the theft was carried out in connection with North Korea. That attribution is important context for the lawsuit because it frames the alleged threat actor behind the event, even as the civil claims focus on specific defendants and mechanisms to recover assets.
In its lawsuit, Bybit is seeking return of stolen assets estimated at approximately $1.5 billion, along with compensatory damages, punitive damages, and treble damages under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The inclusion of RICO indicates Bybit is pursuing broader claims beyond a single breach—attempting to fit the alleged behavior into a pattern of racketeering-type conduct recognized under US law.
As court records show, Bybit’s current push is not just about winning a judgment, but about securing the evidence and preservation measures needed to make recovery feasible in practice. With most of the claimed funds allegedly rendered untraceable, the value of expedited discovery and early injunctive relief is likely to be judged by whether Bybit can identify counterparties while the remaining traceable portion is still reachable.
Going forward, readers should watch what information the expedited discovery process yields and whether the preliminary injunction’s partial scope expands as the court reviews more sealed exhibits—especially as Bybit’s own accounting suggests traceability has fallen sharply since earlier estimates.
This article was originally published as US Court OKs Expedited Discovery for Bybit’s $1.5B North Korea Hack Tracing on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Newly unsealed court records show a US judge granted Bybit expedited discovery in the exchange’s ongoing legal push to identify assets tied to a $1.5 billion North Korea-linked attack. The ruling is aimed at helping Bybit move from broad allegations toward practical, court-backed tracing—an approach that can matter when large portions of stolen crypto have already been obfuscated.
According to the filings, Bybit brought the case under seal on June 18, naming North Korea, the Reconnaissance General Bureau, the Lazarus Group and 20 unnamed defendants. The court granted the expedited discovery request the following day, giving Bybit a faster route to request information that could pinpoint alleged intermediaries and determine what—if any—stolen funds remain recoverable through identifiable on-chain or account-linked activity.
Key takeaways
Unsealed records confirm a federal judge granted Bybit expedited discovery tied to the June 18 lawsuit over the $1.5 billion 2025 North Korea-linked hack.
Bybit claims 90.2% of stolen assets became untraceable after moves through mixers, cross-chain bridges, and OTC trading channels.
The company reports 9.8% of the funds were traceable to identifiable wallets, including 5.3% (about $75.5 million) that were frozen or recovered.
Bybit obtained a temporary restraining order that the court renewed and partially supported with a preliminary injunction decision later in July.
The complaint seeks relief that includes compensatory, punitive and treble damages under the US RICO statute.
Expedited discovery: turning allegations into targeted asset recovery
The court documents describe Bybit’s strategy as an attempt to identify alleged actors and intermediaries that may have handled stolen funds after the hack. Expedited discovery typically shortens the timeline for obtaining information from counterparties or other relevant parties—particularly important in high-stakes crypto cases where defendants may move assets quickly or hide trail details behind complex transaction structures.
In the complaint, Bybit alleges that some traceable assets ended up on or through platforms that operate in the United States or maintain US-based infrastructure. Bybit sought account-holder identities, balances and transaction histories, arguing that certain platforms indicated they would cooperate once a court order was issued.
From an investor and market-structure standpoint, this matters because court-ordered discovery can bridge a gap that often exists in crypto investigations: even when chain analytics suggest where funds may have gone, legal access to counterparties’ records is often what enables meaningful recovery efforts.
How much of the stolen crypto was still traceable?
Bybit’s filing includes a key metric about how the attackers allegedly laundered the stolen assets. As of the June 18 submission, the exchange said 90.2% of the funds had become untraceable after passing through mixers, cross-chain bridges, and over-the-counter dealers. The remaining 9.8% it said could be tied to identifiable wallets.
Within that smaller traceable portion, Bybit reported that 5.3% of the total theft—about $75.5 million—had been frozen or recovered. The rest of the traceable amount was described as still linked to identifiable wallets, implying it may be recoverable if the legal process can connect those wallets to accountable parties.
Bybit’s numbers also suggest a significant shift compared with more than a year earlier. The exchange previously reported that 68.57% of the stolen funds remained traceable, a claim attributed to Bybit CEO Ben Zhou at the time. In this newer filing, the traceability figure has dropped materially, underscoring how quickly stolen crypto can become harder to recover as it moves through layered obfuscation techniques.
Restraining orders and injunction steps in July
Alongside expedited discovery, Bybit secured legal measures designed to prevent alleged defendants from moving certain traceable assets while the case progresses. The company obtained a temporary restraining order on June 19 against the unnamed defendants, aimed at halting transfers of specific traceable funds.
That restraining order was renewed on July 16. The court also partially granted Bybit’s request for a preliminary injunction on July 30. While the records indicate that some exhibits and related materials remain sealed, the sequence reflects a court willingness to support Bybit’s attempt to preserve at least part of the identifiable asset set while discovery and claims move forward.
Background of the Feb. 21, 2025 hack and FBI attribution
The underlying incident dates to Feb. 21, 2025. Bybit said the attackers compromised the Safe Wallet infrastructure after gaining access through compromised credentials associated with a Safe developer. Forensic investigations cited in earlier coverage described malicious code being injected into Safe’s cloud infrastructure.
The FBI attributed the theft to North Korea on Feb. 26, 2025, according to its public notice on the incident. That attribution has been central to how regulatory and law enforcement narratives have framed the event, and it helps explain why a civil lawsuit targeting North Korea-linked entities would be pursued alongside asset-tracing and recovery measures.
In the complaint, Bybit seeks recovery related to approximately $1.5 billion, including compensatory damages, punitive damages and treble damages under the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In practical terms, the damages claim indicates Bybit is not only seeking to preserve and identify assets but also to establish broader liability if the court finds actionable wrongdoing and causation.
What to watch next
The immediate question is whether expedited discovery turns the “traceable” wallet subset into actionable, court-backed targets—especially given Bybit’s claim that most of the stolen crypto has already become untraceable. Readers should watch how the case develops as sealed exhibits are gradually revealed and as the court’s preliminary injunction posture evolves, because those steps can determine how much of the remaining identifiable funds can realistically be recovered.
This article was originally published as US Court Upholds Bybit’s Request to Trace Funds From $1.5B Hack on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

This week’s most important crypto business developments all point in the same direction: more of the industry’s value is being routed through financial infrastructure rather than pure onchain speculation. BlackRock, for example, has introduced tokenized money market products aimed at stablecoin reserve use under the US GENIUS Act framework.
At the same time, tokenized real-world assets are proving their resilience in volatile markets, even if their decentralized finance (DeFi) adoption still looks modest. Elsewhere in the sector, Tether reported a sharp rise in profits tied to US Treasury income, while a public Bitcoin miner linked to the Trump family posted improved production and narrower quarterly losses.
Key takeaways
BlackRock launched two tokenized money market products designed to help stablecoin issuers satisfy reserve requirements under the US GENIUS Act.
RedStone data suggests tokenized gold performed relatively well during a sharp gold sell-off, but only a small fraction of tokenized gold supply is used as DeFi collateral.
Tether reported $1.5 billion in second-quarter net operating profit, supported primarily by interest from US Treasury holdings and related arrangements.
American Bitcoin reported record second-quarter production of 932 BTC, improving revenue and narrowing losses, though it remains unprofitable.
BlackRock moves to tokenize stablecoin reserves
BlackRock introduced two tokenized money market products intended to support stablecoin issuers with reserve requirements under the US GENIUS Act, expanding its involvement in tokenized financial infrastructure. According to earlier coverage by Cointelegraph, one product tokenizes exposure to BlackRock’s existing Treasury liquidity strategy on Ethereum, allowing approved investors to transfer ownership onchain while the underlying assets stay invested in cash and short-term US government securities.
The second product is described as a new institutional money market vehicle for digital asset markets. It is positioned as compatible with multiple blockchains and designed to automatically reinvest income—an approach that aligns with how reserve managers typically seek operational continuity rather than manual redemptions and reinvestment cycles.
For market participants, the practical significance goes beyond the novelty of tokenization. Stablecoins need credible, auditable reserves, and a product built around short-term government assets creates a clearer bridge between traditional compliance expectations and blockchain-based settlement. It also reinforces BlackRock’s growing footprint in tokenized Treasurys, where it already runs BUIDL, described as the industry’s largest tokenized Treasury fund.
This launch also reflects a broader institutional trend: Wall Street firms are increasingly entering tokenized markets not only as issuers, but as infrastructure providers for the assets that underwrite onchain finance. With GENIUS establishing a federal framework for payment stablecoins, the demand for reserve-grade solutions is likely to become more structured—potentially benefiting tokenization platforms that can translate “what reserves should be” into “how those reserves can be managed on-chain.”
Tokenized gold shows stress tolerance, but DeFi use is still limited
Tokenized bullion continues to draw attention, but its DeFi footprint remains small relative to its overall market. A report by RedStone, referenced in earlier Cointelegraph coverage, found that tokenized gold held up during periods of sharp price movement—specifically during gold’s sell-off.
RedStone’s analysis points to a key asymmetry in the sector: trading activity can surge while borrowing and lending adoption lag. While spot trading volume reportedly reached $90.7 billion in Q1 as gold futures rallied above $5,600 per troy ounce, RedStone estimated that only about $63 million of Tether Gold and PAX Gold is used as collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho. That figure is roughly 1.5% of their combined $4.2 billion market cap, indicating that most tokenized gold remains outside major onchain collateral pipelines.
The report also highlighted how collateral behaved during stress. On March 23, Aave processed what it described as its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations without disruption after gold dropped roughly 10% in a week—an event characterized by JPMorgan’s Greg Shearer as an “extremely brutal flush.” RedStone’s broader takeaway was that tokenized gold looked resilient, even as the findings underscored an infrastructure gap as tokenized real-world assets scale.
Since that period, gold futures have fallen more than 20% from January peaks, influenced by expectations of higher US interest rates. In that environment, the value proposition for tokenized gold is partly about reliability during volatility: the question for investors and DeFi builders now is whether liquidity and collateral usage can grow fast enough to match the expanding market for tokenized bullion itself.
Tether’s Treasury-linked earnings power another strong quarter
Tether reported a second-quarter performance that is closely tied to US Treasury income. According to its latest quarterly attestation, Tether generated $1.5 billion in net operating profit, driven primarily by interest earned on its US Treasury holdings and repurchase-related arrangements.
The attestation also points to reserve strength. As of June 30, Tether reported a reserve buffer of $4.11 billion, with assets exceeding liabilities by that margin. In parallel, even as the broader stablecoin market contracted, USDT circulating supply increased by $446 million to $184.6 billion. The result preserved Tether’s market share—DeFiLlama data cited in the earlier reporting placed USDT’s market value around $307 billion and suggested Tether still accounts for more than 60% of global stablecoin supply.
From an investor perspective, the most important implication is that stablecoin profitability continues to depend heavily on short-term interest rates. When Treasury bill yields and cash-equivalent returns are elevated, reserve-based income can become a major earnings driver, which is what appears to have happened in this quarter.
However, the same dynamic also raises a forward-looking risk: if rate expectations change or stablecoin demand slows further, Tether’s income could face pressure. This quarter’s stronger profit and reserve surplus therefore doesn’t eliminate near-term uncertainty for the stablecoin sector—it clarifies what factors are currently supporting earnings, and what could reverse them if macro conditions shift.
American Bitcoin improves production and reduces losses
Bitcoin mining remains highly sensitive to production economics and balance sheet decisions, and the latest quarterly results from American Bitcoin reflect that reality. In earlier Cointelegraph coverage, the company—linked to the Trump family and Nasdaq-listed—reported record second-quarter production of 932 BTC, improving mining revenue compared with the first quarter.
American Bitcoin reported mining revenue of $67 million in Q2, up from $62.1 million in Q1. The company also narrowed its net loss to $57.2 million, improving from an $81.8 million loss in the previous quarter. The production milestone matters because it is one of the few levers miners can control in the short term—hash rate and operational efficiency translate directly into how much Bitcoin is produced, even when market prices are volatile.
But the company’s financial picture is still constrained. American Bitcoin remains unprofitable, and it recently completed a 1-for-15 reverse stock split to maintain its Nasdaq listing after its share price fell below the exchange’s minimum bid requirement. Its balance sheet also includes pledged Bitcoin: the miner held roughly 8,002 BTC as of June 30 and had pledged about 3,090 BTC as collateral under equipment purchase agreements with Bitmain.
That pledge introduces additional sensitivity to Bitcoin price movements. Even when production improves, a decline in BTC could complicate collateral dynamics and funding conditions—an issue that investors should keep watching as the company attempts to stabilize its public-market footing.
Across these stories, a shared theme emerges: crypto businesses are increasingly evaluated on how they monetize financial assets—Treasury exposure, tokenized reserves, tokenized collateral, and operational production—rather than on token price narratives alone. The next watchpoints are straightforward: whether stablecoin-related tokenized reserve products expand beyond pilots, whether tokenized gold’s DeFi collateral usage grows beyond its current small share, and how earnings trajectories for issuers like Tether and miners like American Bitcoin respond if interest-rate and Bitcoin-price assumptions turn.
This article was originally published as Crypto’s Core Business Is Maturing Toward Banking Models on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

UK politics is facing fresh scrutiny over alleged crypto-linked political donations tied to former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried. Lee Anderson, chair of the UK Reform party, has called for an investigation into Defense Secretary Wes Streeting after reports surfaced of a reported £50,000 donation routed through a think tank during 2022 and 2023.
The renewed controversy comes as Bankman-Fried continues to serve a 25-year prison sentence in the United States. In parallel, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has issued a formal mandate upholding his conviction, narrowing the legal avenues available to him.
Key takeaways
Reform UK chair Lee Anderson says parliamentary standards should investigate a reported £50,000 donation involving Wes Streeting.
The reported funds were said to come from Labour for the Long Term, whose founder allegedly received a $675,000 gift from Bankman-Fried before sending money to Streeting.
Streeting reportedly claims he never had contact with Bankman-Fried, and that a donor list provided by the think tank did not include the former FTX CEO’s name.
UK law permits larger donations by unincorporated associations, creating potential compliance loopholes around donor transparency.
Bankman-Fried’s conviction remains upheld after a Second Circuit mandate, reinforcing the finality of his sentence while he considers further legal steps.
Reform’s complaint over a reported Streeting donation
According to a Friday report from The Telegraph, Lee Anderson urged the parliamentary commissioner for standards to probe Wes Streeting over reports of approximately $50,000 in donations made via a think tank.
The donations in question were reportedly made between 2022 and 2023 and were said to originate from Labour for the Long Term, a political research and policy group. The Telegraph reports that Labour for the Long Term’s founder allegedly accepted a $675,000 gift from Bankman-Fried before later directing funds to Streeting.
Anderson’s call centers on whether parliamentary standards rules were met, particularly given the reputational and compliance concerns surrounding Bankman-Fried after his criminal conviction and imprisonment. The allegation is not that Streeting himself dealt directly with Bankman-Fried, but that donations may have been intermediated through an organization linked to the accused fraudster.
Donor transparency and the UK “association” loophole
The controversy also touches on how UK donation rules are structured. As described with reference to guidance from the International Bar Association, unincorporated associations are permitted to donate more than $675 directly to politicians. The regulations can function as a loophole, potentially allowing money to move through entities in ways that reduce visibility into the original source.
In practice, this matters because investors, civil society groups, and voters increasingly treat political funding transparency as part of broader governance and compliance risk—especially when large sums appear connected to high-profile failures in the crypto sector. When donors are routed through intermediaries, scrutiny may shift from direct donor relationships to the processes that political figures use to vet where contributions come from.
While the UK rules allow certain structures for donations by associations, the reporting raises the question of whether vetting was sufficient and whether the think tank properly disclosed relevant contributors at the time.
Streeting’s response and the think tank founder’s denial
Per The Telegraph, Streeting asked Labour for the Long Term for a list of donors before accepting the reported $50,000. The report states that Bankman-Fried’s name did not appear on the donor list provided to him.
The same coverage claims that Streeting said he had never had any contact with the former FTX CEO. Bankman-Fried is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted on seven felony charges.
David Lawrence, the founder of Labour for the Long Term, also pushed back on the implication that Bankman-Fried was the ultimate source of Streeting’s contribution. According to The Telegraph, Lawrence said Streeting’s contribution was funded by a donor other than Bankman-Fried and that Labour for the Long Term “did not receive any donations from the FTX Foundation or Mr. Bankman-Fried.”
Even so, Anderson’s intervention suggests Reform believes the compliance question is not settled by denials alone. The focus for an official standards investigation would likely be whether disclosures and processes matched the expectations of transparency and accountability under parliamentary rules.
US mandate keeps SBF’s conviction intact
The UK donation allegations land against a background of legal closure for Bankman-Fried’s US case. Earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a formal mandate upholding Bankman-Fried’s felony conviction and 25-year sentence. The update builds on an earlier decision reported in June that limited his remaining options.
As Cointelegraph previously reported, the Second Circuit’s ruling reduced the number of routes available to pursue early release. Bankman-Fried still has the possibility of appealing to the US Supreme Court or waiting for a potential presidential pardon.
For readers watching the intersection of crypto and politics, the key point is that Bankman-Fried’s criminal status remains firmly established in the US. That matters because it may influence how other institutions interpret donations and intermediary arrangements tied to him or to parties connected with him—even after his conviction.
Why voters and crypto stakeholders should watch the investigation
Whether parliamentary standards decide that Streeting’s reported donation arrangements were properly vetted—or whether process gaps and association-based structures warrant stronger disclosure—will be crucial. The next steps to watch are the commissioner’s findings and any clarification on how donor lists were compiled and validated by the think tank, particularly in light of a conviction that the US appeals court has now fully cemented through a formal mandate.
This article was originally published as Reform UK Chair Urges Investigation Into Alleged SBF-Linked Donation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

This week’s most consequential crypto business headlines point to a clear trend: parts of the industry are increasingly built around the same revenue engines that power traditional finance—interest income, reserve management, and tokenized assets that sit closer to money markets than speculative trading.
BlackRock is expanding into tokenized reserve products for stablecoin issuers, Tether reported $1.5 billion in second-quarter net operating profit supported by US Treasury earnings, tokenized gold saw resilient collateral behavior during a sharp sell-off even as DeFi usage stayed thin, and American Bitcoin—linked to the Trump family—reported record mining output alongside improving losses.
Key takeaways
BlackRock introduced two tokenized money market products aimed at stablecoin issuers looking to satisfy reserve requirements under the US GENIUS Act.
Tokenized gold trading volumes rose, but only a small fraction of tokenized gold supply is used as DeFi collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho.
American Bitcoin reported record Q2 production of 932 BTC and narrowed its net loss, though the miner remains unprofitable.
Tether’s Q2 profit of $1.5 billion was driven largely by interest from US Treasury holdings and repurchase agreements, alongside a reported reserve surplus of $4.11 billion.
BlackRock moves deeper into onchain reserve infrastructure
Asset manager BlackRock launched two tokenized money market products intended to help stablecoin issuers meet reserve expectations following the US GENIUS Act, according to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph (BlackRock launches tokenized money-market funds for stablecoin reserves).
One product tokenizes shares of BlackRock’s existing Treasury liquidity strategy on Ethereum. Approved investors can transfer token ownership onchain, while the underlying assets remain allocated to cash and short-term US government securities. The design targets a practical split: onchain settlement for ownership, with traditional cash/T-bill-style instruments supporting the fund’s economics.
The second is a new institutional money market vehicle built for digital asset markets. It supports multiple blockchains and automatically reinvests income, positioning it as a reserve-management tool for issuers that need operational continuity rather than one-off tokenization use.
BlackRock also already operates BUIDL, described in the Cointelegraph report as the industry’s largest tokenized Treasury fund. This matters for investors and issuers because it signals that tokenized Treasuries are moving beyond isolated pilot offerings and into broader “plumbing” for stablecoin ecosystems—particularly as regulatory frameworks such as GENIUS are intended to formalize payment stablecoins.
Tokenized gold: resilience in stress, but DeFi adoption lags
A RedStone report found that tokenized bullion held up during gold’s sharp sell-off, but the same analysis pointed to a persistent adoption gap for tokenized real-world assets in DeFi lending. Cointelegraph previously summarized RedStone’s findings in Tokenized gold’s DeFi footprint remains small despite gold’s sell-off.
According to the report, spot trading volume hit $90.7 billion in Q1 as gold futures rallied above $5,600 per troy ounce. Yet only about $63 million of Tether Gold and PAX Gold together was used as collateral on Aave v3 and Morpho, representing roughly 1.5% of their combined $4.2 billion market cap—suggesting that liquidity growth has not translated into proportional use in onchain lending.
Still, the collateral experience during drawdowns was notable. On March 23, Aave processed its largest cluster of XAUT liquidations without disruption after gold fell about 10% in a week, described by JPMorgan’s Greg Shearer as an “extremely brutal flush” in the Cointelegraph coverage. RedStone’s takeaway was essentially twofold: tokenized gold appeared operationally resilient under stress, but the broader DeFi “rail” for tokenized bullion remains underutilized as the tokenized RWA sector scales.
Cointelegraph notes that gold futures later declined more than 20% from January peaks amid expectations of higher US interest rates, reinforcing that tokenized bullion remains sensitive to macro conditions—even if its onchain collateral mechanics can withstand volatility.
American Bitcoin posts record output while losses shrink
American Bitcoin, a Nasdaq-listed miner co-founded by Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and described as Trump family-linked, reported record second-quarter production of 932 BTC, according to Cointelegraph’s earlier report (Trump-linked American Bitcoin posts record output, narrower Q2 losses).
The output helped lift mining revenue by 8% to $67 million in Q2 from $62.1 million in the first quarter. The company posted a net loss of $57.2 million, improving from an $81.8 million loss in Q1—an incremental improvement that matters because miners often operate with slim margins tied to both hash economics and power costs.
American Bitcoin previously completed a 1-for-15 reverse stock split to maintain its Nasdaq listing after its share price fell below the exchange’s minimum bid requirement, as Cointelegraph reported. The miner was majority-owned by Hut 8 and held roughly 8,002 BTC as of June 30, while also pledging about 3,090 BTC as collateral under equipment purchase agreements with Bitmain.
Even with record production and higher revenue, the company remains unprofitable. Cointelegraph highlights two ongoing risk dimensions for shareholders: continued operating losses and balance-sheet exposure to Bitcoin price moves, given the pledged BTC collateral tied to equipment arrangements.
Tether’s Treasury income keeps profits elevated
Tether generated $1.5 billion in net operating profit in the second quarter, primarily driven by interest earned on its US Treasury holdings and repurchase agreements, based on its latest quarterly attestation, per Cointelegraph (Tether posts $1.5 billion Q2 profit as US Treasury income boosts reserves).
In the attestation, Tether reported a reserve buffer of $4.11 billion as of June 30, with assets exceeding liabilities by that amount. That reserve surplus and the profit figure come at a time when the broader stablecoin market has contracted, but USDT circulating supply still rose by $446 million to $184.6 billion. The same Cointelegraph coverage states that USDT continues to represent more than 60% of the global stablecoin market, which DeFiLlama valued at roughly $307 billion.
Tether’s earnings model continues to benefit from elevated short-term interest rates, which increases income from Treasury bills and cash equivalents. However, the article also notes that stronger profits arrive amid sector-wide pressure and a weaker stablecoin market—conditions that could limit growth if rate conditions change or contraction deepens.
For readers tracking the durability of stablecoin issuers, the key takeaway is not just the profit headline, but the mechanism: Tether remains one of the largest holders of US Treasury securities, so its resilience is closely linked to the yield environment and its ability to maintain reserve buffers through shifting market conditions.
The common thread across these updates is how financial infrastructure is taking center stage—tokenized Treasuries and money-market structures for reserves, real-world collateral behavior under stress, mining operations shaped by balance sheets, and stablecoin profitability tied to interest rates. The next thing to watch is whether onchain reserve tools and tokenized RWA collateral keep expanding in DeFi and regulated stablecoin contexts, or whether adoption remains concentrated despite improving product design.
This article was originally published as Crypto’s Biggest Business Models Start Resembling Traditional Banking on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Circle has expanded its blockchain payment infrastructure by launching native USDC and the Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol on OKX’s X Layer. The integration increases access to regulated digital dollar payments while improving cross-chain functionality for developers and businesses. It also strengthens X Layer’s position as a network supporting decentralized finance, payments, tokenized assets, and artificial intelligence applications.
Native USDC Brings Direct Stablecoin Access To X Layer
Circle has introduced native USDC on X Layer, an Ethereum-compatible layer-2 blockchain developed by OKX. The launch gives developers and businesses direct access to Circle-issued stablecoins across the network. It also reduces dependence on bridged versions that previously supported USDC activity.
The integration allows decentralized applications to use native USDC for payments, trading, lending, and other financial services. Developers can also build applications with regulated dollar liquidity from the network itself. As a result, projects gain direct access to Circle’s stablecoin infrastructure.
Qualified businesses can issue and redeem USDC through Circle Mint on X Layer. The service provides institutional access to regulated stablecoin liquidity for settlement and treasury operations. Meanwhile, Circle expands its infrastructure for enterprise blockchain adoption through the integration.
X Layer operates as an Ethereum-compatible layer-2 network with lower transaction costs and faster settlement speeds. The blockchain supports decentralized finance, payment services, tokenized real-world assets, and artificial intelligence applications. Therefore, native USDC strengthens payment capabilities across multiple sectors operating on the network.
Circle continues supporting bridged Ethereum-based USDC on X Layer during the transition period. However, the company encourages applications and ecosystem participants to migrate toward native USDC over time. This approach improves consistency while reducing reliance on external bridge infrastructure.
Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol Expands Multi-Chain Connectivity
Circle also activated its Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP) on X Layer. The protocol allows users to move native USDC between supported blockchain networks. Unlike traditional bridge models, CCTP transfers native tokens instead of wrapped assets.
The addition brings the number of blockchains supporting CCTP to 26. At the same time, native USDC now operates across 36 blockchain ecosystems following the X Layer integration. Consequently, developers gain broader access to liquidity across multiple chains.
Cross-chain functionality supports decentralized applications that require efficient movement of stablecoins between different ecosystems. Developers can build services without creating separate liquidity pools for every blockchain. This design also simplifies payment and settlement processes across supported networks.
Circle designed CCTP to improve interoperability between blockchain ecosystems while maintaining native asset movement. The protocol removes the need for wrapped stablecoins during supported transfers. Therefore, developers can create applications with more direct cross-chain payment capabilities.
The expanded network also strengthens X Layer’s position within the broader blockchain ecosystem. Applications can connect with supported chains while maintaining access to regulated USDC liquidity. This combination supports payment services and decentralized financial products across several blockchain environments.
Expansion Supports Payments, AI Applications, And Enterprise Services
Native USDC also supports payment providers, fintech companies, decentralized applications, and automated financial systems operating on X Layer. Businesses can settle transactions with regulated digital dollars across the blockchain. Furthermore, developers can integrate stablecoin payments into consumer and enterprise services.
The integration connects with X Layer’s x402 ecosystem, which focuses on automated payments between artificial intelligence agents and digital services. Developers can use USDC for application programming interfaces and machine-driven payment processes. As a result, automated systems gain access to regulated blockchain settlement.
Circle continues expanding its blockchain infrastructure beyond the X Layer launch. The company recently introduced founding validators for its Arc blockchain initiative. Participants include BlackRock, DTCC, Galaxy, Mastercard, Visa, Standard Chartered, and other financial and technology organizations.
The validator group reflects Circle’s broader strategy to expand regulated blockchain infrastructure across financial markets. Enterprise participation also supports the company’s long-term network development goals. Meanwhile, Circle continues increasing the availability of native USDC across additional blockchain ecosystems.
The X Layer integration represents another step in Circle’s broader expansion strategy. Native USDC, Circle Mint, and CCTP now provide additional payment and settlement options for businesses and developers. Together, these services strengthen regulated stablecoin infrastructure across an expanding multi-chain blockchain ecosystem.
This article was originally published as Circle Launches Native USDC On OKX X Layer With Cross-Chain Support on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The UK political fallout from the Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried saga is widening, as Reform UK’s chairman has demanded an investigation into reported crypto-linked donations connected to Defense Secretary Wes Streeting.
In a report published by The Telegraph, Reform UK chair Lee Anderson called on the parliamentary commissioner for standards to examine Streeting over claims that he received £50,000 in donations via a think tank during 2022 and 2023. The reported funding is said to have originated from Labour for the Long Term, an organization whose founder—according to the same report—previously accepted a £675,000 gift from Bankman-Fried before transferring money to Streeting.
Key takeaways
Reform UK’s Lee Anderson has asked the parliamentary commissioner for standards to probe allegations involving Defense Secretary Wes Streeting’s reported £50,000 donation.
The alleged funds are linked, via Labour for the Long Term, to a prior £675,000 gift attributed to former FTX CEO Sam “SBF” Bankman-Fried.
Streeting is reported to have said he never had contact with Bankman-Fried, and his name reportedly did not appear on a donor list provided to him.
UK rules allow some unincorporated associations to provide large political donations, potentially creating a reporting gap for donors’ sources.
Separate US proceedings continue to narrow Bankman-Fried’s legal options, with the Second Circuit upholding his conviction and 25-year sentence.
Reform presses standards investigation over alleged donation chain
Anderson’s demand is aimed at whether parliamentary donation rules were followed in practice, given the alleged involvement of Bankman-Fried-related money. According to The Telegraph, the reported contributions to Streeting traced back to a think tank—Labour for the Long Term—which was established by David Lawrence.
The reporting describes a sequence in which the think tank received money that, in turn, was reportedly tied to Bankman-Fried. It then suggested that funds were used to support Streeting’s political activities without Bankman-Fried being directly identified in any donor list Streeting reviewed before acceptance, per The Telegraph.
Reform’s move underscores how the Bankman-Fried case is continuing to influence political scrutiny beyond the US courtroom—particularly where political funding structures may obscure ultimate funding sources.
Streeting response and think tank clarification
As described by The Telegraph, Streeting asked Labour for the Long Term for a list of its donors before accepting the reported £50,000. The same report states that Bankman-Fried’s name was not included in that list.
The defense secretary also reportedly said he had never been in contact with the former FTX CEO, who is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence after being convicted on seven felony charges.
David Lawrence, the founder of Labour for the Long Term, told The Telegraph that Streeting’s contribution was funded by a donor other than Bankman-Fried. Lawrence also said that Labour for the Long Term “did not receive any donations from the FTX Foundation or Mr. Bankman-Fried,” according to the report.
The UK political funding loophole at the center of the debate
The dispute highlights a compliance challenge that is familiar to observers of UK political finance: certain organizational structures can make it harder to trace the provenance of money reaching politicians.
According to the International Bar Association, unincorporated associations are permitted to give more than £675 directly to politicians. The International Bar Association notes that such regulations can function as a loophole, potentially allowing organizations with business interests in the UK to act as “conduits for foreign or dark money” without reporting the underlying sources of funds.
For investors, builders, and users watching crypto’s broader regulatory and reputational effects, the practical takeaway is that large, politically visible controversies involving digital-asset figures can spill into governance and compliance debates—even when direct interaction between a politician and the crypto-linked actor is denied.
Farage’s own crypto scandal adds pressure to the timing
The Reform controversy arrives as Nigel Farage prepares to face voters in a by-election triggered by his resignation as a member of parliament amid his own crypto-related scandal. Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that Farage received $6.7 million in donations from crypto billionaire Christopher Harborne and financial assistance from George Cottrell, a convicted fraudster connected to a crypto casino. Farage has claimed the contributions were “gifts.”
While the allegations involving Streeting and Labour for the Long Term are separate from Farage’s case, the overlap in timing reflects how political scrutiny can become a multi-front process—where multiple parties seek to frame one another’s compliance failures while voters weigh the overall integrity of political funding.
US appellate mandate narrows Bankman-Fried’s options
Even as UK officials face new questions, Bankman-Fried’s legal situation in the United States continues to tighten. Earlier this week, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a formal mandate upholding his felony conviction and 25-year sentence, as reported by Cointelegraph.
The appeals court’s June decision reportedly reduced the remaining legal routes that could lead to potential early release. The same coverage states that Bankman-Fried may still pursue an appeal to the US Supreme Court or wait for a possible presidential pardon.
Taken together, the parallel developments—standards investigations in the UK and mandate-level enforcement in the US—suggest that the Bankman-Fried legacy is likely to remain politically and legally consequential even after the courtroom stage moves toward finality.
For the next phase, readers should watch whether the parliamentary commissioner for standards accepts Reform’s request and what procedural outcomes follow, as well as whether any further appellate steps in the US change Bankman-Fried’s prospects or prompt renewed attention to the financial pathways that link crypto figures to political fundraising.
This article was originally published as Reform UK Chair Urges Investigation Into Alleged SBF-Linked Donation on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Firmus has secured $2 billion in fresh equity funding to expand its artificial intelligence infrastructure business across Australia and the Asia-Pacific region. The financing increased the company’s post-money valuation above $10.5 billion and strengthened support for its regional expansion plans. The capital will accelerate new AI factory projects while reinforcing Firmus’ shift from Bitcoin mining toward high-performance computing services.
Firmus Directs Fresh Capital Toward AI Factory Expansion
Firmus completed the equity round with full commitments from existing backers Coatue and Nvidia. Meanwhile, funds managed by Blackstone Tactical Opportunities and other Blackstone vehicles joined the financing. Jane Street also participated and expanded the group of institutional supporters backing the company.
The funding almost doubled Firmus’ valuation from the $5.5 billion recorded during its April financing round. As a result, the company has raised more than $3 billion in equity over the past year. The additional capital will support Project Southgate and wider infrastructure development across Australia.
Firmus plans to accelerate the next stage of Project Southgate with the newly secured funding. At the same time, the company will prepare selected projects across the Asia-Pacific region. Early development work has also started on an Indonesian project designed for AI-focused customers.
Manufacturing Strategy Supports Regional Deployment
Firmus has already established Australian manufacturing for its proprietary HyperCube infrastructure platform. The company uses Nvidia’s DSX AI Factory Reference Architecture to build its computing systems. Consequently, the design supports faster deployment while improving energy efficiency and operational resilience.
The latest financing also strengthens Firmus’ partnership with Nvidia beyond infrastructure deployment. In June, both companies expanded their relationship through a cloud infrastructure agreement. Under that arrangement, Firmus agreed to purchase Nvidia systems while delivering cloud services powered by the company’s technology.
Australia remains the center of Firmus’ expansion strategy despite broader regional ambitions. The company plans to use its manufacturing capability and software platform to speed domestic deployments. Afterward, it expects to extend additional infrastructure projects across selected Asia-Pacific markets.
AI Infrastructure Continues Attracting Institutional Capital
The latest financing reflects growing demand for companies building physical AI infrastructure instead of traditional technology businesses. Large financial firms have increasingly supported data centers, computing capacity, and electricity infrastructure. These assets continue gaining importance as artificial intelligence services require greater processing power.
Former Bitcoin mining companies have also accelerated their transition toward AI infrastructure during the past year. Core Scientific agreed earlier this year to provide AMD with up to 2.5 gigawatts of future data center capacity. The agreement will begin in 2027 and supports the company’s ongoing business transformation.
Other companies have also expanded their AI strategies through infrastructure investments. IREN acquired Spain-based Nostrum Group in June and added approximately 490 megawatts of secured grid-connected power. Meanwhile, Hyperscale Data sold about 100 Bitcoin and secured a Bitcoin-backed credit facility for its Michigan AI campus.
Firmus stated that Australia will remain the primary destination for most of the newly raised capital. The company believes its existing production capacity will support faster deployment before additional regional expansion begins. Firmus also confirmed that the transaction remains a private financing rather than a public securities offering under United States securities regulations.
This article was originally published as Firmus Raises $2B, Reaches $10.5B Valuation to Expand AI Infrastructure on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

Bitcoin extended its rally into Friday’s Wall Street open after a softer-than-expected US jobs report triggered a broad pullback in rate-hike expectations. TradingView data showed BTC/USD reaching $65,340 on Bitstamp, up about 1.3% on the day.
The catalyst was the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ nonfarm payrolls release for July, which showed the US economy losing 23,000 jobs. With unemployment steady at 4.1% and revisions cutting prior months’ employment gains, markets recalibrated toward the Federal Reserve holding rates rather than raising them in September.
Key takeaways
US nonfarm payrolls fell by 23,000 in July, with unemployment at 4.1%, lifting risk appetite across crypto and equities.
CME Group’s FedWatch Tool shifted September expectations from a potential 0.25% hike toward a rate pause.
Bitcoin traded near $65,340 on Bitstamp, holding gains despite a week marked by bearish crypto headlines.
QCP Capital said this week’s price action looks more like “resilience” than a confirmed directional breakout.
Jobs data eases the policy path
According to the BLS, July nonfarm payrolls declined by 23,000. The agency also flagged downward revisions to earlier data: employment for May was revised down by 66,000 (from +129,000 to +63,000) and June by 37,000 (from +57,000 to +20,000). Combined, these revisions put May and June employment 103,000 lower than previously reported, per the BLS statement.
Traders linked the weaker labor-market picture with a more cautious Fed stance. The result was a firmer open for US equities: the S&P 500 added roughly 0.5% and the Nasdaq Composite was up just over 1% at the start of trading.
Interest-rate pricing moved quickly. CME Group’s FedWatch Tool indicates markets now expect the Fed to hold interest rates at its September meeting. Before the jobs report, expectations had leaned toward a 0.25% hike, with the majority of odds favoring increases as late as the prior day.
From hike odds to a pause—what investors are watching
Analysts tied Friday’s print to how traders will position ahead of key Fed moments later this month. Ryan Lee, chief analyst at Bitget Research, said the jobs data would “set the tone” for the September meeting and the Fed’s Jackson Hole symposium at the end of August. Fabian Dori, CIO at Sygnum Bank, suggested the degree of labor-market deterioration would shape how strongly Fed chair Kevin Warsh is influenced by the numbers.
“An orderly slowdown supports the liquidity relief case, while a print weak enough to raise growth concerns can still pressure risk assets even as rate odds move,” Dori said in comments sent to Cointelegraph.
That nuance matters for traders because weaker payrolls can push markets toward rate relief, but an overly pronounced deterioration can revive fears about demand and corporate earnings. For Bitcoin and other high-beta assets, the direction of rate expectations may be helpful only if it is paired with a calmer macro narrative rather than an accelerated recession risk.
QCP sees resilience rather than confirmation
Even as the macro backdrop improved, analysts emphasized that crypto’s recent trading behavior has not yet converted into a clean trend signal. In a crypto and macro overview released on the day, QCP Capital described the environment for Bitcoin as “uncertain,” adding that the week’s price action suggests resilience rather than “clear directional confirmation.”
QCP pointed to specific stress factors from the prior week, including the fallout from the Coldcard wallet exploit and additional BTC sales attributed to corporate holders, including Strategy. Despite those shocks, QCP said options markets showed only “limited demand for panic protection,” implying that traders were not rushing to hedge tail risks to the same extent they might in a stronger selloff scenario.
Earlier reporting referenced how options positioning could set up expectations for a price-range breakdown, with Cointelegraph noting that some market participants anticipated a move out of a trading range next month. Taken together, the current picture appears to be one where macro improves sentiment, but crypto derivatives data has not fully signaled that a lasting trend is already in place.
Stocks up, crypto holding—still a “wait and see” setup
Bitcoin’s ability to remain bid into the Wall Street open aligns with the immediate effect of the US jobs report: lower rate expectations typically ease discount-rate pressure across risk assets. However, the presence of ongoing crypto-specific uncertainties—highlighted by QCP—suggests investors may be cautious about declaring a sustained recovery solely on one macro release.
For now, the market’s key near-term task is to test whether the jobs-driven shift in rate odds holds through the next batch of economic data. If labor-market weakness persists without escalating into broader growth concerns, Bitcoin may continue to benefit from a friendlier liquidity narrative. If, instead, economic deterioration accelerates, the same move that lifts “pause” odds could also reignite risk-off pressure.
As traders look ahead, the next decisive signal to monitor will be how upcoming labor and inflation data interact with Fed communication—especially whether markets keep pricing a September pause—or revert toward hike expectations.
This article was originally published as Bitcoin Hits $65.3K in August as Soft US Jobs Data Shifts Fed Bets on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.

The United States Senate postponed action on the Clarity Act until September, extending uncertainty across the digital asset market. The delay removed a key legislative event that market participants expected before the August recess. Meanwhile, Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan said weaker expectations for the bill could trigger brief market pressure before conditions improve later this year.
Senate Pushes Clarity Act Vote to September
Senate leaders confirmed that lawmakers will not consider the Clarity Act before the August recess. Instead, they scheduled the legislation for consideration after Congress returns in September. As a result, the digital asset industry faces another period without a clear federal regulatory framework.
The bill aims to establish clear oversight for digital assets across the United States. It also defines the responsibilities of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Therefore, many industry participants consider the proposal an important step toward regulatory certainty.
Republican lawmakers currently hold 53 Senate seats, yet the legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Consequently, bipartisan support remains necessary before the bill can advance. Lawmakers also continue negotiations over ethics rules, illicit finance measures, and consumer protection requirements.
Bitwise Expects Brief Market Weakness Before Potential Recovery
Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan addressed the delayed legislation in a recent company memo. He said lower expectations for the Clarity Act could remove uncertainty surrounding the Senate timetable. He added that the market could experience a short period of weakness before recovering later in the year.
Hougan pointed to prediction market expectations surrounding the legislation during his assessment. He said the probability of passage during 2026 should decline sharply if lawmakers fail to approve the bill this week. According to his view, reduced expectations could eliminate a major source of short-term uncertainty.
He also stated that the crypto market could weaken briefly after expectations adjust. However, he suggested that a clearer outlook may create stronger conditions during the fall. Therefore, the immediate reaction could remain temporary if legislative uncertainty declines.
Bitcoin, Ethereum, and XRP Hold Key Levels as Regulatory Debate Continues
Bitcoin continued trading above $64,400 despite the Senate postponement and broader policy uncertainty. At the same time, Ethereum remained above $1,900, while XRP traded near $1.05. Those price levels reflected a relatively stable market despite delayed legislative action.
The Clarity Act remains one of the most significant digital asset proposals under consideration in Washington. The legislation seeks to separate regulatory responsibilities between the SEC and the CFTC. In addition, it intends to provide clearer compliance standards for digital asset businesses operating in the United States.
Negotiators continue discussing several disputed provisions before the Senate resumes its work. One proposal could require President Donald Trump to divest from certain crypto-related business interests under new ethics rules. Meanwhile, President Trump has continued supporting policies that maintain United States leadership in digital asset innovation instead of allowing China to strengthen its position in the sector.
The delayed vote leaves the regulatory timetable unresolved as lawmakers continue negotiations during the congressional recess. Although the legislation remains active, its final form still depends on bipartisan agreement. Until then, the digital asset market will continue operating without the comprehensive federal framework that many industry participants have sought for years.
This article was originally published as Clarity Act Delay Raises Crypto Uncertainty As Bitwise Sees Volatility on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.